The Arrogance of the Rings

[ReededGoat]

I, like many of you, have been enjoying the hell outta my copy of the extended edition set. I have now seen all the appendices, and have gotten through the PJ/Fran/Phillipa commentary. <BR>This is one of my favorite films of all time, and I'm psyched that the people who made it were the ones who made it.<BR>Now I do have one problem that burns my bottom...during Boromir's death scene, Phillipa Boyens says (and I do admire her honesty...I'll give her that) that it's better than the book. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I found myself saying 'I knew it' under my breath. In interviews I had seen of her, both on the appendices and off, I got the inkling that she was bit cocky about their adaptation. There are some other things they said during the commentary that made me think that they might have fallen into thinking that they were making the book better, period (not just 'better for the medium of film'). That's an unfortunate high for them to get on.<BR>Right after she said that, I pulled out the Two Towers and read it out loud to my wife so we could have an immediate comparison. PB also said that she felt that JRRT's writing of that scene was lacking...I can't believe this woman!!!!!! I think she's going a bit far and has gotten maybe a bit cocky about the film. <BR>To make one point from the book that I actually think is more powerful than the film version (which is brilliant, don't get me wrong), Aragorn is 'bent, weeping' over Boromir when he passes, and that's how Gimli and Legolas come across him.<BR>Sorry if this has been touched upon in another thread, I don't have time to slog through all the message board material...sorry for the rambling nature of this post as well...I'm just all fired up and not in the mood for organizing things perfectly.<P>RG

[thorondil]

Yeah...I got that impression too. I think the movie is great and have watched the extended version dvds over and over since I got it (much to the annoyance of my girl), but for all of their "geeting it as close to Tolkeeeen as possible" talk, they do seem a bit arrogant at times. And on the boards alot of people parrot their opinions almost word for word about why they changed this and why they changed that...<P>As for the Departure of Boromir, it was much better in TTT (the book.) Aragorn didn't know if Frodo and Sam had been taken by the orcs with Merry and Pippin (unlike that ridiculous scene in the movie where Frodo doesn't trust Aragorn on Amon Hen) until later. Also I wish they would have put the swords of Boromir's enemies under his feet.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>His head so proud, his face so fair, his limbs they laid to rest;<BR>And Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, bore him upon its breast. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[GreyIstar]

"(unlike that ridiculous scene in the movie where Frodo doesn't trust Aragorn on Amon Hen)"<P>Thats a very good scene, I liked it

[Beruthiel]

I thought that scene was pretty good as well cuz its kinda like what Arwen said before that he wouldn't be like Isuldur and he would resist the ring..<BR>anyway i'm getting off topic, I thought that both versions were good but Tolkien's was much better! I don't like that they brag about it. Its not like they could have made that scene up without Tolkien's works

[Túroch]

I agree with ya ReededGoat. There is now way those script writters could of "improved" on Tolkiens original works. One of the things that annoys me most in the extended version is the altering of Aragorn's character. In the S.E. scence where he is before the statue of his mother he says something to the effect of I never wanted to weild Narsil. Whatever, he had been carrying the broken stump arounnd with him all his life, like he wouldn't want to weild the sword. Sheesh.

[Diamond18]

Well, I have to admit that the scene "moved" me more in the theater watching the movie. I never really felt for Boromir until I saw Sean Bean's portrayal. I'm not going to go into anything about whether or not it really was better, because I would have my head chopped off and served to me on a platter. But the fact remains that for me it was more powerful. Perhaps it was merely seeing it with my eyes rather than my imagination that made it so, but it was.<P>BTW, I take offense at the remark:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And on the boards alot of people parrot their opinions almost word for word about why they changed this and why they changed that... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I like some changes but that is because I truly, genuinely like them. I haven't even watched all the special features or listened to the commentaries yet, so I couldn't even parrot them if I wanted to. My opinions are my own unless put inside the QUOTE brackets. I think that goes for other posters as well. If you would like to disregard our arguements in that way...well, I can't stop you. But it's wrong.<P>Anyway, I don't think it's arrogant to be happy with your own work. If you confronted Phillipa Boyens about it personnaly, she'd probably apologize and say she didn't mean for it to sound sacrilegeous. She was probably just pleased with how it translated.<P>Another thing to think about: Artists are all a bit egotistical by nature. So it isn't surprising.

[davem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I never really felt for Boromir until I saw Sean Bean's portrayal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, yeah, but it wasn't really Tolkien's Boromir we saw on the screen, was it. Boromir in the movie was far more sympathetic. In the book he is too proud, too certain he's right & that no one else knows as much as him. According to the account in the history series - vol 6 or 7, I think, Tolkien was seriously considering Boromir betraying the West & going over to Saruman. I think for Tolkien Boromir was an example of overweening pride, & that's ultimately what destroyed him. As Verlyn Flieger said of the way the movie portrayed Boromir in comparison to the character in the book - 'He's not that nice'.

[ReededGoat]

Diamond18...if you listen to the commentary I think you'll agree that she probably wouldn't apologize for being sacrilegious...she borders on haughty when she says it's better...and she says it right alongside saying that Tolkien's writing of it was lacking. I think that's evidence enough that she's gotten a bit inflated during the project.<BR>Many artists are egocentric, but this is not the rule, just quite common. I find that the best artists in this world are the ones who understand humility, because then their ego is not informing their work as much.<BR>It's much too common for people doing an adaptation of a previously existing piece of art to get caught up in thinking that they are improving it. This attitude comes across clearly from the PJ trio. Did they do an awesome job? Yes. Should they be proud? Yes. Have they bettered the book in an respect? Quite honestly I have to say no, but that need not be the goal. I would attribute some of their apparent attitude to the big media wash they've had over FOTR...they're receiving praise all over the place, and since they've been working on it for six years now, and have re-written the script umpteen times, I guess it might be difficult not to think that you're making the story a better thing in ways. <BR>Humility goes a looooooooong way...it is very interesting that she found that she needed to assert this particular opnion on the commentary...in psychological terms this would be speaking to a certain level of insecurity in her character. If she truly thought it was better, she woouldn't need to tell the world on the DVD.<P>that's four cents from me now,<BR>RG

lol so true that artists are egotistical... no matter how much they try to hide it *is an artist*<BR>but yeah i think it's a bit hard to say that the movie was better than the book. i mean everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the media involved are just so different. also there was a major time difference; tolkien was writing for people who didn't mind a bit of placidity. the movie was made for the mtv generation who can't sit still for five seconds unless there's a fight scene. they did well not making it too hollywood but they had to a little bit. <BR>i like both scenes... probably i'd prefer the book though because it's more subtle, i guess. leaves more to the imagination, and it conveys the kind of gentle sorrow that tolkien is so into writing about.<BR>one more thing - how funny is it in the movie when boromir tries to take the ring and then falls down and makes this... i guess eating noise? it sounds like he's chomping the leaves. (:<BR>sorry for the length<BR>-Saskia

[GreyIstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Well, yeah, but it wasn't really Tolkien's Boromir we saw on the screen, was it. Boromir in the movie was far more sympathetic. In the book he is too proud, too certain he's right & that no one else knows as much as him. According to the account in the history series - vol 6 or 7, I think, Tolkien was seriously considering Boromir betraying the West & going over to Saruman. I think for Tolkien Boromir was an example of overweening pride, & that's ultimately what destroyed him. As Verlyn Flieger said of the way the movie portrayed Boromir in comparison to the character in the book - 'He's not that nice'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sure he is. I just read the thing the other day. He is an inherently good person he is just most tempted by the ring. After he trys to take it from Frodo, he does realize like they did in the movie, that he has made a huge mistake. He is a tragic hero.<P>What I think is funny is how you all are making such a big deal over what one person thinks. Talk about insecure.<p>[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: GreyIstar ]

[thorondil]

Diamond18 says:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I like some changes but that is because I truly, genuinely like them. I haven't even watched all the special features or listened to the commentaries yet, so I couldn't even parrot them if I wanted to. My opinions are my own unless put inside the QUOTE brackets. I think that goes for other posters as well. If you would like to disregard our arguements in that way...well, I can't stop you. But it's wrong.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I never disregard anyone's arguments. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyway, I don't think its arrogant to be happy with your own work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It is arrogant to take someone else's art and say that you have <I>improved</I> on it.<P>And its not their work, its Tolkien's.

GreyIstar,<BR>I don't see how insecurity links up with my concern over the arrogant opinion of one of the writers of the film version. Whether I should be wasting my time on it or not is one thing, but I chose to get on this message board and see if anyone shared my opinion. I think concern about the attitudes of the filmmakers toward the source material is quite valid for fans. Once again, I don't see how this makes me insecure...maybe you're reaching and saying that I'm trashing them to help me feel better about myself? I'm really not 'trashing' them. As I've already stated, I loved their adaptation so far.<BR>Maybe this response to your response is my insecurity speaking. I think I'll go get a therapist.<P>RG

[lindil]

lindil the purist weighing in .<P>We are in many cases seeing PJ's versions of the characters. Close cousins in most cases but not the genuine article. Does that mean I sit fuming at every discrepancy? No, Gilthalion saved me from that rather useless POV.<P>However the assertions that the changes were "needed" or impproved the book are to my mind totally foolish.<P>I see absolutley no reason they 'needed to bring Arwen forward'. Get a more beautiful actress and increase her mystery!!!<P>PJ's distortion of the various plot lines also becomes more apparent in the movie.<P>The Arnorian Dunedain/Aragorn going from JRRT's dwindling but still protective and maintaining their bloodline to the bizzare " he turned from that path long ago... bs of 'Elrond'.<P>This adds??? <P>I was also unimpressed to see PJ declare that Bombadil did not 'move the plot forward.<P>Oh and gandalf telling Frodo to go to Bree and meet him there while he takes a quick jaunt to Isengard.<P>moves the plotline fwd?<P>Unless you think Isengard is in the Chetwood that is so silly anyone not familiar w/ the tale should be alittle confused.<P>Esp since they give you maps with the DVD!!!<P><BR>I must say seeing more of Lorien and a more realistic council was nice, and needed.<P>But it would have been great to see Gildor 'move the plot forward'.<P>Back to PJ's assertion that they could not have done the whole thing 'by the book' the Extended version shows just how false that is.<P>Yes I agree that if you are not making a 6hr FotR for the Screen then some scenes need to go. But Gildor, Bombadil, the Downs [ along with merry's crucial sword]Glorfindel, all could have been filmed and shown in the big screen as flashbacks during Frodo's morgul wound fever while gandalf was reading his mind. And then joyously re-inserted into the extended version. If they can give us 2 discs of often pointless commentary I would have gladly paid alot more and gotten the missing scenes.<P>So I agree w/ the arrogant premise. Would I have been less arrogant in their shoes?<P>Of co.. I mean probably not.<P>For all my B*&%$ing they <I>did</I> do a better job w/ FotR than any other movie adaptation I have seen.<P>I just bristle at their absurd justifications and any thought that an improvement was done.<P>I still enjoy reading LotR waaaay more, and consider my book[s] and me and a forest the ultimate encounter w/ Middle-EaRTH, not the Ext DVD.<P>Purist rant over.<P>oh btw I must say I have seen just what Thorondil pointed out about people seeming to take the movie as canon <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And on the boards alot of people parrot their opinions almost word for word about why they changed this and why they changed that... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find few things less respectful to JRRT. <P>Except perhaps feeling one could improve on the Silmarillion <P>Oh and seeing that they really did uproot trees for the Isengard scene [ I was seriously hoping it was digital] was less than delightful. JRRT would have loved that!<p>[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[GreyIstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Oh and seeing that they really did uproot trees for the Isengard scene [ I was seriously hoping it was digital] was less than delightful. JRRT would have loved that!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What on earth are you talking about. They specifcally said those trees were fake and commented on how if they did damage trees Tolkien would have been so mad.<P>My position all the time is that you read the book. The book is better. The movie is a great movie and despite what differences in the plot there are it brings middle-earth to life.

[*Varda*]

I think you are all reading <B>far</B> too much into this <B>one</B> comment.<P>a) She may not have meant it the way it sounded<BR>b) She may have genuinely believed that, for her, that part was better than the book. Her opinion. Free to state it.<BR>c) After putting 5 years of work into these movies, I think she's entitled to feel proud of what she's helped to do.<P>Fair enough, she perhaps shouldn't have said that part of Tolkien's books was lacking. That's her opinion. You have yours. Why get so angry about it?

[lindil]

Glad I was wrong about the Tree's.<P>I did not hear anyone in the DVD's comment on them [ must have missd that bit] but I saw them dragging around what looked to be real tree's.<P>But I have not noticed anyone angry here just an expression of strong opinions.<P>This is the barrowdowns after all, not mayorwhitfootsgarden.com

[Thenamir]

On Arwen/Glorfindel:<BR>Tolkien himself is reported to have said (I cannot quote chapter-and-verse, forgive me) that he wished he'd written a larger role for Arwen. If she was meant to be from the same mold as Luthien (who stood by her man all the way to Angband and back), it only makes sense to have a larger role for her in a film adaptation. In a way, it is "more Tolkien" than the books, since Tolkien revised his own opinion of his work after it was written. A master is allowed to improve upon <I>his own works</I>, no? When the <I>author</I> in retrospect says, "I did this part wrong," is there not sufficient grounds to alter that part, at least?<P>on Boromir's death scene:<BR>No matter whether in the theatre or on the DVD, regular or extended, Boromir's death scene NEVER fails to bring tears to my eyes. The book did an adequate job of restoring the fallen hero, but the visual impact and Oscar-calibre acting of both Mortenson and Bean honed that scene to a keen, fine edge and then plunged it into my heart. My opinion (and just that) is that seeing the scene in the movie affected me far more than reading the scene in the book.<P>On JRRT canon vs. PJ Interpretation:<BR>One's a book. THe other is a movie. Two different genres, two different sets of requirements. Tolkien once said that he only took up the pen to write LOTR because he wanted to see if he could continue to entertain people while writing something considerably longer than The Hobbit. If the objective is entertainment, as Tolkien said, then you do different things in the differing genres to produce an entertaining product. Scenes are intercut differently. Plot exposition and character development in a book take place through narrative description, while in a movie everything must be an effective and fast-moving juxtaposition of sounds and images, where the constant decision in adaptation of an existing work is whether to *say* something or *show* it. Saying it takes forever on the screen, but mere moments on a page. You can write a far longer book and keep someone's attention span much more easily, for no extra costs. <P>A movie must be more compressed, for each page of dialogue and description costs you a quarter of a million dollars (sometimes much more) to film. Otherwise you end up with a series of 3 6-hour scripts, which would cost many many times the price of the trilogy as it now stands, be fantastically unfilmable in terms of actor commitments, and would in the end appeal only to diehard Tolkien Geeks. Who's going to drop that kind of money for such a small return on the investment? <P>And that's another thing. PJ is making this movie not out of the goodness of his heart, but by using the venture capital ($150 million plus) of another company's stockholders to produce a PROFITABLE product! If you want to make the movie over again, then start taking up a collection from interested fanboys and hard-core Tolkien-heads all over the world, and do it RIGHT! I bet if you did that, you wouldn't gather enough money to buy a day's worth of coffee for the extras.<P>For Tolkien Fandom, PJ is of course NOT the last word. The movie is a reflection of one man's opinion of what *he'd* like to see in a LOTR movie -- no more and no less. Deal with it. Enough already. Call the movie a different story if you wish, but leave it alone - it's a fantastic movie on its own merits, and won 4 Oscars (and was robbed of at least 6 more), and made something over $800 million for the stockholders of Time/Warner. If you and the other nit pickers want to fume and fulminate over the absence of Glorfindel, then I hereby issue you a challenge: don't go see The Two Towers when it comes out. Just stay away and let the rest of us have fun. <I> It's just a story! </I>

[Diamond18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I would attribute some of their apparent attitude to the big media wash they've had over FOTR...they're receiving praise all over the place, and since they've been working on it for six years now, and have re-written the script umpteen times, I guess it might be difficult not to think that you're making the story a better thing in ways. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>ReededGoat, I think may just be the best way to account for her remark. I do agree with most of what you've said; I mean, were I in her shoes I certainly wouldn't make the remark.<P>Anyway, I'll have to listen to those commentaries one of these days (my family isn't into watching LotR as much as I am, so it will take me a while) and then I'll be able to understand just how she said it better.<P>There is another matter which I'm a bit loath to bring up beause it's not a very popular thing to say...but since when have I exercised self control, so I'll say it anyway: Tolkien isn't God, and Lord of the Rings isn't the Bible (or the Torah or the Qur'an or what have you). Most people will agree with that principle, but a lot of people still talk (or type) as if it is the case. I think that's as unfortunate as mistaking the movie for canon. It isn't a perfect book, because there is no such thing, so it isn't impossible to think that a certain aspect could be done better.<P>Now, whether or not the PJ/FW/PB trio did improve on anything is a totally different matter. I don't really think they did...oh maybe there were certain things I myself liked, but that's just opinion and differs from person to person. The only way you could ever say for sure is if Tolkien watched it and said, "Oh I liked that change." (And he probably wouldn't).<P>Edit: I've just read Thenamir's post, in which he mentioned Tolkien regretting not giving Arwen a larger role. That's news to me!<p>[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I find that the best artists in this world are the ones who understand humility, because then their ego is not informing their work as much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's one thing to understand humility, it's another thing to practice it. Personally speaking, when it comes to art, any kind of art, humility is way overrated.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe this response to your response is my insecurity speaking. I think I'll go get a therapist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nothing wrong with a little therapy from time to time.<P><BR>Really, what amuses me is that while we're sitting here bickering, Phillipa Boyens is laughing all the way to the bank. More power to her.

[thorondil]

Thenamir says:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And that's another thing. PJ is making this movie not out of the goodness of his heart, but by using the venture capital ($150 million plus) of another company's stockholders to produce a PROFITABLE product! If you want to make the movie over again, then start taking up a collection from interested fanboys and hard-core Tolkien-heads all over the world, and do it RIGHT! I bet if you did that, you wouldn't gather enough money to buy a day's worth of coffee for the extras.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Lord of the Rings is the second most read book(s) in the English language next to the Bible. For all of your derogatory talk about "fan-boys and Tolkien heads" I think you would be surprised at the caliber, intelligence and wealth of Tolkien fans all over the world.<P>While I realize that just about everything in this world is now couched in terms of corporate greed, it does not lessen my desire to see the works of Tolkien presented in the most fitting and respectful way possible. I too like the movie...and watch it again and again...but as I have said before, that does not necessarily mean that I agree with all of their decisions or how everthing was presented. As Lindil said, it is the best adaptation of LotR so far.<P>To me LotR is not a product, but something I have loved dearly since my early youth.

[Thenamir]

For the record, I consider myself a Tolkien-head and a fanboy after a fashion. And yes, I think Tolkien readers are a cut-above, so to speak. But Peter Jackson is the only one who dared to make the pitch and get the job done. <P>Making a movie is no cakewalk, and unless you are independently wealthy (on the scale of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) you are not going to have the money to make the kind of movie that is going to include every jot and tittle of Tolkiana. And if you did so, it would have no appeal to those who had not already read the books. It would be a commercial flop.<P>Think of how many people are reading Tolkien for the first time becuase of these movies! It is probably the single biggest piece of publicity for the books that has ever come down. People are INTERESTED now, people that might NEVER have picked up Tolkien on their own. In that sense especially, there is much good in the movies, of for no other reason than it has given people an interest in the SOURCE.<P>Thenamir of Rohan<P>P.S. Don't get me started on the subject of "corporate greed". It's that "greed" that got the movies made to begin with. It's that "greed" that enables most of what we have today in terms of movie making technology (and most other advances) to exist. And one more thing -- the term "corporation" means the company is owned not by a single greedy corporate tyrant, but by shareholders like you and me. It is income and retirement for *common folks*. Point that finger of greed at yourself if you own, have owned, or ever will own a share of stock.

[Mintyztwin]

I'll help pay for the movie!!!!! You guys all state your opinions so clearly and intelligently! I will now add MY two cents. (How many cents is that now? 4? 6?) <P>I have not seen the commentary, but that is a very proud thing to say! To say you improved on something is an opinion, but to say the artist was LACKING something!!!! <P>If you took a famous impressionist painter, and had him paint a picture, that would be art, right? Now, give that same picture to an artist of any other era. Ask him what he thinks of it. He'll say it needs help!!! Why? Because it's not HIS art!! <P>Only the ARTIST can "improve" on their piece of art 'cause art is PERSONAL!! If PB talked to Tolkien, and found out HE wasn't happy with that scene, and HE thought her work improved it, THEN she could say what she said. <P>'Till then, SORRY KID!!!

[Legolas]

Tolkien decided that Arwen in a larger dose would be better. Would he have completely taken out Glorfindel though, who helped Strider fight off the Nazgul, who went to the trouble of bringing back to Middle-earth from Mandos? Arwen's role is already ballooned in the Two Towers - a book she wasn't even in to begin with. That seems certainly big enough.<P>Why totally leave out Radagast, a scene that would've taken all of 30 seconds, but moved the plot along better than just "Hmm...I'll go to Isengard and see what Saruman thinks."? The wise were already suspicious of Saruman after he said they should not move in on the Necromancer.

[ReededGoat]

I've really enjoyed all these responses...it's all just what I wanted to hear - lots of people airing their opinions.<BR>My snide comment about my own insecurity and seeking a therapist was intended as a joke. I also am not as 'angry' about this as I might sound. I think my honest CONCERN about her comment has a lot of bearing on my concern about the upcoming films. My biggest fear is how far this whole love triangle thing will go. I guess I feel that if the filmmakers have the attitude that they are improving on Tolkien, they will take further license beyond merely adapting mediums (which needs its own level of artistic interpretation) I will say again, that I LOVED the first film. I really don't have much beef with changes because I understand difference in medium. I never said here that I have problems with film-Arwen etc. <BR>At the end of the day of the 18th of December, regardless of how far the love triangle thang goes, I will probably love the film...that is my prediction. I am of the philosophy that the book is still on the shelf, unchanged, and I can read it again and again no matter what the films portray.<P>As a note about humility, I believe it is very useful when it comes to art. The best art comes from when you realize that you are contributing to something bigger than yourself, and by definition, you can't do that fully without humility. If you want to do art for the sake of fueling your ego, go for it, but I can guarantee that it won't be nearly as good. Of course, this is subtle ground I'm treading, and much could be said from a variety of perspectives.<P>is that 8 cents now?<P>rg

[thorondil]

PJ= Peter Jackson<BR>PB= Phillipa Boyens<P>PJ: This moment between Boromir and Aragorn is iconic from the book, you know, you can read the book and imagine Boromir leaning against the base of the tree with the arrows in him and...<P>PB: I think this moment is better than the moment in the book. There. I <B>said</B> it. I do...<P>PJ: We definately enhanced...<P>PB: I think we did...<P>PJ:...the dialogue. We made it...<P>PB: Not just the dialogue but I actually think the emotional content of this moment and...<P>PJ: yeah...<P>PB: ...and the connection between these two characters and I do think it was a <I>failing</I> of Professor Tolkien's. And I wanted more when I read that moment in the book.<P>PJ: yeah...

[Kalimac]

Wow, I come back from a long day of listening to insureds complain to me all day at work and find that this thread has exploded . (Just kidding, guys, I love you all). There's no way to respond individually to all of these so just a few thoughts based on the concerns that are being aired here:<P>Arrogance: Humility in the artist is a great idea, but it's also rather impractical on a worldly basis. The world of filmmaking especially is ruthless; you're as good as your last production and that's pretty much it. No screenwriter/actor/producer/director/best boy/coffee-fetcher is going to get one step further in the business - or even maintain the position they currently hold - by modestly downplaying their own achievements: they have to promote and build themselves up as shamelessly as they can, and in order to do this they have to believe very strongly in what they are doing. Philippa Boyens probably did not get to where she is - co-screenwriter of one of the best movies on the planet - by being shy and retiring about her talents. I'm not saying it's a good thing to be arrogant, just that without the screenwriters' strength of character and willingness to invest a big portion of their lives in a project which was a huge and expensive gamble (and arrogance could be seen as an unfortunate symptom of this strength) the movies would never have gotten made in the first place. <P>As for saying that JRRT was lacking something: In this instance, I disagree with her (though I'll say that I love both the movie and the book scene; they changed it, but in a good and believable way - which is why I'm not terribly worried about the love triangle thing). But since when is it true that the only person who can criticize an artist's perceived or real lacks is the artist himself? It's like saying that if I think William McGonagall lacked poetic talent, I can't say so because I'm not actually McGonagall. <P>Ms. Boyens entitled to her opinion, and if she thinks that JRRT was weak when it came to delineating some moments of emotion (hardly an outrageous opinion) then she's welcome to think that. It's not like all of us here don't have enough debates about whether A, B, or C should have been explained more or maybe some of the descriptions go on a bit long. It doesn't mean that we disrespect the books at all; in fact, that kind of close analysis is a sign of very great respect. You don't spend time poring over books for details and noticing things like that unless you like them very much indeed. <P>One more thing; usually in movies what happens is that respect for the author is completely thrown aside and the screenwriters just try to make a sound and light show out of their book, something that will sell. While obviously the screenwriters here wanted this movie to sell (they'd be insane if they didn't) the fact that they were thinking so deeply about their OWN emotional responses ("I wanted more" when she read that scene) as opposed to market current wisdom or numbers ("Statistics say that 75% of moviegoers think tears at a death scene are a bigger draw) means a lot. Not to mention the fact that too much fidelity to an author - while it rarely happens - can actually kill the movie since ultimately they ARE different life forms. The Harry Potter movies, for example, are very close to the books - too close, in fact; if you hadn't read the books they'd be hard to follow; instead of works of art in their own right they've become gigantic, expensive illustrations of the book - nice, but impossible understand without it. [NOTE: I'm not trying to divert this into a Harry Potter thread. Just trying to say that if the screenwriters had been so worshipful of Tolkien that NOTHING could be cut or altered if they didn't find something in his writings that somehow implicitly approved of it, the movie would have been dreadful and incomprehensible]. <P>Sorry for rant. My $0.2 1/2 cents .<p>[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

[lindil]

Thenamir posted <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...Enough already. Call the movie a different story if you wish, but leave it alone... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sorry that doesn't wash. Are you saying it is OK for PJ to say he improved on JRRT and we can not then criticize that? At Tolkien forum devoted primarily [not this forum but the whole board] to the books?<P>I have held off criticizing the movie till the extended DVD came out, and I was one of the first folks to come here and post after the midnight showing of the FOtR.<BR>Then I posted something to the effect that " While the movie had many points where a simple adhering to the Books would have greatly improved it, right now I was so delighted to see M-E come to life that I can gladly over look the movie's shortcomings."<P>Honeymoon's over! I promise from now on to be a relentless critic when I feel the movies deserve it, and a loud cheerer when they truly get it right.<P>Bush may be cutting the constitution to shreds but last time I checked the 1st amendment still was applicable to the Downs! <P><BR>and I will reiterate that I think th FotR ext vers. is the best movie adaptation I have seen of any book--> film. But...<P>again a reply to Thenamir who posted <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you and the other nit pickers want to fume and fulminate over the absence of Glorfindel, then I hereby issue you a challenge: don't go see The Two Towers when it comes out. Just stay away and let the rest of us have fun. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think perhaps since this is a discussion forum, if you do not want to be exposed to criticism of the film you may be happier yourself if you do not repeatedly come to a thread where the folks therein are having <I>fun</I> both enjoying the movie <I> and </I> critiquing it. I will see the Two Towers and I almost certainly will again withold [most]criticism till I see the Extended version, and then I will be back [pleasenote the smile included w/ the tounge ]<p>[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[GreyIstar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why totally leave out Radagast, a scene that would've taken all of 30 seconds, but moved the plot along better than just "Hmm...I'll go to Isengard and see what Saruman thinks."? The wise were already suspicious of Saruman after he said they should not move in on the Necromancer.<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Because then you have to hire another actor, do make-up, set up a scene location. Spend a day or two filming what amounts to 30 seconds of film time that in the grand scope of the entire story amounts to window dressing.<P>Sorry but they didn't have infinate amount of resources.<p>[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: GreyIstar ]

[Diamond18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As a note about humility, I believe it is very useful when it comes to art. The best art comes from when you realize that you are contributing to something bigger than yourself, and by definition, you can't do that fully without humility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>When I mentioned earlier about all artists being a bit egocentric, what I had in mind was this: If you create something and offer it up to the world to be watched, read, listened to, etc. you must think that it is pretty good. Otherwise you wouldn't make it public. So in order believe that you are "contributing to something bigger than yourself" you must have the mindset that what you are adding is something worthwhile. That mindset does involve ego. So anyway, that's what I meant.<P>Anyway, that transcript of the commentary was very interesting. They <I>did</I> add dialouge that <I>was</I> powerful...the exchange between Aragorn and Boromir was certainly longer than the book. So that could be called "enhancing" like PJ said (or really "expanding" would be a better word, but they're synonyms anyway) but it is PB who takes the more controversial stance that the book was somehow lacking. Or failing...now that's a bit strong.<P>When I give it thought (i.e. imagine how the movie scene would have played out in the book) I think that perhaps so much dialouge for a dying man wouldn't go over as well. Without an actor adding gasps and all that, you might think Boromir's got too much energy and breath for his condition. So I think a shorter death scene in the book fits that medium quite well. But I'm preaching to the choir, I know. <P>Kalimac points out the folly in thinking that only an author can critize his work. Of course, I agree, but in this case where you have different people with strong views on the subject (PB believes strongly enough that it was better to voice it for Tolkien fans to hear, and Tolkien fans disagree strongly enough to make a discussion out of it) the arguement becomes un-resolvable...unless Tolkien himself said, "Yes, she's right you guys, it was better."<P>Does that make sense???<p>[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Legolas]

There were plenty of locations already filmed that could've been used - remember all those scenes that they actually left out? Yeah.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Because then you have to hire another actor, do make-up, set up a scene location. Spend a day or two filming what amounts to 30 seconds of film time that in the grand scope of the entire story amounts to window dressing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What would be the big deal of sacrificing one of the silent elves at the Council?

[GreyIstar]

"What would be the big deal of sacrificing one of the silent elves at the Council?"<P>I'm sure a speaking wizard would be payed a lot more than a silent elf.

[engwaalphiel]

Exactly , the camera hardly looked at them at all ...... if that isn't window dressing what is ? i know they probably thought it would create an atmosphere of there being numbers of the different races but really what were they all there for , especially if you didn't even really notice them .... although it was great fun making jokes about legolas and his fans all trying to sit next to him .....

[Legolas]

The elf beside of Legolas and the elf beside Elrond are clearly visible just about as much as Radagast would've been.

[lindil]

They could easily have paid for Radagast by using the book more and the endless re-writes and re-writers less. <P>Or even more obviously not paid millions for all of the digital 'scurrying orcs' in Moria.<P>And they would not have needed the digital 'moth' or whatever it was the Gandalf whispers to!<P>See it saves to follow the book!<p>[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Lush]

Once again, about for the millionth time since my arrival at the Downs, I feel the need to post this particular statement:<P>Movies and books are two very different artistic mediums. Literally taking a book piece by piece and translating it onto the screen usually just ends up in flat hogwash such as Chris Columbus' incredibly b-o-r-i-n-g Harry Potter cr@p. Frankly, I would have rather seen them butcher the book a little, for the sake of making a decent film.<P>Having Radagast in there would have just created more confusion. When you're watching a movie on the big screen, and all of a sudden become confused, you can't just flip a few pages back and figure the stuff out. PJ did the best he could. He deserves to strut around like a peacock. So does Philipa. Honestly. I don't care. I think I'll go have a sandwich.

[Thenamir]

Well said, Lush.<P>To paraphrase Peter Jackson himself, the movie is one man's vision, one man's interpretation of what a Tolkien movie should be. He knew going in that it was not going to be the be-all and end-all for Tolkien fans everywhere. I personally hope that there is someone down the line, some years from now, who will attempt to improve on PJ's work. And I will await the coming of that movie as well.<P>A last note on the subject of humility. As Lush pointed out, there are vast differences between a story made for reading on a page, and one made for viewing on a screen. If a scene diverges from the book in some points to make a better viewing experience than a scene shot literally from the text, I don't think they're saying they improved on the written word of Tolkien, just that they improved over a scene that merely aped the book word-for-word.<P>And my apologies to anyone who thought (horrors!) that anything I said was intended to restrict a person's First Amendment right to free speech. On the contrary -- critique the movie ad nauseum if you wish. Like the argument over the Balrog's wings, by now it has all been said before, it has been done to death. <P>Here is, for me, an important point. I feel that those who say such things about the movie have a sort of superior air to themselves, like they are the "last loyal keepers of the True Flame". When they speak I feel I am being impugned and maligned, accused of some kind of secular blasphemy for liking the movie on its merits in spite of the fact that it diverges so far from the Holy Text. "Why, they cut out Bombadil! And Glorfindel! And they even wrote in some lines and scenes that Tolkien didn't write! (GASP!) And YOU have the AUDACITY, the NERVE to DEFEND these desecrators of the Sacred Writ!!! BURN HIM!!"<P>Critique the movie all you like. But don't make me feel like I'm less of a person, or even less of a Tolkien-head, for liking it.<p>[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Thenamir ]

[thorondil]

Lush writes:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Once again, about for the millionth time since my arrival at the Downs, I feel the need to post this particular statement:<BR>Movies and books are two very different artistic mediums. Literally taking a book piece by piece and translating it onto the screen usually just ends up in flat hogwash such as Chris Columbus' incredibly b-o-r-i-n-g Harry Potter cr@p. Frankly, I would have rather seen them butcher the book a little, for the sake of making a decent film.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thenamir says:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A last note on the subject of humility. As Lush pointed out, there are vast differences between a story made for reading on a page, and one made for viewing on a screen. If a scene diverges from the book in some points to make a better viewing experience than a scene shot literally from the text, I don't think they're saying they improved on the written word of Tolkien, just that they improved over a scene that merely aped the book word-for-word.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If you listen to the comments of Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens, they're not make any of these distinctions. And they definately <I>are</I> saying that they improved on the written word of Tolkien. That's what makes these comments disturbing.<P>As for Radagast... it wouldn't be confusing. It would provide clarity....and "move the story along" as everyone is so fond of saying. Gandalf is not far from Bree when he meets Radagast and learns from him that the Nine are abroad and looking for the Shire. "And who sent you?" Gandalf asks. "Saruman the White." answers Radagast.<P>Alan Lee could have played Radagast!

[*Varda*]

And so what if PJ and PB think they DID improve on the book in that respect? That is their opinion, they are as much entitled to it as you are to say they shouldn't.<P>What Philippa said is not law. She isn't expecting you to have to believe it. She simply said what she felt. <P>Everyone loves the books for different reasons. Everyone likes different parts, different characters. That's just the way it is.<P>Really, get over it.

[Legolas]

Radagast: Gandalf!<P>Gandalf: Radagast! What brings you to see another wizard?<P>Radagast: Saruman, chief of our order, has warned me of the Nazgul! The Nine are aborad. He wishes to speak with you if you desire counsel! I'm off!<P>Gandalf: Farewell!<P>Easily could've been done without confusing anyone.

[Kalimac]

I have to agree with Lush and Thenamir on this one; for one thing it's a different medium, for another thing, in the end, it's their *opinion*. OK, so maybe those some of those opinions seem wrongheaded to us or aren't expressed the way we would do it, but personally I say the proof is in the pudding - despite changes, differences of opinion and yes, some arrogance, they turned out an incredibly good movie which had a real feel for the book - I doubt that was the product of thinking that they knew better than Tolkien every single step of the way. And to repeat a previous point; slavish following of the book, scene for scene, not one change made, would result in something like Harry Potter - a giant, elaborate, very pretty illustration which without detailed knowledge of the book would be IMPOSSIBLE to follow and would NOT stand up as a story in its own right. <P>As for Radagast, no, he's not needed. It would be a nice addition but it's not like there's a huge hole in the plot without him; it's not as if the audience is thinking "Why on earth is Gandalf going to see that Saruman guy?" since Gandalf has the line about Saruman being both wise and powerful, which is enough to explain why he would seek his help. Also, where exactly would the scene fit in, the way the movie's timeline has been compacted? In the movie timeline, which does not follow the book but does make sense in terms of economizing, Gandalf tells Frodo (in Bag End) to meet him at Bree, then takes off for Orthanc. It would be sort of pointless to have Radagast meeting him - already on the way to Orthanc - to tell him that Saruman wants to see him. It would be silly to have Radagast seeking out Gandalf in the Shire and telling him there; that's not the kind of thing Radagast would do. Lastly, there are enough characters to keep track of for someone who hasn't read the book - imagine the confusion after the movie was over. "Was Radagast good or bad? Did he know what Saruman wanted? What's he going to do later?" It's a diverting thread but would just end up confusing things, especially since Radagast (shades of poor old Glorfindel) never turns up again for the remainder of the story. In this case he'd have as much chance to display his character as "Messenger #1" in a Shakespeare play, so why keep him in at all when it would just make things more confusing?