Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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.

I take it you've never seen The Wannsee Conference? An hour and a half or more of absolutely gripping (and horrifying) drama- and it's nothing more than the verbatim recitation of the minutes of a real-life committee meeting.

One could also throw in My Dinner With Andre and many more which belie the video-game mentality that you gotta put 'action' on screen or else bore the audience.

**********

Who said Gothmog was an Orc? In fact he was explicitly *not* an Orc: "It was no brigand nor Orc-chieftain who commanded...."

Still, objections on this sort of geek-level are trivial compared to the fact that PJ Just Doesn't Get Tolkien: not his themes, his style, his moral vision, his sense of language, none of it. Just monsters and fights. This is a guy who calls the Eorlingas the "Rohans," after all, and thinks "Rohirrim" applies only to the king's cavalry. (If you want to get truly geekish, then PJ should be taken to task for having Theoden et al refer to their country as "Rohan", which in the book they never do- it is, after all, a Sindarin name coined in Gondor. How could anyone so deaf to language think they were qualified to adapt Tolkien? Misologists, Tolkien would call them. Hiring David Salo to concoct some snatches of pseudo-Elvish (while omitting all of Tolkien's own) doesn't cut it).


**********

In Annatar's long regurgitation of the excuses and self-justifications PJ and his accomplices offered up on the DVD's, he claims it was 'necessary' to rewrite Faramir (actually to create a new character with the same name) because the real Farmair's was "flat" and had to become an "obstacle" for Frodo- which goes back to the repeated reference by JBW to "story arcs." - If you buy this tripe, I suggest you read Shippey's Road to Middle-earth in its 2004 edition, where good Prof. Tom takes to task these paint-by-numbers approaches to screenwriting.

*******************


Shelob/Helm's Deep and the relative calendars- Only because PJ was dwetermined to make Helm's Deep the Bam! Zowie! climax of his movie, puffing it up beyond its proper place in the narrative; and, at any rate, Shelob's Lair took place *before* the Pelennor Fields, not simultaneously.


Would it not perhaps have been a great exercise in 'experimental cinema' (in the hands of a much more innovative director than Jackson) to present the narrative just as Tolkien did, without intercutting Books III & IV, V & VI?

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Who said Gothmog was an Orc? In fact he was explicitly *not* an Orc: "It was no brigand nor Orc-chieftain who commanded...."

That quote refers to the Witch-King. Nowhere in the books is anything other than Gothmog's name stated.

Still, objections on this sort of geek-level are trivial compared to the fact that PJ Just Doesn't Get Tolkien: not his themes, his style, his moral vision, his sense of language, none of it. Just monsters and fights. This is a guy who calls the Eorlingas the "Rohans," after all, and thinks "Rohirrim" applies only to the king's cavalry. (If you want to get truly geekish, then PJ should be taken to task for having Theoden et al refer to their country as "Rohan", which in the book they never do- it is, after all, a Sindarin name coined in Gondor. How could anyone so deaf to language think they were qualified to adapt Tolkien? Misologists, Tolkien would call them. Hiring David Salo to concoct some snatches of pseudo-Elvish (while omitting all of Tolkien's own) doesn't cut it).

The movies aren't just meant for those purists who bow before the Altar of Tolkien. Its meant for the general audience as well. The movies are not the books. Get over it.


**********

In Annatar's long regurgitation of the excuses and self-justifications PJ and his accomplices offered up on the DVD's, he claims it was 'necessary' to rewrite Faramir (actually to create a new character with the same name) because the real Farmair's was "flat" and had to become an "obstacle" for Frodo- which goes back to the repeated reference by JBW to "story arcs." - If you buy this tripe, I suggest you read Shippey's Road to Middle-earth in its 2004 edition, where good Prof. Tom takes to task these paint-by-numbers approaches to screenwriting.

You've got me stumped here.

Helm's Deep and the relative calendars- Only because PJ was dwetermined to make Helm's Deep the Bam! Zowie! climax of his movie, puffing it up beyond its proper place in the narrative; and, at any rate, Shelob's Lair took place *before* the Pelennor Fields, not simultaneously.

Shelob's Lair takes place too close to Pelennor Fields. If the Voice of Saruman and the chapters after are moved to Return of the King (which was a good idea - with Helm's Deep the movie would have been too long), Shelob's Lair has to go to RoTK. For Helm's Deep, if done as the book it would have been not good. PJ needed action to keep the film going, and as Helm's Deep is so fleeting it would have bored the audience. Its "proper place" in the movie narrative is as the climax.

Would it not perhaps have been a great exercise in 'experimental cinema' (in the hands of a much more innovative director than Jackson) to present the narrative just as Tolkien did, without intercutting Books III & IV, V & VI?

Putting it the way Tolkien did it would simply not have worked in a movie. It would have been boring ("when are we going to get to Frodo and Sam?") and a bit annoying. Intercutting the storylines was the only way to get it done successfully.

[Sir Kohran]

I take it you've never seen The Wannsee Conference? An hour and a half or more of absolutely gripping (and horrifying) drama- and it's nothing more than the verbatim recitation of the minutes of a real-life committee meeting.

Assuming I've got the one you're talking about...it's a made for TV film that lasts an hour and fifteen minutes. Did it appeal to millions across the world, and win multiple Oscars? And that meeting is the entire story. However, the Council is just one segment of a much bigger story. Sorry, but there's just no way you can compare the two. They are on completely different levels.

One could also throw in My Dinner With Andre

Another film where the meeting is the majority of what is a fairly small film. However the Council is meant to be just one part of a much larger story. They aren't comparable.

video-game mentality that you gotta put 'action' on screen or else bore the audience.

You've got to keep them interested. How many people in the audience care whether the Dwarves will accept Sauron's bribe? No, they care about Frodo and his quest.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

You've got to keep them interested. How many people in the audience care whether the Dwarves will accept Sauron's bribe? No, they care about Frodo and his quest.

Honestly, I think it depends on the approach you take. If you're making LotR as an action adventure movie like Star Wars then you're correct. The point, though, is that LotR doesn't have to be made into that kind of movie. Jackson made a decision about the kind of movie he wanted to make. The moral/philosophical dimension of Tolkien's story was ignored in favour of producing a SFX heavy saga. Jackson did not simply put Tolkien's story on the screen as it is in the book, he chose to focus on the battles & action, to the extent that they overwhelm the subtleties of Tolkien's creation.

Another director could have chosen a different approach to the material. Hence, one can criticise Jackson's approach - what he chose to focus on & what he chose to ignore. A different director with a different approach to the material could have made Bombadil & the Council work. In other words, they may not have worked in Jackson's movie, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have worked full stop.

And that's the point. Jackson's 'simplisitic' 'action-adventure' approach to the material forced him to exclude material/events which are central to the story Tolkien wrote. Those defending Jackson here seem to believe that either his approach to the story is the only possible one, or at least the best one. Now, I'm not sure that Jackson could have made a different kind of LotR movie, given his track record, but this is the issue (& the reason I'd rather he didn't direct a Hobbit movie).

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

You've got to keep them interested. How many people in the audience care whether the Dwarves will accept Sauron's bribe? No, they care about Frodo and his quest.

If the focus was to be on Frodo & his quest then there should have been less screen time given to Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields & more on his journey through Mordor, & the Scouring of the Shire should have been included & given the emphasis it deserved - as should the events in the Barrow, which is his first real test against the Ring. Now, I think a better approach to the story would have been to focus on Frodo's journey all through, including the Old Forest/Barrow Downs & including the Scouring, with Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields given the kind of minor (in terms of narrative time) treatment they receive in the book.

[Sir Kohran]

If you're making LotR as an action adventure movie like Star Wars then you're correct.

Let's face it - that's how the movies are viewed. What makes them so good is their ability to be more than just a CGI-filled mess of fight scenes. Unlike the cardboard acting in Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings movies managed to be moving and emotional on a level that most action adventure movies can't even attempt.

The moral/philosophical dimension of Tolkien's story was ignored in favour of producing a SFX heavy saga.

How many people left the cinema saying, 'Well, the acting and the special effects were great, but I don't think they got across the Catholic themes of temptation and redemption'?

Bottomline is this - audiences don't go to cinemas to see philosophy/half an hour of talking/singing men in yellow boots/exploration of Christian morality/discussions on the ethics of Eru destorying Numenor. These things just don't make for good movies.

And anyway, are you suggesting they shouldn't have used SFX/CGI? How else would you create Minas Tirith or the Oliphaunts or the Trolls? Without using such methods you'd end up with a movie that would completely fail to capture the visual majesty that Middle-Earth has.

A different director with a different approach to the material could have made Bombadil & the Council work.

But would the movie have been as good?

Jackson did not simply put Tolkien's story on the screen as it is in the book, he chose to focus on the battles & action, to the extent that they overwhelm the subtleties of Tolkien's creation.

Only in your opinion.

Those defending Jackson here seem to believe that either his approach to the story is the only possible one, or at least the best one.

No, but I believe it was a good one. Not perfect, but a good one given the pressure he was under. He could have made a wooden, bland, CGI-filled video game with bad acting (Eragon and Dungeons and Dragons come to mind) and yet he managed to deliver a trilogy that was both visually stunning and emotionally moving at the same time.

If the focus was to be on Frodo & his quest then there should have been less screen time given to Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields & more on his journey through Mordor, & the Scouring of the Shire should have been included & given the emphasis it deserved - as should the events in the Barrow, which is his first real test against the Ring.

Admittedly a little too much focus was put on the human side of things in TTT, but I think ROTK gave a perfectly fine amount of time to the Hobbit's story - Minas Morgul, Shelob's Lair, Cirith Ungol, the trek across Gorgoroth, Frodo's agony under the Ring, Sam's carrying of Frodo up the mountainside, the final confrontation between them and Gollum - it's all in the movie. And don't forget the last scenes of the movie all concern the four Hobbits and what happens to them.

Now, I think a better approach to the story would have been to focus on Frodo's journey all through, including the Old Forest/Barrow Downs & including the Scouring,

Oh come on, countless reasons for the removal of all of these have been given - the biggest being that they just take up too much time.

with Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields given the kind of minor (in terms of narrative time) treatment they receive in the book.

How were they given minor treatment? Half of TTT and half of ROTK don't even include Frodo and Sam. And how would you give characters like Eowyn, Faramir, Treebeard, Denethor, etc. proper development with so much time being given over to Frodo and Sam?



I think the real issue with you, davem, is that you want an exact replica of the books, with all other concerns being put second to recreating Tolkien's books to the letter. That may be perfectly fine in a small radio show but in the big world of cinema where movies have to appeal to millions to be successful, it simply doesn't happen. You should not expect it to.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I think the real issue with you, davem, is that you want an exact replica of the books, with all other concerns being put second to recreating Tolkien's books to the letter. That may be perfectly fine in a small radio show but in the big world of cinema where movies have to appeal to millions to be successful, it simply doesn't happen. You should not expect it to.

All I wanted was to be affected in the same way by the movies as by the books. I wanted to be taken to the same 'mental/emotional' place. That wouldn't require a director to put the book on screen in every particular. To me the movies weren't the LotR I know & love. I watched them, thinking occasionally 'That's clever' or 'That's impressive', but more often 'Why did they do that?', or 'That's wrong'. As movies they're ok, but as an adaptation of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings they're a failure - in my opinion, of course.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by davem

All I wanted was to be affected in the same way by the movies as by the books. I wanted to be taken to the same 'mental/emotional' place. That wouldn't require a director to put the book on screen in every particular. To me the movies weren't the LotR I know & love. I watched them, thinking occasionally 'That's clever' or 'That's impressive', but more often 'Why did they do that?', or 'That's wrong'. As movies they're ok, but as an adaptation of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings they're a failure - in my opinion, of course.

Tha's the difficulty. Heck, I love the movies and passionately defend them, and yet I openly admit that they don't affect me in the same way the books do. Nor could they - they are adaptations; not clones. I don't believe I've ever seen a movie adaptation that managed the same power as the book did. The answer is simply that it's a different format - text on paper is very different to moving images and sound. With books you can form your own vision of a story; with movies you're looking at someone else's vision of the story. I would not expect the movies to affect me as the books do, anymore than I would expect them to include a singing man with yellow boots.

As an adaptation of the books I would say they are a success - not a perfect success, but a good enough success - though also in my opinion.

One is tempted to respond, "who cares? The issue is whether it is good, not whether it appeals to the massed millions."

The issue is not whether it is good. Of course, by itself, the Council *is* good - hence why it works in the books. However, we're talking about the movies here, and they aimed to appeal to the massed millions - something that the Council by itself would not have done.

Instead I'll just observe that it would of course stop the narrative drive cold *if* the entire bloody Council were repeated verbatim (as well as using up way too much of the available screentime). Of course it had to be pared to essentials. But concedig that is in no way a justification for abandoning the essential dignity of Tolkien's scene for a boorish shouting match.

I concede that the Council scene could have been done better. But I'm arguing that we could not have had the scene direct from the books, and it seems that to some extent you agree with this.

He disdained stooping to irony: he wrote heroic characters like Faramir and Aragorn along the lines of ancient saga and didn't give a damn about "character arcs" or whether a contemporary audience could "identify" with them. And plainly it worked, given the books' overwhelming success: success *without* compromise.

He was writing for an entirely different generation. Ours is one that expects action and character development and people they can identify with. The movie is meant to appeal to them, therefore it includes these things.

And anyway, just how much did it succeed? Whilst LOTR certainly was a success, both financially and in terms of awards and prestige, I'd say it was a limited one; they did not achieve the same kind of success that Dickens or Shakespeare before or Rowling after managed. Before the movies were released I knew nothing of Tolkien (one of the reasons I like the movies so much is because they introduced me and so many others to his work). How much of this was down to the lack of 'compromise' is debatable - my dad can remember trying to read the books back in the seventies and being utterly confused (fortunately I didn't turn out the same way).

There's a word for compromise of this sort, of altering the artistic vision and mode of expression to please a targeted audience: it's called pandering.

So Peter Jackson changed some things to please his audience. And?

[Sauron the White]

Like many things of this world, the truth usually is found somewhere in the middle of opposing arguments. I think it is unfair and hyperbole to characterize the LOTR films as straight up action adventure films. That is tarring them with a brush that just does not quite fit. Obviously it was not an art film either. I think the truth lies in the middle. Sure, there were action sequences, and there were in the books also. But there were also moments of intense emotional drama, portrayal of the human condition(and I guess the Elven condition if there is such a thing ), and lots of wonder and beauty that was subtle and sublime.

I think Jackson had all of this in his films if one looks with an open mind.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Sure, there were action sequences, and there were in the books also. But there were also moments of intense emotional drama, portrayal of the human condition(and I guess the Elven condition if there is such a thing ), and lots of wonder and beauty that was subtle and sublime.

My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

I think with a book you have the actual characters - the 'real' Gandalf facing the 'real' Balrog (real in the secondary world that is), whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect. It doesn't help to have all the documantaries & interviews either, which reinforce that fact & discussing how he approached the role.

Tolkien discusses this in OFS:

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results. It is a misfortune that Drama, an art fundamentally distinct from Literature, should so commonly be considered together with it, or as a branch of it. Among these misfortunes we may reckon the depreciation of Fantasy. For in part at least this depreciation is due to the natural desire of critics to cry up the forms of literature or “imagination” that they themselves, innately or by training, prefer. And criticism in a country that has produced so great a Drama, and possesses the works of William Shakespeare, tends to be far too dramatic. But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy. This is, I think, well illustrated by the failure of the bastard form, pantomime. The nearer it is to “dramatized fairy-story” the worse it is. It is only tolerable when the plot and its fantasy are reduced to a mere vestigiary framework for farce, and no “belief” of any kind in any part of the performance is required or expected of anybody. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that the producers of drama have to, or try to, work with mechanism to represent either Fantasy or Magic. I once saw a so-called “children's pantomime,” the straight story of Puss-in-Boots, with even the metamorphosis of the ogre into a mouse. Had this been mechanically successful it would either have terrified the spectators or else have been just a turn of high-class conjuring. As it was, though done with some ingenuity of lighting, disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered. In Macbeth, when it is read, I find the witches tolerable: they have a narrative function and some hint of dark significance; though they are vulgarized, poor things of their kind. They are almost intolerable in the play. They would be quite intolerable, if I were not fortified by some memory of them as they are in the story as read. I am told that I should feel differently if I had the mind of the period, with its witch-hunts and witch-trials. But that is to say: if I regarded the witches as possible, indeed likely, in the Primary World; in other words, if they ceased to be “Fantasy.” That argument concedes the point. To be dissolved, or to be degraded, is the likely fate of Fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare. Macbeth is indeed a work by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have written a story, if he had the skill or patience for that art.

A reason, more important, I think, than the inadequacy of stage-effects, is this: Drama has, of its very nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute, magic: the visible and audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasimagical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much. To make such a thing may not be impossible. I have never seen it done with success. But at least it cannot be claimed as the proper mode of Drama, in which walking and talking people have been found to be the natural instruments of Art and illusion. For this precise reason—that the characters, and even the scenes, are in Drama not imagined but actually beheld—Drama is, even though it uses a similar material (words, verse, plot), an art fundamentally different from narrative art. Thus, if you prefer Drama to Literature (as many literary critics plainly do), or form your critical theories primarily from dramatic critics, or even from Drama, you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making, and to constrain it to the limitations of stage-plays. You are, for instance, likely to prefer characters, even the basest and dullest, to things. Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

That certainly makes crystal clear sense to me. I understand your feelings completely when expressed this way.

I am just glad that did not happen to me.

[Sir Kohran]

or if I'd seen them first

Maybe that's the case. I saw the movies before I read the book and now I enjoy both.

whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect.

That's just you. When I see that sequence, not for a second do I not believe I'm seeing Gandalf the Grey defy the Balrog, in the same way as when I am reading the corresponding passage in the book I do not believe that all I'm doing is looking at some ink printed onto some paper.

But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted.

I agree with Tolkien here...I saw the movie Eragon recently and it was appalling. So was Dungeons and Dragons back in 2000. One before LOTR...one after LOTR...and yet both were terrible. In fact, I think the LOTR movies are the only fantasy films I've seen that have done both drama and fantasy well at the same time. I believe this is because they have their roots in literature, where drama and fantasy can coexist (as the books prove).

disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered

[William Cloud Hicklin]

To chime in in support of Davem's last: Tolkien felt very strongly that Frodo's journey was far more important than the War; and that the most important part of the journey was the Passion of Frodo Baggins, the crossing of Mordor: which PJ chops down to an impossibly short bit of screentime (and, especially in the theatrical cut, the impression is conveyed that Aragorn's march to the Morannon took the same length of time as it took Frodo and Sam to climb down a hill). From Cirith Ungol to Orodruin was ten long, nightmarish days- the sort of "eternal week" paratroopers in Normandy described.

Both Helm's Deep and the Pelennor are lengthy and exciting enough as written- but PJ elected to drag them out (especially the former), and use up even more screen time on fripperies like Tony Legohawk and Eowyn's duel with Mr Potato-head, not to mention the Osgiliation and the Warg attack and other invented action-adventure nonsense, when he could and should have focused on Frodo (and, perhaps, treated Treebeard with the respect Tolkien had for him instead of reducing him to rather dull comic relief).

Compare, since it's been brought up, Lawrence of Arabia- which in its very long running time contains a total of three battle scenes, all of them quite brief; yet it's considered an exciting movie.

[Sauron the White]

WCW - I dearly love LAWRENCE OF ARABIA for many reasons. I remember seeing it at the theater a few weeks after it had won the AA for Best Film of the Year. In those days the big films first opened up in downtown big city theaters and it took months to get out to the burbs where my family lived. I disctinctly remember being 13 years old and going with neighborhood kids on our weekly trip to the theater. We were surprised to see a line around the theater (which also in those days was a single stand alone building with a single screen). When we finally got up to the front of the line we encountered the owner of the theater who was periodically annoncing that he was very sorry but he had to raise the price for this special movie and no childrens tickets would be sold.

The adult price - jacked up for this special movie - was $1.50.

During the film I also remember an usher came down to us and told us quite sharply to shut up of leave since lots of people had paid a lot of money to see it. So we did and enjoyed it greatly.

But that was 1963. Forty-four years is at least two generations perhaps three. For good or bad, it is a far different world with a far different movie going audience. I have my doubts about LAWRENCE going over today as an adventure film that would be described as exciting. I think it would be classified much closer to something like ENGLISH PATIENT.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Could you please provide some evidence of this "former greatness". As someone who has studied and even taught some history courses, I am unaware of such Golden Ages that make them markedly different than our own times. And please give me actual evidence of the real world and not some literary platitudes found in fiction books which idealize and romanticize a life which did not exist except for a very small number of lucky people.

And I do not have the slightest idea what that has to do with JRRT, Middle-earth, the Jackson adaptions of LOTR or anything else on topic. But perhaps you could relate it all for me.

What does this have to do with Tolkien? Everything! Whatever you or I believe, *Tolkien* was firmly convinced that human history is the 'long defeat.' He was defiantly heretical toward the Church of Progress, and was convinced that Man was in his own day becoming smaller and meaner, concerned with nothing beyond material comfort and convenience, and a fixation on 'democracy' as a surrogate for freedom. Although he was of course aware of the downside of the Middle Ages, he nonetheless believed that people of that day aspired to loftier things than their decadent descendants.

He was also aware, being something of an expert, that the average man in medieval England was a far cry from the filthy, famished, oppressed serf beloved of Victorian and then Marx-influenced historians, both of whom had a vested interest in creating a "look how far we've come" narrative. From Tolkien's viewpoint, 'progress' meant Birmingham's Satanic mills and the industrialised carnage of the Western Front and mushroom clouds over Japan. Accordingly, he tried (with indifferent success) to revive something of the old Northern Spirit he loved, and hoped would revive his dying England. I'm sure he wished he could blow Merry's Horn of Rohan and sweep Sarumanism away.

You may disagree with his opinions. But if one is to adapt *Tolkien*, whether in film or any other medium, then one should be attuned to what he was all about. The idea of ameliorating his message to appeal to 'modern' prejudice would be anathema to him.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Assuming I've got the one you're talking about...it's a made for TV film that lasts an hour and fifteen minutes. Did it appeal to millions across the world, and win multiple Oscars?

One is tempted to respond, "who cares? The issue is whether it is good, not whether it appeals to the massed millions."
Instead I'll just observe that it would of course stop the narrative drive cold *if* the entire bloody Council were repeated verbatim (as well as using up way too much of the available screentime). Of course it had to be pared to essentials. But concedig that is in no way a justification for abandoning the essential dignity of Tolkien's scene for a boorish shouting match.

Tolkien was not writng for "Tolkienites," of course, since they didn't exist. He wrote a unique book owing in very large part to his stubborn refusal to compromise either with popular taste or with the fashions of twentieth-century Litteraturgedenken. He disdained stooping to irony: he wrote heroic characters like Faramir and Aragorn along the lines of ancient saga and didn't give a damn about "character arcs" or whether a contemporary audience could "identify" with them. And plainly it worked, given the books' overwhelming success: success *without* compromise.

There's a word for compromise of this sort, of altering the artistic vision and mode of expression to please a targeted audience: it's called pandering.