Age change in Théoden

[MatthewM]

Why do you suppose Jackson made King Théoden (and in turn his son Théodred) appear about 20-30 years younger than Tolkien described him in the book?

It's probably some lame excuse such as not wanting him to be confused with Gandalf. I hate that kind of excuse. It infuriates me because that is the pathetic explanation he (PJ) gave for giving Boromir lighter hair even though he clearly should have had dark hair as Tolkien described. PJ claimed two dark haired men in the Fellowship would be confusing. Lame. What age group was the movie aimed at, again? (sarcasm)...

Anyway, I stray. Opinions on the age change?

[zxcvbn]

Well, the LOTR films do have a pretty large cast with dozens of characters. So The casual audience may have confusion in distinguishing two different white-haired, grey-bearded old men. Plus I don't think a 70-something actor could handle the physical requirements of Theoden's role.

[Sauron the White]

from MatthewM

Why do you suppose Jackson made King Théoden (and in turn his son Théodred) appear about 20-30 years younger than Tolkien described him in the book?

With all due respect Matt, it looks like it took you over five years to figure that one out so its obviously not a huge issue that prevented the films from being a success. Where does it say that the actor portraying Theoden has to be the same age as the character listed in the book? They were both older men. A movie and a book are two very different things.

So much of this is nitpicking at its worse. The more I read this type of stuff I want to see a SNL sketch like the ones they used to do about Trekkies at a a Star trek convention.

Cut to Saturday Night Live at a LORD OF THE THINGS convention:

"YEAH!!!! And what about all the errors in those stupid movies that were a disgrace to the memory of the sainted author"

" Yeah. Heres one. Booie Blahblah is actually 5 foot 9 inches tall in the book and the actor in that stupid movie is actuall 5 foot 10 inches!!!! Whats with that????"

"Thats nothing. Foeey Nannie is actually left-handed in the book but the stupid actor Hackson hired uses their right hand to do nearly everything!!!! Whats up with that????"

"I read in the Encyclopedia of THINGS that The Grand Poobah sits on a black throne made of petrified whale organs in the books but in that stupid movie the throne is dark brown and made of wood??? Whats up with that?????"

"Gosh thats lame. I looked in my three volume Atlas of the World of THINGS and found out that The kingdom of Spetem is suppose to be in the lower half of the hemisphere and rather warm but in one scene you can see the breath of one of the terrible actors!!!!! Whats up with that?????"

"That makes me sick. How about in the banquet scene at the Glittering Hall of Wrobel and you can clearly see that there are green peppers on the table!!! Green Peppers of all things!!!! I went home and checked the August 1984 issue of Amen Hun and there was an article by Dr. Verne Klemper who wrote about the botany of Wrobel. He never listed green peppers as one of the things you could grow there. How stupid are these people who write these films? How come they did not do any research to get it right?"

And so it goes on.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW, now you're getting insulting. This debate has never been about geek-trivia and you know it. I couldn't give a rodent's patootie whether somebody's hair color is 'correct'.

The issue (or one of many issues) is meddling with characters, and it's an essential aspect of Theoden's personality in his last weeks that he be elderly. His spirit is willing, but his flesh weak: something that PBW got precisely backwards. His feats on the Pelennor are supposed to be *amazing* to the reader/audience, given his geriatricity.

(Besides, you don't have to cast an elderly actor to play an old man!)

[Sauron the White]

There is a great line from the film MY BLUE HEAVEN. Steve Martin says "everybody thinks they have a sense of humor but they don't."

No insult intended. If we cannot smile at our own foibles, we are taking ourselves too seriously.

and WCH - why would you use a word like insult to unfairly and wrongly characterize my humorous post and then you yourself use a negative insulting term like GEEK? Perhaps I hit rather close to the mark... or too close for you?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Why not just take the question at face value and try to sincerely answer it? There's no need to launch into ad hominem and straw man. The guy doesn't like the movies as much as you and I do; give him a fair shake anyway and discuss his question.

It's a good question, and one that I haven't seen asked much at all. I think there was definitely an urge to play younger and give Theoden a more active role. It allows him to swing sword at Grima, power-walk the length and breadth of Helm's Deep before the battle, and go get wounded while impaling Uruk-Hai at the gate.

Of course, it also makes it more credible for Theoden to be Eowyn and Eomer's uncle; it arguably (I said ARGUABLY, mind you!) allows him to relate to Eowyn better.

And thematically, it doesn't allow Theoden to focus on his age and how that might hinder him; instead he concerns himself with boosting morale and strengthening his people.

None of those reasons are airtight by any means and all can be criticized, but those are a few that occurred to me.

[Gwathagor]

I think it's important to Theoden's character for him to be an old fella. It makes his situation (as an apparently weak king, the last of his line) more pathetic and desperate, his courage more dramatic, and his ultimate redemption through glorious death in battle all the more important.

[A Little Green]

I agree that in Théoden's character, the age is an important issue, and thus find it odd that it should be changed. What would have happened, I wonder, if they had decided for instance to make Éomer middle-aged? (Ok, a lousy example, but who cares.)

I guess the reason had to do with making him look different than the other old greybeards in the film. However, I do NOT find that a valid reason for changing his age.

Indeed, now that I think about it, it can't have been about the actor doing the role. Bernard Hill was, after all, around 60 years old when the films were released (if I have it correctly), so I can't imagine the filmmakers having any difficulties, had they wished to do so, in making him look older.

By the way,

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

His spirit is willing, but his flesh weak: something that PBW got precisely backwards.

sorry to ask silly questions but what is PBW? It might be my brain just won't work right now, or else I'm just not learned enough.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Sorry- shorthand for Peter-Boyens-Walsh.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

With all due respect Matt, it looks like it took you over five years to figure that one out so its obviously not a huge issue that prevented the films from being a success.

With due respect to the board, I will not say the word that I would love to say right now, directly to you, "Sauron the White" (that makes sense, BTW...) Rest assured it would be insulting. Anyway, NO, it did not take me over five years to figure that one out, so how about you stop jumping to conclusions. I have been well aware of the fact that Théoden's age was changed.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Where does it say that the actor portraying Theoden has to be the same age as the character listed in the book? They were both older men. A movie and a book are two very different things.

And where does it say that the actor should not be portrayed like he was in the books? A movie and a book- two different things? Oh my, shock shock!

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

So much of this is nitpicking at its worse. The more I read this type of stuff I want to see a SNL sketch like the ones they used to do about Trekkies at a a Star trek convention.

I did not see anything comical about your post. In fact, I believe it was corny at its best.

And to clear things up - I think Bernard Hill did a brilliant job as Théoden. I wasn't commenting on his portrayal only his outward appearance which I do not have much of a problem with, only a little one - and I was wondering if anybody thought the same or had something interesting to say.

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Why not just take the question at face value and try to sincerely answer it? There's no need to launch into ad hominem and straw man. The guy doesn't like the movies as much as you and I do; give him a fair shake anyway and discuss his question.

Agreed. However you have it wrong - I do love the movies, they are my favorite films of all time. I just have problems with a lot of changes that PJ made. People who sleep with the films such as Sauron the White seems to do could tell me until they are blue in the face the reason for the changes made, but I do not buy most of them.

[Sauron the White]

from MatthewM

With due respect to the board, I will not say the word that I would love to say right now, directly to you, "Sauron the White" (that makes sense, BTW...) Rest assured it would be insulting. Anyway, NO, it did not take me over five years to figure that one out, so how about you stop jumping to conclusions. I have been well aware of the fact that Théoden's age was changed.

If you have something to say, please, get it off your chest, step up to the mic and say it loud and proud. I am not a child and can take it. Just so nobody jumps to any conclusions, please provide me with a link to where you brought this up five years ago so we can put that charge to rest and move on.

And where does it say that the actor should not be portrayed like he was in the books?

Perhaps you are inexperienced or very young and do not know how these things work so allow me to help you acquire some basic understanding. You ask me to show you a negative..... something that does NOT happen. You will discover that one cannot prove a negative. In point of fact, and it has already been brought out here by others, Bernard Hill was an actor approaching sixty years old - fifty-eight to be exact. At the time of his death in the books, I believe Theoden was seventy-two. Both were indeed older men in the last section of thie lives. And Hill did portray an older man, enfeebled by Saruman, who was facing the challenges of his own doubts about his rule and place with his ancestors who he believed were superior to him.

I did not see anything comical about your post. In fact, I believe it was corny at its best

Thats okay . People often find it very difficult to laugh or even smile at themselves and their own foibles. You would not be the first to have that charteristic. Its okay.

People who sleep with the films such as Sauron the White seems to do could tell me until they are blue in the face the reason for the changes made, but I do not buy most of them.

I do not have to spend lengthy time telling you why the changes were made and certainly do not want to turn blue. Its obvious why the changes were made to anyone with an IQ above 75 --- a book and a film are two different things with different constructions, characteristics, demands and ways to tell a story. That should be obvious and a point which is made in mere seconds.

And I have never slept with the films. Not a very rewarding pasttime I would think.

The key question here regarding your post is a simple one: did the character of Theoden work effectively in the context of the film? You seem to feel it did since you describe the performance this way

I think Bernard Hill did a brilliant job as Théoden

And I stand firmly in agreement with your wise assessment.

I do love the movies, they are my favorite films of all time

And again, I stand firmly in agreement with that assessment as well.

I just have problems with a lot of changes that PJ made.

You would have to define your qualifying term "a lot" but I too have problems with some of the film changes as well. Jackson is not perfect, he makes mistakes causing his work to be flawed and not as strong as it otherwise could have been - in my opinion.

Overall however, the films are a spectacular achievement.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

If you have something to say, please, get it off your chest, step up to the mic and say it loud and proud. I am not a child and can take it. Just so nobody jumps to any conclusions, please provide me with a link to where you brought this up five years ago so we can put that charge to rest and move on.

I said what I needed to say. However, what I meant there was that - I do not think vulgarity would be welcome at the Downs. Vulgarity it would be. I am sure you are not alien to such a thing, acting like you do, correct?

Perhaps you are inexperienced or very young and do not know how these things work so allow me to help you acquire some basic understanding. You ask me to show you a negative..... something that does NOT happen. You will discover that one cannot prove a negative. In point of fact, and it has already been brought out here by others, Bernard Hill was an actor approaching sixty years old - fifty-eight to be exact. At the time of his death in the books, I believe Theoden was seventy-two. Both were indeed older men in the last section of thie lives. And Hill did portray an older man, enfeebled by Saruman, who was facing the challenges of his own doubts about his rule and place with his ancestors who he believed were superior to him.

Pray tell what you are trying to preach. They could have made Hill's hair grey and his beard longer. They chose not to - therefore, although he was old, he was not accurately portrayed appearance wise - I said nothing about character wise.

Thats okay . People often find it very difficult to laugh or even smile at themselves and their own foibles. You would not be the first to have that charteristic. Its okay.

I simply find you a nuisance. There is nothing to laugh at - I proposed a question and expected members to post their thoughts - not preach on how good the movies are, like you always seem to do.

I do not have to spend lengthy time telling you why the changes were made and certainly do not want to turn blue. Its obvious why the changes were made to anyone with an IQ above 75 --- a book and a film are two different things with different constructions, characteristics, demands and ways to tell a story. That should be obvious and a point which is made in mere seconds.

Wow, good one. Again...shocker.

Overall however, the films are a spectacular achievement.

Who said that they weren't? Wow, again, off the subject.

[Sauron the White]

MatthewM ... my initial point to you was a very simple one. I said that your observation about the age of Theoden could not have been too damaging to the films success since it took you five years to come up with the point. You said I was mistaken, that it had not taken you five years. I then asked you very clearly

please provide me with a link to where you brought this up five years ago so we can put that charge to rest and move on.

Of course, you failed to produce this which confirms my original suspicion that this is something that just dawned on you and is not really a very serious problem with the films. After all, it sat there for five years.

I have no idea what you are alluding to about vulgarity. Why would you need to be vulgar when we are discussing something like this?

You claim that my repeated statement that a book is one thing while a film is quite another is something that you well know. In fact you say

Wow, good one. Again...shocker

Your attempt at some level of sarcasm fails because of one very damning fact. It was you, in your original post, who said

Why do you suppose Jackson made King Théoden (and in turn his son Théodred) appear about 20-30 years younger than Tolkien described him in the book?

It is you - MatthewM - who brought up the comparison on what the book says and what the movie shows and then casts negativity upon the movie because, in your opinion, the movie changed something.

If you know that books are one thing and films are another, why are you comparing two very different things?

And even now, in your very latest post, you still continue to do it even though you maintain that you know the difference:

They could have made Hill's hair grey and his beard longer. They chose not to - therefore, although he was old, he was not accurately portrayed appearance wise

Accurately portrayed????? By what standard of measurement are you judging accuracy? Obviously from the holding up of the book to the film. You claim you know the difference and attack me for constantly reminding people of it but you slip back into error even now.

Its interesting to note that your assesment of age difference was off by many years. Bernard Hill was 14 years younger than Theoden. Your high end estimate of 30 years difference was off by a factor of over 100%. Even though your comparison serves no point, you were not even correct in the factual assumption you made. Even that was incorrect.

As a personal aside to you, its sad that you could not notice my closing comments in my post to you since I was attempting to show you that there is common ground between us. I agreed with several of your statements and even went further agreeing that Jackson was not perfect and has flaws in his films.

I have never met you or talked to you or exchanged any mails with you. However, you do strike me as either a much younger person who has some insecurity problems or a person with some anger issues. You can post any way you decide to post. I would think a little less personal anger would go much further to making your point about salient issues.

[Gwathagor]

MatthewM: I, too, find StW a nuisance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

MatthewM: I, too, find StW a nuisance.

I think you're being slightly unfair there - STW judges the quality of the movies based on how much money they've made & how many people know of them.

This is a valid approach - its fairly obvious that if you apply the same criteria in judging people you find that those who are rich & famous are in every way superior to those who are poor & unknown ...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

There's no need for this silliness. I've just been on another website which allows comments and the aggression there was pitiful to see. Let's talk nicely.

I for one have no problem with the appearance of film-Théoden. To me, Bernard Hill was a perfectly fine old man to play the part. I would have thought that, out of everyone, it would be our older Downers who saw such differences in age.

The issue of Frodo's age (as well as his differences in age with the other hobbits) seems like a more interesting topic.

There are far more annoying things about the films. Even if I loved every part of the films, though, I wouldn't mind one bit about Théoden's 'youth'.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

I think you're being slightly unfair there - STW judges the quality of the movies based on how much money they've made & how many people know of them.

This is a valid approach - its fairly obvious that if you apply the same criteria in judging people you find that those who are rich & famous are in every way superior to those who are poor & unknown ...

Unless that was sarcasm, I find your comment on StW both unfounded and insulting. I could counter by saying that many purists tend to judge people's level of competency(both in general and with regards to Tolkien lore) based on whether or not they support the movies. I remember readng purist comments like '80% of movie viewers are Aragorn/Legolas fangirls, it'll died down eventually' and 'there's no point teaching class to the classless' on various internet forums in past years.

Worst of all are those purists who pretend to be guardians of JRRT's legacy and adopt a patronising tone towards movieists, only to embarrass themselves by showing that they often know less than the movieists(not here, places like the Tolkien forum).

Now I guess I'm a nuisance for purists too.

Now back on topic. Like Eomer of the Rohirrim said, Bernard Hill is perfectly fine as Theoden. He's still an old man, and his acting performance more than makes up for the difference in appearance. BTW, did the books ever say that Theoden had grey hair?

EDIT: BTW, davem, my post may have seemed too inflammatory. I have nothing personal against you; I just thought your criticism of STW was unfair and was defending him.

[A Little Green]

Excuse me, all of you, but I must say I just hate the way so many threads seem to end up in the purist/movieist -debate. I see the debate as entirely pointless and indeed ridiculous. As an outside watcher, I find it weird that a question as simple and neutral as Théoden's age should be transformed into insults, anger, and evil jokes.

I, for my part, think Bernard Hill was an excellent Théoden, and the role was nice and whole. Anyway, the question I think was not on whether Bernard Hill succeeded as Théoden but rather why wasn't he made older. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

BTW, did the books ever say that Theoden had grey hair?

Not exactly grey, but yes, it does say he had white hair and beard. Here's the passage:

Upon it sat a man so bent with age that he seemed almost a dwarf; but his white hair was long and thick and fell in great braids from beneath a thin golden circlet set upon his brow.

[Sauron the White]

from A Little Green

Anyway, the question I think was not on whether Bernard Hill succeeded as Théoden but rather why wasn't he made older. Simple as that.

And why should he be made to be older when Hill as Theoden was already depicted as old?

The implication does not even have to be surmised as the answer is directly in the first post by MatthewM to begin this thread

Why do you suppose Jackson made King Théoden (and in turn his son Théodred) appear about 20-30 years younger than Tolkien described him in the book?

It right there clear as crystal. The poster is comparing the Theoden of the book to the Theoden of the movie. That is his standard and that is the basis upon which he frames his question.

One cannot judge the qualities and success of one medium by applying standards
and qualities of quite another. That is fundamentally flawed and unfair. It serves no end or purpose but one: to continue a debate which you yourself characterize as pointless and ridiculous.

In point of fact, the real question is indeed whether Theoden as portrayed in the film worked in the context of the medium of film.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One cannot judge the qualities and success of one medium by applying standards
and qualities of quite another. That is fundamentally flawed and unfair

Balderdash! (pronounced to rhyme with 'pullfit').

It's just a threadbare excuse with which to counter all criticism of the films' many failings. Rot. An adaptation's success as an adaptation is fair game.

If you want to give some substance to this nebulous axiom, StW, then tell us *why* this different medium requires this change. Go on, tell us. Otherwise it's just empty handwaving.

[Gwathagor]

StW: feel free to start a new thread which deals with, as you put it, "the real question".

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I asked you before, and asked davem also, but you failed to reply. So I ask again. Where can you cite an objective and authoritative source on film who will tell us that the standard to judge a films quality or success is its slavish adherence to the book from which it is adapted?

Where is this found?

What film expert or film critic maintains this absurdity?

You guys do make up your own rules as you go along.

And why the deterioration of civility? You clearly now want to use the more base term for male cow drippings

Balderdash! (pronounced to rhyme with 'pullfit').

MatthewM has to use terms like "hate" and says he would love to resort to vulgarity.

Vulgarity it would be.

Cannot we reason together like civilized persons?

[Meriadoc1961]

I, for one, smiled when reading the SNL sketch, and I have had my differences with Sauron the White regarding the books v. the movie.

I admit, I had not really given this much thought regarding the age of Theoden in the movie. In hingsight, I guess he maybe should have been older.

What I found more disturbing was the total distortion of the ages of the hobbits. Frodo was supposed to be considerably older than the other hobbits, and yet he was the youngest in the films. I do like the films, but I just did not get the necessity of making Frodo the youngest.

Merry

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

WCH - I asked you before, and asked davem also, but you failed to reply. So I ask again. Where can you cite an objective and authoritative source on film who will tell us that the standard to judge a films quality or success is its slavish adherence to the book from which it is adapted?

Honestly, I've yet to hear any pro-movie argument from you that didn't consist of 'They made a lot of money, a lot of people saw them & they won 3,759,3783,798,439 Oscars.'. The only criteria for 'success' you admit is numbers.

There is another (&, some of us would argue, far more important) criteria - & that is faithfulness to the source. These movies are not at all faithful to Tolkien's original work. They cannot be called 'adaptations' - & this is where your argument crashes & burns: the changes were not made out of necessity because of the difference between book & film. They were made purely & simply (whatever nonsense the screenwriters spout) because the writers thought they could improve on the original. What they did was take whatever bits they liked from Tolkien, changed whatever they didn't like - for no other reason than they didn't like it. Unfortunately, the main reason for this is that they didn't actually understand the book.

That is how they fail - as adaptations of Tolkien's work.

[zxcvbn]

Uh oh, another purist-movieist argument. I am weary of this....

Originally Posted by davem

Honestly, I've yet to hear any pro-movie argument from you that didn't consist of 'They made a lot of money, a lot of people saw them & they won 3,759,3783,798,439 Oscars.'. The only criteria for 'success' you admit is numbers.

How about winning awards for best adapted screenplay, and the love of the majority of LOTR fans?

Originally Posted by davem

There is another (&, some of us would argue, far more important) criteria - & that is faithfulness to the source. These movies are not at all faithful to Tolkien's original work. They cannot be called 'adaptations'

They are adaptations in the sense that they are drawn directly from an existing source material. And if you've watched any movie that was based on a book in the past 20 years you'll find that considering the Hollywood standard for book adaptations, the LOTR films were very very faithful.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by davem

- & this is where your argument crashes & burns: the changes were not made out of necessity because of the difference between book & film. They were made purely & simply (whatever nonsense the screenwriters spout) because the writers thought they could improve on the original. What they did was take whatever bits they liked from Tolkien, changed whatever they didn't like - for no other reason than they didn't like it. Unfortunately, the main reason for this is that they didn't actually understand the book.

That's just your opinion. As for the changes, some were certainly made due to creative license, but many were made for genuine reasons(for example, Tolkien himself stated that Bombadil wasn't important to the narrative). You may disregard STW's argument that books and movies are different media but it holds true nevertheless. And IMHO the writers did improve on Tolkien in a few aspects; like, say, Theoden's speech at the Pelennor.

Originally Posted by davem

That is how they fail - as adaptations of Tolkien's work.

No, they don't. Even if they fail the 'faithfulness to plot' test(and IMO they don't), they excel in other aspects, like maintaining the look and feel(Sets, props, costumes) and the music(Howard Shore's score) of Middle-earth.

Having contributed my two cents, I don't think anybody's opinions are going to change, so it would be best to start a new thread from here on.

[Sauron the White]

Why do you continue to harp on the same point when you ignore a polite request to provide an objective and authoritative source to lay that foundation?

The success of a film is generally judged by one thing over all others: how profitable was the film.

This may come as a shock to some here, but the motion picture industry is a business. The purpose of business is profit. Making a movie is not painting a picture in your part time in your basement and then displaying it at the local townhall hoping it matches someones sofa. It is a business. Pure and simple above all else.

The fact is that the three LOTR films wildly exceeded anyones hopes for profit and turned into three of the most successful films of all time in revenue production. In addition to the $3 billion they took in at the box office, they produced another $1billion in ancillary income for a total of $4 billion US dollars. This on a total investment of $290 mil to make and $140 mil to market the films. That is ratio of nearly 10 to 1 in return for dollars invested.

That is the scale that the rest of the world uses to judge a commercial motion picture. You can like it or hate it. But that is the scale.

However, the film industry also keeps track of film success in two other ways. The first is critical reviews. All three LOTR films were among the most positive reviewed by professional film critics for the years they were released. Rottentomatoes.com can provide you with the exact numbers.

In addition to that, the film industry as a busines and professional association has a series of awards to bestow on films that they feel are particularly succesful by artistic standards respected within the industry. The Academy Awards are one example and the best known. LOTR won 17 of those including the highest award for ROTK as Best Film of the Year.

But you know all this.
But you refuse to accept all this.

Instead, you cling to a fiction you created in your own mind about faithfulness of adaption. Slavish page by page duplication from book to screen.

Again, yet again, for the umpteenth time, I ask you not for your opinion on this standard, but please show me where some other objective authority on film says that faithfulness of a books adaption into film is the way we measure a films success

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Isn't that a bit like saying the best beers are those which sell the most? I don't think many here are denying the film's success. The quality is the issue. That is not measured by profit.

But, as usual, it's veered off topic.

[Sauron the White]

Eomer
what we are talking about here is what standard is used to measure success and quality.

In the film business, there plenty of books which support the three I have listed. There are plenty of authoritave websties which provide measurements for these. They are referred to in discussion by film professionals. I have justified my standards and have shown that they are the standards accepted by the film profession, film critics and those on the business end of film.

It is interesting to note that these three measurements do not usually go together. Plenty of films make a profit, but few score so highly in all three areas. Quality is something professional critics look for. They found it in spades in all three LOTR films. Just check rottentomatoes.com for proof of that. I support my reasoning with fact. Not just my opinion. Quality is also measured by the community of professionals who make films in annual industry awards. They lavished many awards on the LOTR films including many of their highest. That is not my opinion. It is fact.
This is not just one measurement of success and quality. It is three. And three that often do not go together.

Davem and William Cloud Hicklin claim that the standard that counts is none of these. Instead they would have you accept the idea that a fim should be judged by how faithful it was adapted from page to screen. How slavish was every word and every scene followed.

I have repeatedly asked them to provide an objective and authoritative source who knows film who can support that idea. That is what is happening here.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

With all due respect to those critics, they've seen a lot of bad films! The Lord of the Rings is way more awesome than most other existing movies, so of course they are going to get excellent critical reviews from those in the profession. For me, the quality is not very high all the time.

I guess I'm in the middle of this argument, which is funny because I usually love to take sides.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Where can you cite an objective and authoritative source on film who will tell us that the standard to judge a films quality or success is its slavish adherence to the book from which it is adapted?

Nowhere. The phrase 'slavish adherence' exists only in your own equivocating postings: words you shove into our mouths to create a strawman, which you then compound by an inversion of the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Anything may be judged on whether it satisfies the excellence particular to its class. The excellence particular to adaptation is how well it adapts its object from one environment to another. This requires no authoritative citation because it's blindingly obvious to anyone who is possessed of rudimentary English and basic logic. I suppose I could cite the dictionary, but I'll assume you already know what the word means.

Now, let's stop this Osgiliation and get back to the issue you have been squirming so desperately to change the subject away from- your assertion that since movies are not books, any and all changes from one to the other are justifiable. Are you claiming that a film adaptation has no relation back to its original source? I challenged you to explain precisely what it is about the nature of cinema which mandates changing Theoden's age. You still haven't responded. You have no justification? So this postulate of yours really is empty handwaving, a transparent attempt to whitewash PJ's incompetence?

Come on, we're still waiting.

[Sauron the White]

If you have one ounce of credibility beyond your own personal beliefs, you can provide some objective and authoritative support for the imposition of this standard of adaption.

You cannot do it.

You are attempting to rewrite the rules of common sense.

You want to judge the characteristics and success of one thing by the characteristics and success of a different thing. That is not only unfair but is intellectually dishonest.

I think you and davem have had it your way here for so long that you really do not know what is happening. I probably am a nuisance as others have claimed. Those who bring up disturbing facts and refuse to accept the dogmatic irrational beliefs of a small sub group are always a nuisance.

If you do not like my characterization of slavish adherence, then remove those words. Allow me to do it for you. Now we have

Again, yet again, for the umpteenth time, I ask you not for your opinion on this standard, but please show me where some other objective authority on film says that faithfulness of a books adaption into film is the way we measure a films success

You do not like the standard accepted by the film industry of box office revenues.
You do not like the standard accepted by the film industry of reviews of professional critics.
You do not like the standard accepted by the film industry of professional peer awards.

All these are established and accepted in the film business.

If you want to substitute something that is completely different, something that attempts to completely rewrite the rules of defining success, the obligation is upon you to support that with objective and authoritative opinion other than your own.

I am not giving you my opinion of what constitutes success and quality. I am citing the standard and widely accepted measurements of what is taken for gospel within the film industry. I am defining my arguments by what is accepted for the industry.

The onus is now upon you and your like to come up with an objective and authoritative sources to support this ridiculous substitution.

Of course, you have already said the most important thing here. You cannot.

By your own words:

Anything may be judged on whether it satisfies the excellence particular to its class

.

You do not judge a cinderblock by the characteristics and measurements that would apply to an orange. You do not judge a symphony by the characteristics and measurements that would apply to a building design. You do not judge a film by the characteristics and measurements that would apply to a book.

And if you are then going to tell me that you are not judging a book or a film but an adaption, that has already been done by professionals who know film and know writing. They are called the Screenwriters division of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They nominated two of the three LOTR films for Best Adapted Screenplay. ROTK won and was given the award.

These are both professional writers and people in the film industry. And you are........ who exactly that you are substituting your opinion for theirs?

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Why do you suppose Jackson made King Théoden (and in turn his son Théodred) appear about 20-30 years younger than Tolkien described him in the book?

It's probably some lame excuse such as not wanting him to be confused with Gandalf. I hate that kind of excuse. It infuriates me because that is the pathetic explanation he (PJ) gave for giving Boromir lighter hair even though he clearly should have had dark hair as Tolkien described. PJ claimed two dark haired men in the Fellowship would be confusing. Lame. What age group was the movie aimed at, again? (sarcasm)...

Anyway, I stray. Opinions on the age change?

Perhaps to provide a stronger visual contrast between "healed" Theoden and decrepit Theoden?

[davem]

Personally, I don't have a problem with changes per se. I have a problem with changes for the worse, & changes that are nonsensical. The splitting up of Frodo & Sam was idiotic as well as unnecessary & came nowhere near the power of the Cirith Ungol episode in the book. And let's not forget the stupidity of the charge of the Rohirrim on Pelennor Fields in the movie (anyone who doesn't think it was stupid should do a little research into what happens when cavalry charge into pike). If you compare the movie to the episode in the book, where the Rohirrim come out of nowhere & smash into the enemy's flank, catching them unawares - with no chance to prepare for the assault - you will see how smart Tolkien the old soldier was & how dumb Boyens et al were.

Is one not allowed to dislike these movies? Is one not allowed to prefer the books? Can one not disagree with critics? Or not be so in awe of the almighty dollar that one couldn't care less how much money they made?

They're the movie equivalent of celery - lots of people think its delicious, its good for you & makes a lot of money for farmers & all that & etc, etc, etc. I, on the other hand, know that celery is the work of Satan, & no-one in their right mind would chose to touch the vile stuff with a barge-pole, let alone eat it. And sorry - even if every single human being on the planet swore that it was the closest thing to divine ambrosia, & kept the world economy from collapse - I would still want to napalm every single piece of it.

Or to put it another way, I do not care what a bunch of critics say about the movies. I don't care how much money they made; they are still typical dumbed down Hollywood nonsense.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Is one not allowed to dislike these movies?

Yes.

Is one not allowed to prefer the books?

Yes.

Can one not disagree with critics?

Yes.

All I ask is you judge the film by the characteristics and standards that are applicable to film as a medium. Do not compare it to other things and pronounce judgment as to if it is better or worse. Because it is not other things. It is what it is with its own qualities, characteristics, and elements all unto itself.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

All I ask is you judge the film by the characteristics and standards that are applicable to film as a medium. Do not compare it to other things and pronounce judgment as to if it is better or worse. Because it is not other things. It is what it is with its own qualities, characteristics, and elements all unto itself.

That's exactly what I do. I judge 'X' in the movie as bad (Galadriel's 'Smallest person' nonsense, the Rohirrim charging straight in to pike, or down a 60 degree scree slope, etc, etc) or good (er...um..) as a movie. I'd say exactly the same things about the movie even if it was an original work. That 'smallest person' line is cringeworthy, horses can't charge down a slope like that without ending up in a nasty bloody heap at the bottom, & cavalry don't charge pike 'cos its suicide.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This thread is going in the same circles that a number of others have already taken - it seems that some posters have an axe to grind and will argue the exact same points on every thread. Therefore I am closing it until someone PMs me that they have something new and vital to say on the original topic of the thread.

People - and I mean the main combatants here - take your repetitive posts to PM. I am getting very tired of reading the same stuff all over again. If the same two to four people don't tire of writing and reading the same arguments, then you may consider starting a private forum where you can argue to your heart's content.

I will nip any future repetitions of the same arguments in the bud - for the sake of the rest of our members, who would like to join in discussions that are carried on without rancour. If you cannot learn from repeated admonitions by administrators and moderators and continue to hijack threads for your own arguments, you may have to learn by the (temporary, hopefully) loss of posting privileges.