Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Good point.

I believe the professional film critics sampled that juice and pronounced it of very high quality and very very drinkable.

I've yet to come across a 'professional movie critic' who wasn't in the job purely because they weren't capable of making a useful contribution to society.

I'm sure 'Professional movie critics' would have been first on the 'B' Ark:

Golgafrincham is a red semi-desert planet that is home of the Great Circling Poets of Arium and a species of particularly inspiring lichen. Its people decided it was time to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population, and so concocted a story that their planet would shortly be destroyed in a great catastrophe. (It was apparently under threat from a "mutant star goat"). The useless third of the population (consisting of hairdressers, tired TV producers*, insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers and the like) were packed into the B-Ark, one of three giant Ark spaceships, and told that everyone else would follow shortly in the other two. The other two thirds of the population, of course, did not follow and "led full, rich and happy lives until they were all suddenly wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone".(Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy -from Wikipedia)

[Sauron the White]

Allow me to add school administrators to that list of the useless. I taught in high school for 33 years and never could figure out just what they did to make more money than a teacher when they never taught a single child to read, write, count or think. Education is a very funny profession. The further you get away from children, the bigger your office, paycheck and title. I used to say that a good administrator was worth their weight in gold. And remember - gold is a rare commodity.

Have to make my post topical .... I would not put JRRT on that list of the useless. And I notice that in his professional academic career he was a hands on teacher and not an administrator. Bravo!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In fact he was both- Oxford in his day being run by faculty committees and college boards, all of which comprised dons. The full-time 'administrator' was yet unknown there. Tolkien spent a great deal of time on such administrative tasks, heavier than most because he was a chaired Professor ( a very lofty title in Oxbridge).

At the University of Virginia, the arrangement was similar until 1904 when the post of President was created- and even then he was expected to carry a full teaching load.

[Kath]

In need of something to entertain me for an hour or so I've wandered through this thread and picked up on some things. It's a little random, but it's kept me busy.

Originally Posted by Annatar

You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

But then, none of the characters mean anything to those that haven't read the books. Frodo means nothing to them, neither does Gandalf, not even Sauron. They are included and given backstory and so they do start to mean something. There is nothing to say that the same wouldn't be true if Bombadil or Imrahil had been included in the films.

Originally Posted by Annatar

Aragorn falling off the cliff is required for Theoden to learn the size of Saruman' army.

Why? There are any number of ways he could have learnt about the size. As a king going into battle he would surely have sent scouts out. There was no need to have Aragorn go leaping off into his own side story when the same shot of the advancing army could have been used in a different way. It didn't further his character development, and the time could have been used to further someone elses.

I agree with Folwren on the idea that though a film can't be based word for word on a book and still be seen and enjoyed by millions, a mildly condensed version such as she described would work. PJ's visuals were stunning and quite remove the need for any verbal expansion on them, and that cuts down a fair slice of the books. However:

Originally Posted by Folwren

Two definite things in the LotR that would have to be shortened or cut altogether is (unfortunately) Tom Bombadil and much of the Council of Elrond.

Why? If the prologue was left as it was done in the film then a good section of the Council of Elrond has already been done and it wouldn't be a strain on the films to do the rest of it. You wouldn't need Bilbo's story, indeed in the book that's cut out, because it's already been explained as much as it needs to be for the film and the same goes for the information about Gollum and other things, so that really you'd be left with pretty much the same scene as we already have. As for Tom Bombadil, the main reason people seem to come up with for cutting him out is that viewers would not understand the point of him. How can we know that if they're not given the opportunity? In the books he is a mystery and opinion is completely divided on him amongst readers, why shouldn't film-goers get the opportunity to have the same argument over and over again? It could be done. Have the hobbits being trapped by Old Man Willow, have Tom save them, have the conversation where he reveals the ring has no power over him, have the hobbits go off and get trapped by the Wights and have them be saved by him. It needn't be an overlong section and if he gets them to Bree as in the books it would still be continuing the plot, plus you'd have the sword Merry is able to stab the Witch King with in there too, another important plot device. It wouldn't bore the viewers as with the Wights in there would be action, and it would reinforce the idea that the hobbits are in danger even before they've left the Shire.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

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.

Now this I disagree with. Boromir accepts what Elrond told him, even if he has his own private misgivings, and from the moment he joins the Company he plays by the rules. Think of when they became trapped on Caradhras and he and Aragorn force a path through the snow, carrying the hobbits on their backs. He cares about the people he is with. He is certainly not ignorant. His mind may be weaker than his body, and that is why the Ring has more influence over him than the others, but it isn't missing. He is strong-willed and holds on to his opinions, that doesn't make him ignorant, just stubborn. I find it very easy to find sympathy for him when he dies. He made a mistake with Frodo, one which he was aware of immediately afterward and went and told Aragorn what had happened, and he atones for it by protecting Merry and Pippin with his last breaths. The film made him honourable, in the books he was human.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

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.

Drama and emotion don't need to include battle scenes, and can be put across to an audience very effectively via talking. Think of something like Donnie Darko, which is all about very complex ideas that are almost entirely explained by talking.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Which isn't even really necessary when you have Eowyn, who was at least pretty well done in the films. She provides the conflict and power you need in a female character, all Arwen is in the films is some kind of comfort blanket for Aragorn. She is his driving force, but that doesn't need to be shoved down the audience's throat. Show the exchange of the necklace by all means, and keep the shots that focus on it. That's enough. I think you're right when you say she is more effective as the mysterious figure in the background whom Aragorn loves so much he will turn down anyone else.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

Er, why? The people who dislike the films have generally been to see them, otherwise they are unlikely to have formed quite such a strong opinion against them. Say 10 people went to see the films, half having read the books and half having not read them. If the half that have read the books then dislike the films you can't simply remove them from the statistics. Those who now know they don't like the films still saw them, and so make up those numbers you speak of.

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

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.

Da Vinci Code anyone? They may have changed it but in essence it is still a film about an exploration of Christianity. Same goes for The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Even Indiana Jones fits the theme. All these films combine discussions of morality with action and draw in huge audiences.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

Or, he cut out the attack by the orcs to save time and because in terms of film time there was going to be another attack by orcs only moments later. And he failed to take advantage of the chance to show Legolas' superior skills (archery rather than drinking) as well as not deepening the mood he was aiming for even more by showing that now they had left Lorien they were in mortal peril again.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

A far more gruesome image than the one Jackson used in the film.

Whereas having Aragorn lop limbs off an Uruk-hai who then impales himself and forces our hero to have to chop his head off isn't gruesome in the slightest.

Finally:

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

The books are not the films, that is true, but you can't say that they films are not the books because they are based on them. If the film was to be considered completely separate from the books then not a scene, not a word, not an idea could have been taken from the books to aid in the making of the film.

[Folwren]

Hear, Hear!

(Really...I have nothing else to say...)

Edit: No, I have something to say, come to think of it.

It just occured to me - those movie were famous before they came out. We who loved the books before the movies were even made were the ones who gave it so many veiwings and who gave it so much money. Some people were gathering information and pictures before it even arrived.

You realize that, don't you? It was no greatness of the films that made it famous to begin with. It was our own enthusiasm - not for the movies (we hadn't seen them yet), but for Tolkien's books.

[Sauron the White]

Folwren may have nothing else to say but allow me to say a few things.

from Kath

As for Tom Bombadil, the main reason people seem to come up with for cutting him out is that viewers would not understand the point of him. How can we know that if they're not given the opportunity? In the books he is a mystery and opinion is completely divided on him amongst readers, why shouldn't film-goers get the opportunity to have the same argument over and over again? It could be done.

Perhaps you can speak for "people" who have opinions you do not agree with, I on the other hand, can only speak for myself. Here is why I was overjoyed to see him cut out of the film and it has nothing to do with the reason you gave.

1- The way he is described by JRRT, he simply looks goofy, stupid, dumb, foolish, silly, cartoonish, childish, and just plain funny looking. I cut back on the adjectives because I do not want to come off as mean spirited. Of all the characters JRRT created TB is the absolute worst visually. Films are foremost a visaul medium. What good would it have been to hire people like John Howe and Alan Lee and a host of other artists, illustrators, designers, model makers, and other creative visual talents only to have the absurd figure of TB appear on the same screen? It would be like serving a fabulous six course dinner in a five star restaurant only to have one of the dishes smell of vomit.

Are we clear on my feelings about that? It has not a darn thing to do with my not understanding TB.

2- Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

Others here, defending TB, have said he is a colorful character who adds to the rich tapestry of Middle-earth and shows the wide variety of beings that inhabited it. Any being would fill that role. It does not have to be something which is so visually hideous or so meaningless to the story or plot or its advance or its resolution.

3- If Bombadil would have been hard on the eyes he would have been equally grating on the ears spouting doggerel such as:

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo.
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow"

I can hear every comedian on late night TV doing a bit about dongs and dillos from the LOTR films. That would have had the audience either in embarassed titters or outright stitches.

So much for Bombadil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
When we compare the opinion against the film that is voiced here and among Tolkien literary circles, and compare it with the hundreds of millions who purchased tickets to see the film, the numbers speak for themselves.

the reply from Kath

Er, why? The people who dislike the films have generally been to see them, otherwise they are unlikely to have formed quite such a strong opinion against them. Say 10 people went to see the films, half having read the books and half having not read them. If the half that have read the books then dislike the films you can't simply remove them from the statistics. Those who now know they don't like the films still saw them, and so make up those numbers you speak of.

For every film ever made to which tickets are sold to there are some people who do not like the film. That is true of LOTR also. However, that could well explain inflated box office for the first one, but only a complete idiot would come back again and again and eat a similar meal at a restaurant which made him sick the first time.

Besides, box office returns were higher for TTT and then higher again for ROTK. It is in fact the second highest grossing film of all time.

The figures you use of half an audience reading the books and seeing the movies is way way off.
Tolkiens publishers estimated that - before the films came out - there were between 40 and 50 million copies of his book sold over the previous nearly fifty years. Do you know how many tickets were sold to the movies? They did just over 3 billion US dollars in box office. Figuring an average of $7 per ticket, that comes out to an astounding figure approaching 430 million tickets sold. And I would guess that in some of the worlds poorer nations that per ticket price was significantly lower. There is no way that half of those people read the books.

Even if we assume that the same person bought three tickets - one for each film - we still get a figure of some 143 million people. That is at least four fold times the people who bought and read the books.

Yes, before anyone says it, people also read copies in libraries and borrow their friends copies so some copies are read twice or more. And some copies are never even read once cover to cover. Some who do read it do not like it and would be candidates for the films regardless. And some of those were long dead by time the films came out. So it all balances out.

Even if we say, that 10% of those who saw FOTR were hardcore Tolkien purists who love the books and hated the films, that still leaves many many many times more people who bought tickets and did not share their feelings against the films.

Do you know what the most effective advertising for a film is? Word of mouth. Obviously, it must have been pretty positive to sustain all that business, not once, not twice but three times.

Look what happened to the MATRIX trilogy. The revenues went down with each film as word of mouth was worse each time. The opposite was true with the RINGS films.

Regarding the point raised by many, inclding myself, that the expansion of Arwen helped the film especially with a female audience...

Which isn't even really necessary when you have Eowyn, who was at least pretty well done in the films. She provides the conflict and power you need in a female character, all Arwen is in the films is some kind of comfort blanket for Aragorn. She is his driving force, but that doesn't need to be shoved down the audience's throat. Show the exchange of the necklace by all means, and keep the shots that focus on it. That's enough.

There were at least 22 major characters in LOTR films. Eowyn is one female. That would be one out of 22. So that "is enough" for you? Sounds like the absolute worst type of tokenism. Half of the people in this world are female. Over half of the people who bought tickets were female. Is it too much to ask for 2 females out of the 22? All Jackson did was to take what JRRT already wrote in the appendices and include it in the story. JRRT gave him that right according to the terms of sale of the film rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
I

noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

reply from Kath

Or, he cut out the attack by the orcs to save time and because in terms of film time there was going to be another attack by orcs only moments later. And he failed to take advantage of the chance to show Legolas' superior skills (archery rather than drinking) as well as not deepening the mood he was aiming for even more by showing that now they had left Lorien they were in mortal peril again.

The point was a simple one. Davem - and others - accuse Jackson of including too much violence and action at the point of sacrificing other parts of the story. My inclusion of the above information was to show that indeed Jackson saw fit to cut some of violent action that JRRT wrote in the books. In this case you are partially correct - it would have been too close to another scene of violence - also written by JRRT in the books.

By the films end I do not think anyone was not unaware of the superior archery talents of Legolas. Jackson included several examples of that.

from myself

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

reply from Kath

The books are not the films, that is true, but you can't say that they films are not the books because they are based on them. If the film was to be considered completely separate from the books then not a scene, not a word, not an idea could have been taken from the books to aid in the making of the film.

A book and a film are two different things. That is a simple fact of reality. An orange may be the foundation for orange juice but a glass of juice and an orange off the tree are two different things.

Why does this point seem to aggravate Tolkien purists so much? Cannot you accept reality? Or would the concession of admitting they are two individual things then take away so many thousands of objections that you constantly and continually voice against the films?

I saw the LOTR play in Toronto. I did not like it in the least. Everything I did not like about was based on its existence as a play. Not because it did not follow the book enough or it failed to capture what the films had captured. it simply failed as a play ..............

in my humble opinion.

I would be wrong to castigate the LOTR play because of what it was not. Namely the books or the films.

But people here see absolutely nothing wrong with castigating the films and the man who made them because they are not something else.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

2- Tolkien bases his story on the idea of the Ring. What it is, how powerful it is, how it can control everyone who comes in contact with it, how it can tip the fate of the peoples of Middle-earth, and its history. Just when we have bought into the idea that this ring is the be all and end all of the everything, we then get introduced to a character who does not care about the ring, can wear it without being impacted by it in the least, cares nothing for it, and will not do anything to help with the central problem of the ring. Then the story moves on, leaving TB in his version of Disneyland, and nothing more happens with him. It is absolutely pointless.

But the Ring is not 'the be all & end all of everything. The TB episode is designed to show exactly that. Tom is beyond the Ring's power, & its his very nature, free from all desire, that puts him beyond it. 'He is' says Goldberry, meaning he is complete in himself, desires nothing, needs nothing to make him 'more' than he is. His songs are 'silly' because he is joy incarnate. Nothing can touch him. He laughs at Old Man Willow, at Barrow Wights, at the Ring itself. In many ways he is the most purely 'spiritual' character in the book. He is 'irritating' only to those who take life, & more importantly, themselves, too seriously. His power is joy & laughter. He laughs at everything & thus nothing can touch him, or gain power over him. He is necessary for that very reason. His appearance is like the appearance of the Star (Earendel) in Mordor:

Frodo sighed and was asleep almost before the words were spoken. Sam struggled with his own weariness, and he took Frodo's hand; and there he sat silent till deep night fell. Then at last, to keep himself awake, he crawled from the hiding-place and looked out. The land seemed full of creaking and cracking and sly noises, but there was no sound of voice or of foot. Far above the Ephel Duath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloudwrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his master's, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo's side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep.

The Star & Tom area expressions/manifestations of the same thing - transcendent joy untouched, & untouchable, by evil. There is hope that the Quest will succeed, & more than hope - Tom & the Star confirm to the Hobbits (& to the reader) that the Ring is not overwhelmingly powerful, that to some things it is nothing at all. This is essential to Tolkien's philosophy, & the underlying philosophy of the book.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by STW

But people here see absolutely nothing wrong with castigating the films and the man who made them because they are not something else.

You seem to have nothing wrong with castigating parts of the original LotR and the man who wrote them! (See your above post about Bombadil.)

I don't believe Bombadil was the worst visually. He certainly wouldn't have been Jackson's most ridiculous or worst visual character. Nothing could be worse than his atrociously butchered Mouth of Sauron.
But if you consider, the part that Jackson cut out was not only Bombadil, who may be somewhat ridiculous in appearance, but also Goldberry who, if we say Bombadil was the worst "visual" character, is probably one of the best characters, visually speaking. I personally think Eowyn was the prettiest woman on the set, but Goldberry, if correctly done, would have been more beautiful than her.

As for Bombadil himself - his costume was the sort that any costume designer would have loved to have made! Anyway, I would have loved to have made it.

(Fond memory here...My brother once drew a picture of Bombadil and put color to it...it was a very lighthearted, rather beautiful drawing. It was before I knew the books myself. I had never heard of Bombadil in my life. The picture depicted him smiling like the sun, one leg lifted in a merry leap, one hand holding a stick, and the other balancing his lilly leaves. In the corner of the picture, wide eyed and open mouthed, crouched Frodo and Sam, staring in wonder.)

Back on topic. Bombadil is childish. But he's not stupid or dumb. There's nothing wrong with being childish. Hobbits themselves are suppoesd to be childish. That was one huge mistake Jackons made - he made Frodo and Sam not childish enough.

As for his songs. (Another grin at a fond memory.) My brother (same one who drew the picture) once got two CDs from a friend for a birthday present. They were a collection of many of Tolkiens poems put to music. It was a wonderful collection. And track 3 of the first CD had all of Bombadil's song in it. My sister and I still sing them. Don't tell me it's not possible. Don't tell me it's not enchanting.

"Hop along my, merry friends, up the Withy-Windle
Tom's goin' on ahead, candles for to kindle!
Down west sinks the sun, soon you will be groping.
When the night shadows fall, then the door will open!
Out of the window pane, light will twinkle yellow.
Fear no alder black, heed no hoary willow!
Fear neither root nor bow, Tom goes on before you.
Hey now! Merry dol! We'll be waiting for you!"

And I wrote that out of memory just now, and I haven't heard the song for over three years.

Oh, yes. The songs are quite possible to do convincingly enough to make people love them for years and years.

As for his power over the Ring...deepens his character. Makes the reader more intriqued. Heck, it's a darn sight better than Faramir being twisted and perverted enough to take it and Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath with the intention of taking them all the way to Minas Tirith! The Ring was NOT as powerful and luring as Jackson made it to be!

I found my tongue, in case you didn't notice.

-- Folwren