Greatest sin of Peter Jackson

[Sauron the White]

Of late I have been debating with some here in various threads concerning the films and the books. One thing kept coming up in posts from people who tend to not say very good things about the films: and that is that Peter Jackson had the gall to think he could do it beter and make improvements over the book. For the last month I have been laboring under the belief that Purists felt this was Jacksons greatest transgression.

I was mistaken.

The greatest transgression of Peter Jackson in the eyes of book purists is a far more sinister one. He was successful. His version of LOTR has supplanted the book version in the minds of millions of people around the world.

Consider this: In 1978 Ralph Bakshi made a cartoon film based on about half of the LOTR. It did not do very well, faded from the scene and failed to spawn any real buzz in LOTR. After the Bakshi film vanished from the theaters, swept away like so much popcorn under the theater seats, the books were still there like 200 foot letters sculpted into the side of a mountain. Forgive me for mixing my metaphors.

The same could also be said for the Rankin-Bass attempts at THE HOBBIT and the RETURN OF THE KING both released direct to TV.

But look at the Jackson adaptions and what they have achieved. Each film cracked the All Time Worldwide Box Office charts in the top five of all time. As newer films have been released, FOTR, has dropped out of the top ten, but it was there for a time. ROTK is still #2 taking in over a billion dollars. In fact, all three films have grossed an astounding $4 billion dollars in both film receipts an other rights an sales. Thats $4 billion dollars.

The three films were very well reviewed by professional critics, something which the normal crowd pleasing blockbuster does not garner. And then there were the many industry awards capped by the eleven for eleven including Best Film for ROTK.

And unlike the Bakshi films or the two TV attempts, they still live and are with us in the minds of the hundreds of millions who have seen them. And I have not even delved into the area of all the merchandise that was spun off from the films keeping those characters alive on shelves around the world.

Lets face it folks - more people have seen the film version of LOTR than have read the books. And that is the great sin of Peter Jackson. He was so successful that purists despise it that LOTR is now thought of as a film in the minds of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Lets face it folks - more people have seen the film version of LOTR than have read the books. And that is the great sin of Peter Jackson. He was so successful that purists despise it that LOTR is now thought of as a film in the minds of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure PJ's cheque is in the post for you, along with the signed photo & stuff....

Howsumever...I don't 'dispise' Jackson. I admire the effort & dedication of PJ & all who worked on the movies. Unfortunately, Jackson seems either not to have understood Tolkien's work, or not to have cared. The movies are typical Hollywood fare - action adventure movies, nice looking but overblown. I sat through RotK on Sunday, just I couldn't find anything else to watch & it passed a few hours & I didn't throw anything at the screen. They're ok - for what they are. There's no depth, they don't challenge the viewer, but I don't expect that from Hollywood anyway.

I'm sure that 'Lord of the Rings' is now thought of as a film rather than a book by millions of people. I daresay there are some people out there who think its a radio series, some who think its a poster, some who think its an action figure franchise (& for all I know some who think its the name of the current Emperor of planet Tharg). Though what that has to do with the price of fish I don't know.

What I do know is that some readers genuinely dislike the movies (I'd perhaps genuinely dislike them myself, if I could summon up enough energy to feel anything for them) & all the arguments about how successful PJ was, & how much money the movies made or how much he 'improved' on the original are going to make exactly no difference to them.

If you really think that the only reason readers don't like the movies is jealousy then I can only think that you haven't actaully read what those who dislike them have written.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... Jackson has never sent me so much as a penny, nor any autographed pictures or any memorabillia of any kind. Although I really would like the scale model of Grond if he is so inclined.

[Macalaure]

I would say it was a combination of the two, Jackson's success and his "improvements".

Sure, if the movie trilogy would have been without success, the Purists wouldn't have cared. However, of course you're right, the movie version now has supplanted the book version in the minds of many, and there are even more who have seen the movies but never bothered to pick up the books. But I think all this would be much less of an issue to the Purists if the version people take from Jackson would be closer to the original - especially in spirit, not so much in plot and character details. I doubt they would complain had a sufficiently accurate version replaced the image of people. I mean, why should they? It would only have made their favourite story more popular. That this had been accomplished through a different (and less deep) medium than written word is maybe sad, but one can't blame Jackson for that.

But, since the spirit is quite different in many parts, all those people now live with a more or less wrong impression of the Lord of the Rings. It's not exactly the Purists' favourite story which gained popularity (though it did, too, since there are plenty of people who did pick up the Books after seeing the films). I can easily understand how some Tolkien Purists don't exactly enjoy seeing this new image, not simply because it is popular, but because it is popular and wrong.

[alatar]

I'm going to disagree - didn't see that coming, did ya? Peter Jackson's work was popular, but so were bell-bottom jeans and the BeeGees. You can buy the trilogy and movie items at discount. PJ did a wonderful job, but the movies, with some exceptions, don't have the same sticking power as do the books - or at least that's what the current data indicates (and I'm making that data up from whole cloth). Will you be watching them in 35 years (assuming the obvious)? Will you do this yearly as I do with the books? I haven't watched the movies since I wrote the last post for the SbS, but that's because I was going through the movies for 18 months on a weekly basis, and so need a little break. I did watch them on TV when they were shown, but then again, the movies' competition wasn't stiff.

Animal House was a very popular movie (won the People's Choice Award in 1979) for its time and has become part of our (American) culture, yet there are those with whom I work (younger) who've never seen it, and have no idea what my "Faber College" T-shirt even refers to (note that the shirt was so on sale - when did the movie get re-released? - that I could have bought more expensive paper towels).

Again, PJ did well, but let's let a little time for the body to cool before comparing its popularity with the books.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar - I do not disagree with the main points you make here. My claim is NOT that the films will last forever and forever supplant the books. I do not do very well predicting the future since the Entrails R US store went out of business. My point is that now, right here in the present, things given what they are today, there is much resentment among Purists that the films have, for now, supplanted the books in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. Jackson was too successful for them.

Does anbody really care about what was correct or wrong about the Bakshi adaption? You just do not hear much about that? And does anybody really care about the Rankin-Bass TV adaptions if THE HOBBIT and ROTK? But mention the movies here - and on many other sites - and you get a real debate and temperatures can get a bit heated.

Yes, lots of time has passed since the first three adaptions and they are out of sight and out of mind. I admit that. But they also were not very successful and did not threaten to supplant the books in the public mind. And I do think that is a factor -- heck, its my thesis.

I truly believe that if the 3 Jackson adaptions had merely been moderate successes making little more money back than their cost, we would not be talking about it several years later. But we are.

[Kath]

I truly believe that if the 3 Jackson adaptions had merely been moderate successes making little more money back than their cost, we would not be talking about it several years later. But we are.

And that's a good thing. The books are old and they are classics, and many younger people are put off by the idea of reading something like that. The films coming out were a blessing to things Tolkien-based, especially to sites like this, as there was a sudden influx of new members who had either just been introduced to Tolkien or who had just had their old interest renewed.

To say that Purists were jealous is an odd statement to make though. How can you be jealous of the films when you sit with the book in your hands and know you have the better version? The films were not bad, I greatly enjoyed them (aside from a few glaring annoyances), especially FotR which I felt captured more of the magic of the books than the other two films did.

The acceptance of those who had only ever seen the films by those who had been reading the books for however many years shows that there isn't jealousy. Instead it gives the old-timers an opportunity to introduce newbies to the origins of these films they love.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Alatar - I do not disagree with the main points you make here. My claim is NOT that the films will last forever and forever supplant the books. I do not do very well predicting the future since the Entrails R US store went out of business. My point is that now, right here in the present, things given what they are today, there is much resentment among Purists that the films have, for now, supplanted the books in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. Jackson was too successful for them.

And I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think that you have data to back up the hypothesis that (as I see it): Tolkien fanatics miffed by popularity of PJ films.

Do we even have poll results, and if so, are those exclusive to the Downs, which by chance or design may contain a higher than normal concentration of rabid anti-movie-ites?

Does anbody really care about what was correct or wrong about the Bakshi adaption? You just do not hear much about that? And does anybody really care about the Rankin-Bass TV adaptions if THE HOBBIT and ROTK? But mention the movies here - and on many other sites - and you get a real debate and temperatures can get a bit heated.

You see B (and a whole lot of that in recent weeks) and assume A. How many persons have ready access to the Bakshi/R-B films or have even watched them? When was the last time that they were on TV? One can discuss them here, but that would require the much pulling of teeth as, from experience, not many kept up with the dissection of the PJ EE DVDs, which are available (at discount) and are on free TV. And yet...

Yes, lots of time has passed since the first three adaptions and they are out of sight and out of mind. I admit that. But they also were not very successful and did not threaten to supplant the books in the public mind. And I do think that is a factor -- heck, its my thesis.

Different world back then, back when the best you could do was VHS, if that. Now, the DVDs are available shortly after the movie is released so you can view it multiple times and pick out every little gaff and post it on YouTube.

I truly believe that if the 3 Jackson adaptions had merely been moderate successes making little more money back than their cost, we would not be talking about it several years later. But we are.

You don't know the depths of boredom that I will do anything to keep from drowning in.

P.S. Note that there already is a book vs movie thread, but I'm not sure if it's for PJ's or other's works.

[Sauron the White]

from alatar

And I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think that you have data to back up the hypothesis that (as I see it): Tolkien fanatics miffed by popularity of PJ films.

No data, no surveys, no polls, not even talk radio chatter. This is based on my experience on other JRRT related sites plus my few months here. I have not heard anyone saying "I RESENT THOSE BLANKETY BLANK MOVIES". But I do think the attitude and spirit is there in some. It couched in lots of other far more subtle and defendable verbage - but its still there.

from Kath

To say that Purists were jealous is an odd statement to make though. How can you be jealous of the films when you sit with the book in your hands and know you have the better version?

In my opening post I did not use the term jealous. I do not think this is the emotion that the purists feel. My term would be resentment. Macalaure posted some interesting thoughts saying it is as much the purist belief that PJ got it wrong as much as the popularity. And I can understand that. I don't believe that the book purists are jealous of the films and want the same level of success right now for the books. No - they are not jealous in that they are coveting the success of the films.

and from Quempel

Ralph Bakshi's version is laughable at best. It made me want to burn my eyes out. As Pheobe said on Friends, my eyes, my eyes.

In total agreement. It took me a good dozen years to get rid of the nagging idea that Boromir was a viking and Aragorn some lost member of a tribe of Native Americans.

[Bêthberry]

It's a frightening, frightening thing for True Believers to feel that there are alternate creeds out there gathering more souls and even reeling in apostates than the One, er, Three Good Books.

You know, this summer, I was talking with an eleven year old boy about Harry Potter. He was all excited after the latest movie release and last book release. So I asked him what he thought of the last book. And he said he didn't read it and won't read it as the books are too full of details and description and stuff and he can't wait to see the next movies.

To be fair to him, he's a second language English speaker.

But it gave me an insight into what PJ has done. He's made Middle-earth an experience even for those who don't or can't read English. Middle-earth was unreachable to people who don't know English (or who were dependent upon the frailties of translation.) But PJ has taken Middle-earth out of Tolkien's language-based concept and repatriated it for a completely different kind of territory, one not mapped by language or imagination so much as by sensory experience.

I think this is what might bug the Tolkians, that the word is now gone from the face of Middle earth.

Speaking entirely as someone who has not recited the Creed of Tolkien but who doesn't worship at the shrine of Jackson either.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Does anbody really care about what was correct or wrong about the Bakshi adaption? You just do not hear much about that? And does anybody really care about the Rankin-Bass TV adaptions if THE HOBBIT and ROTK? But mention the movies here - and on many other sites - and you get a real debate and temperatures can get a bit heated.

.

I remember quite a bit of discussion in the Tolkien Society when the Bakshi movie came out, but that was a long time ago. I re-watched some of it recently & given the time & limitations I don't think it was too bad an effort. I don't think its worse than the PJ movies - if Bakshi had had the same budget & technology to hand I suspect his version would have been much much superior. Bakshi had to resort to animation & rotoscoping because that was all that was available. Its nearly thirty years since Bakshi's version appeared, & none of us can say whether PJ's version will even be remembered thirty years from now.

It was also successful enough to help inspire the BBC to adapt LotR for radio (a couple of the same actors were involved) - & that version is far & away the best adaptation that there has ever been - Jackson's version doesn't even come close. I challenge anyone to set aside a day (its 13 hours long) & listen to the Sibley/Bakewell LotR & not be profoundly moved. Starting out in the Shire in the morning & following the characters through the day & ending back at Bag End late at night is an amazing experience. I've done the same thing with the extended editions of the movies once & at the end just felt glad I'd managed to get through it.

And that's the point I'd emphasise - it is possible to produce a brilliant, beautiful, powerful & faithful adaptation of LotR. Its just that PJ didn't manage to do it, whereas Sibley, Bakewell & the BBC did.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I have never heard the BBC broadcasts but will take up your challenge. I have ordered it through Amazon for $45.00 US.

I must take issue with the statement that the Bakshi film is no worse than the Jackson films. The Bakshi version was handicapped by the lack of the budget that Jackson had - so I concede that to you. But I found fault not with what he was unable to do - but what he did do. Boromir as a viking!!!!! Aragorn looking like some American Indian. The orcs were pretty terrible and the entire rotoscoping technique made much of the film look muddy and without proper detail. His Balrog looked like a monsterish version of the Disney character Goofy. The scene with the Nazgul on Weathertop was terrible with the Nazgul looking beyond bad. Helms Deep was almost like a bad Mad Magazine parody with all these actors hidden under robes and hoods with fangs coming out of their mouths that glowed in the dark.

If you have the Ballantine Books Filmbook of the movie you can see this in all its glory.

It has taken me years to get rid of some of those horrid images. Of course, I imagine that is how some here feel about the Jackson films.

But it was obvious that the public certainly did not take to the Bakshi version as they did to the Jackson films. The public spoke loudly in that regard. They clearly voiced a preference.

[Quempel]

I don't hate PJ's work with LoTR. I rather enjoy it. But what I can't stand is calling it his story. It's his vision of the a story but it is not his original idea nor is it his original story.

Ralph Bakshi's version is laughable at best. It made me want to burn my eyes out. As Pheobe said on Friends, my eyes, my eyes.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

One thing kept coming up in posts from people who tend to not say very good things about the films: and that is that Peter Jackson had the gall to think he could do it beter and make improvements over the book

Whenever has PJ stated thta his films are better than the books? And he has acknowledged many times how good the books are.

Lets face it folks - more people have seen the film version of LOTR than have read the books. And that is the great sin of Peter Jackson. He was so successful that purists despise it that LOTR is now thought of as a film in the minds of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

LOTR is continuosly near or at the top of best loved book lists here in England. Thousands of people have been drawn to the book and have read it BECAUSE of the movies.

Themovie is an adaptation of the Books. If we wanted a word for word copy of the book on celluloid, it would take about 54 hours (the length of the unabridged narrated works available on audio) - Not 9 or 12 hours which we are given - Parts had to be left out and some changed to work on screen.

I'm not saying things were NOT done different to how I would have. But I didn't commit 10 years and probably a lot of my own money to make the films. Neither did you. But Peter Jackson did.

[Kath]

It's catchy, man!

It really is! Though the lyrics don't make much sense. 'We don't want to go to war today but the lord of the lash says nay, nay, nay.' Huh? Still, I might have to find the rest of that version. A good rainy day film methinks.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kath

It really is! Though the lyrics don't make much sense. 'We don't want to go to war today but the lord of the lash says nay, nay, nay.' Huh? Still, I might have to find the rest of that version. A good rainy day film methinks.

These orcs were reluctant to fight as they'd rather be crooning.

• They don't want to go to war - like the orcs that Sam and Frodo overhear in Mordor wanting to set out on their own.

• The lord of the lash, presumably Sauron the Eye with long lashes (really it's a whip) says, "No" in that He wants them to go to war.

Make more sense? Don't worry, when you've heard it replayed in your head about a billion times, it'll sink in.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Not to mention an amazing Saruman.

Although I thought every Christmas had arrived at once with the casting of Christopher Lee as Saruman - he just owns the role. Shame he was done such a disservice in the final film. Wholly disrespectful to a great actor. And all this even though my mental image of Saruman is very different - a bit like Ming The Merciless from Flash Gordon but with hair...

Originally Posted by Alatar

And therein lies the problem. It's like a modern day version of Frodo's experience with the One Ring as he crawled across the Gorgoroth. The Whip song burns itself into your mind, and you can never ever again be free of its call.

There is, however, a rather good metal version of it that can be heard in the film Ringers. Somehow singing about whips makes sense if set to pounding rock music

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Although I thought every Christmas had arrived at once with the casting of Christopher Lee as Saruman - he just owns the role. Shame he was done such a disservice in the final film. Wholly disrespectful to a great actor. And all this even though my mental image of Saruman is very different - a bit like Ming The Merciless from Flash Gordon but with hair...

The BBC Saruman slaps down Eomer....http://www.istad.org/bbc/saruman.mp3

Frodo slaps down Gollum http://www.istad.org/bbc/gollum.mp3

And a very good piece on the series http://www.squidoo.com/audiolotr/