Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sir Kohran]

they've turned him into a nice guy corrupted by the Ring, as opposed to Tolkien's thuggish, overly proud warrior.

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

It was dreadful. Of course, modern movie-goers do get bored by 'Long scenes of exposition slow(ing) down the action', because generally they have the concentration span of a senile goldfish - & producers/directors are eager to cater to them. Condense one of the most important chapters in the book to a three minute shouting match, & get on with the beheadings & the 85 minute fight with the cave Troll......

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion. And of course the producers and directors are eager to cater them. Believe it or not, that's how successful movies are made - they cater to the audience.

Also, much of the discussion in the Council is taken care of elsewhere in the movie - the story of the Last Alliance was placed as the movie's prologue, Gandalf's escape from Saruman was shown interspersed with the travels of Aragorn and the Hobbits, and Bombadil wasn't in the movie to begin with. Things like Sauron's messanger tempting the Dwarves don't need to be included; they have no real relation to the general plot. Boromir's account of what's happening in Gondor was stripped down probably to create more interest from the audience in Boromir's far-off, much-talked about country. Add all these together and you get a smaller, tighter sequence.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

But he plays a very important role, showing the decay of Gondor, from the height of its numenorean ascendence, of which Aragorn is an exponent and a reviver, to the level of Rohan, under the rule of the stewards. As Faramir said:

Originally Posted by The window on the west, TTT

- Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us, enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them, and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts. Such is the need of our days. So even was my brother, Boromir: a man of prowess, and for that he was accounted the best man in Gondor.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I think it's an improvement. It shows that anyone, no matter how honourable and tough, can be corrupted by the Ring. On the other hand, Tolkien's Boromir is a crude, ignorant thug who's marked for betrayal pretty much from the start and is hard to feel much sympathy for when he's killed.

Again, that's a matter of opinion. StW's point was that movie Boromir's death was more moving than book Boromir's. My point was that if you completely re-write the character to make him more sympathetic/likeable its not difficult to make his death more moving, & that if you re-wrote Sauron's/Saruman's/Wormtongue's/The Balrog's characters to make them more sympathetic/likeable then their death's would be more moving than in the book. And if you rewrote Theoden's character to make him a nasty piece of work his death would be less moving.

And if you gave the Ring the voice of a little girl with a cute lisp we'd all be a little sad when it went into the fire - but that's not what Tolkien wrote. As far as Boromir goes, Tolkien gave us a very specific type of person in order to explore the effect of power on someone like that. The scriptwriters basically took the easy way out in order to get an emotional climax to their movie.

Do you really think people go to the movies to see half an hour of people talking? No, they go to see drama, action and emotion. And of course the producers and directors are eager to cater them. Believe it or not, that's how successful movies are made - they cater to the audience.

Well, that's only true if the audience you're aiming at is a spotty 17 year old ...

[Finduilas]

The counsil could have been just as long as in the movie, but more to the books character. I'm not a.... purist? It doesn't need to be word for word. Leave out Bombadil, shorten the counsil, I don't even mind a slight change in Boromir. But to have all your main characters, excepting of course Aragorn, Frodo, and Elrond, argue like children is foolish, and destroys, mostly, the nice change you were talking about in Boromir.

I think the movie focused to much on the Ring's power to twist characters. After all, Bilbo got it, practically cheated with it, used it, and still felt sorry for Gollum. Only 60 years later(60 years, that's a long time) was he a grump grasping for the Ring. And he was still a nice guy.

And yes, I agree totally with Davem about Arwen. She is crying in at least 3/4 of her scenes....

[Folwren]

Heh...Finduilas and davem are doing a fine job. I don't think I'll put in my two cents of opinion here.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Again, that's a matter of opinion. StW's point was that movie Boromir's death was more moving than book Boromir's. My point was that if you completely re-write the character to make him more sympathetic/likeable its not difficult to make his death more moving, & that if you re-wrote Sauron's/Saruman's/Wormtongue's/The Balrog's characters to make them more sympathetic/likeable then their death's would be more moving than in the book.

Correct me if I am in error, but I was under the belief that Boromir was suppose to be one of the good guys that we cheer for. In the book he comes off as having far more negative traits than positive ones. I have read many posts both here and on other Tolkien sites that claim that the Film Boromir was far more likable than the book one and many said they actually liked him for the first time.

I have a funny feeling that some of the apologists will now claim that is due to the incredible level of complexity that Tolkien used in writing the character. I simply look at it as a character not really written well. Jackson showed how the character could fill the same role but be far more sympathetic and his death far more dramatic.

You bring up Sauron and Saruman and Wormtongue and the Balrog and ask why not give them the same treatment? I would have thought that was obvious since they are all on the opposite side of our good guys and why would we want to stir up any sympathy for them?

Like many of the younger generation would say.....'duh".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Correct me if I am in error, but I was under the belief that Boromir was suppose to be one of the good guys that we cheer for. In the book he comes off as having far more negative traits than positive ones. I have read many posts both here and on other Tolkien sites that claim that the Film Boromir was far more likable than the book one and many said they actually liked him for the first time.

Yes - & your point is? That LotR is a story of perfect good guys in white hats who are completely loveable versus horrible bad guys in black hats who behave like pantomime villains?? Tolkien did not write Boromir to be a likeable character. In short, no, we aren't supposed to 'cheer' for Boromir in the way you imply. Tolkien was writing for grown-ups who understand that people are complicated, & not all the people on the 'good' side are actually 'good'.

[

I simply look at it as a character not really written well. Jackson showed how the character could fill the same role but be far more sympathetic and his death far more dramatic.

So, in other words, because the character Tolkien wrote wasn't somebody you'd consider a stereotypical 'hero' it must be a result of bad writing?

You bring up Sauron and Saruman and Wormtongue and the Balrog and ask why not give them the same treatment? I would have thought that was obvious since they are all on the opposite side of our good guys and why would we want to stir up any sympathy for them?

As you must realise, the point I was making is that if you rewrite a morally dubious character & make him into a sympathetic 'hero' his death will elicit sympathy, so if you rewrite a 'villainous' character & make him a sympathetic figure his death, too, will elicit sympathy.

[Sauron the White]

As I wrote in my previous post

I have a funny feeling that some of the apologists will now claim that is due to the incredible level of complexity that Tolkien used in writing the character

That seems to cover the line of reasoning you predictably used in your last post davem.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

And yes, I agree totally with Davem about Arwen. She is crying in at least 3/4 of her scenes....

Possibly Arwen has been drawn into the main story for the movies in an attempt to provide the female members of the audience with a character they can root for. Unfortunately the writers don't seem to know what to do with her - the 'XenArwen' idea fell flat on its face (her scenes were removed from Helm's Deep, & thus the only justification for Elves being there was lost) & had two unfortunate consequences - first we lost Glorfindel from the movie, & second we get this odd change in Arwen's character, who at first appears as a 'warrior' Elf, wielding sword & defying Ringwraiths, only to subsequently become this simpering 'girly' Elf, who can only wave her big, brave warrior off to war, & then spend the rest of the movie sobbing her eyes out begging Daddy to help her get him back. Book Arwen weaves her 'magical' banner for Aragorn, &, though she remains in the background, is a powerful, mysterious 'force' behind the scenes. I can't recall such a 'weak' female character in any recent popular movie. Tolkien has often been accused of not being able to write convincing female characters, but he never made such a pig's ear of a female character as the movie scriptwriters did of Arwen. Where is the inner power of this descendant of Melian, Luthien & Galadriel?