Re-reading the book after watching the film

[IronParrot]

Now, we've had a lot of threads around here about how people felt about the book if they only read it for the first time after seeing the film. We've also had countless discussions within those who were familiar with the book before watching the film regarding how faithful it was or wasn't.

Before The Fellowship of the Ring was released in theatres, I'd read The Lord of the Rings from beginning to end perhaps five times, every time in successively increasing detail. Several weeks ago I finally read the whole thing cover-to-cover for the first time since I watched the film, and I noticed many, many things.

What surprised me the most was that although, even as a staunch defender of the film, I knew there were a lot of things that were different... it wasn't the differences that stuck out, it was the similarities.

What absolutely floored me, in effect, was just how faithful to the book the film was. (And keep in mind that at this point, I'd only watched the first film, and not even the Extended Edition at that.)

The visuals were obviously taken care of to a great extent, in terms of "creating" the sets of Middle-Earth on screen. Having watched the film in fact highlighted visual details that I'd never really retained before. About this matter, there is little debate.

What impressed me the most, though, was the dialogue. The writing of the film was far closer to the book than I'd ever imagined. Even the opening lines of Galadriel's narration are grafted from something Treebeard says in ROTK, something I'd never noticed before. The experience of having watched the film just highlighted how elegant Tolkien's writing originally was, and how quotable it yet becomes when one hears it spoken in context.

In fact, reading the whole thing over again made me appreciate the film even more.

Those of you who haven't tried this yet, I recommend that you do so immediately.

[cassiopeia]

I agree with you, IP. I too was struck by how close the dialogue in the movie was to the book. When I read the book after seeing the movie, I was thinking, oh that was in the movie. The dialogue that I liked which was in the book and movie were: Sams telling Gandalf not to turn him into anything unatural, Galadriels mirror scene and Gandalfs 'fool of a took'. I am so glad they put in Frodo's 'looks fairer but feels fouler' remark in the extended editon. That should have been in the theatrical version.

[Nibs]

Very true... and I like to think that any changes they made to adapt it were not made flippantly or with the intent to alter the books we know and love. They just made a great story fit into three separate three-hour intervals.

I liked the Extended Version even better, because it gave a little more depth to the characters as they interacted. Especially the Aragorn/Boromir scene.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I found that re-reading had the opposite result. I was struck by how much was missing and by how much of the film was not in the book at all. The Sauruman scenes could have been cut way back to allow more time for the characters to develop. Afterall, Sauruman is an "offstage" character in the first book, and could have better been handled with flashbacks at Rivendell and by descriptions from other characters.

I find over and over in the film the director and co. opted for "formula" action scenes whenever they could, and when they got to points in the books where there were none, they either left those sections out (as in the case of the three consecutive chapters Old Forest, Bombadil and Barrowdowns) or they invented stuff, like Moria fights, collapsing stairs and orc births.

How anyone could think a sword fight on weathertop was a better idea than the suspense filled scene in the book of the company seated backs to the fire waiting, fearing, the wraiths would appear is beyond me and a perfect example of bombastic over subtle. Not to mention the burnt robes that grow back!

The inclusion of direct dialogue form the book was a noble attempt but serves only to highlight the "average Hollywood writing" that makes up the rest of the film. The inclusion of Frodo's "seem fairer feel fouler" comment about Aragorn in the exteneded cut is a great example of this momentary poetry.

[Elf.Freak]

i loved the movie, but there were some things that weren't in the movie that were in the book. i wish they'd done the book exactly as it was (and made the film last AGES! not that we mind... :D )

[Sween]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I found that re-reading had the opposite result. I was struck by how much was missing and by how much of the film was not in the book at all. The Sauruman scenes could have been cut way back to allow more time for the characters to develop. Afterall, Sauruman is an "offstage" character in the first book, and could have better been handled with flashbacks at Rivendell and by descriptions from other characters.
I find over and over in the film the director and co. opted for "formula" action scenes whenever they could, and when they got to points in the books where there are none, they either left those sections out (as in the case of the three consecutive chapters Old Forest, Bombadil and Barrowdowns) or they invented stuff, like Moria fights, collapsing stairs and orc births.
How anyone could think a sword fight on weathertop was a better idea than the suspence filled scene in the book of the company seated backs to the fire waiting, fearing, the wraiths would appear is beyond me and a perfect example of bombastic over subtle. Not to mention the burnt robes that grow back!

saurman as written in the book would not work in the movie. you in film need a certain pressence of evil (a big eye is not enough) some of the shots round isengard were beautiful and showed his decline into darkness very well.

Now the old journy to bree is well done on this site and ill let you off cos your new here but we are all pretty much in agreement that they would not of worked in a film it would of ended up been about 5 hours long for them to of been done well and would of taken away most of the flow of the movie.

they did not invent the moria fight its in the book. In fairness to the written word for skirmishes like that they are dificult to write and dont quite transfer like in the movies. the battle sceans just catch your eye more in a movie thats it.

I thought it was great they had them all fightingin the film at the end. Frodo and Aragorn got there moment together which i thought was a master stroke and aragorns and bormoirs goodbye took on a lot of meaning.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I like your Jackson quote of the eye not being enough of a villain. But I didn't buy it when he tried it either. The villain in the first book is not an eye, the villains are many, 9 ringwraiths, a spy in Bree, orcs in Moria, a Balrog etc. It is typical Hollwood thinking that one must have a single person represent the villain in a film. Hollywood can't handle many of the "themes' in these books. Where was the Fear of the wraiths? A brilliant creation by Tolkien, an entity that overwhelms one with fear itself, not fear of the entity. why not explore this?

The fight in the book is a quick skirmish with 13 orcs, not a full blown brawl with a cave troll, and that is my point. Action expanded characters diminished.


I also liked Jackson's quote that he thought a physical fight between old wizards would be "humerous" I don't think humour was Tolkien's intention when he invisoned a confrontation between these two characters. Jackson does not have the "spirit" of this story whatsoever.

[jerseydevil]

I agree with squinteyedsoutherner. For one thing the Moria fight was invented. The fellowship nebver fought the cave troll. The fight seen was much smaller in moria against the orcs. Even walking into Moria was overblown in the movie. The didn't know anything had happened until they got to Balin's tomb in the book - whereas you know right away that the dwarves have all been killed in the movie the moment they walk through the gates.

I've never disagreed that Jackson did a great job at bringing the scenary of Middle Earth alive - but as far as I'm concerned - he did that and little else.

He could have built up the suspense. Look at a lot of the great horror movies - such as Halloween. That is the way I think the Ringwraiths should have been portrayed - particularly on weathertop. They weren't an "active evil" - and I think a better director (as long as they truly were a fan of the books) could have brought the suspense to the movie and kept it closer to the books. As I pointed out on another thread - Aragorn himself lights a fire and tells the hobbits that it will bring some protection in the book.

I also noticed and pointed out on various threads that the black riders cloacks miraculously appear unburnt in the flight to the ford scene.

After listening to Jackson talk about the making of the movie on the Directors commentary - I was wondering if he was TRULY a fan of the books or if he just thought it would make a cool movie. His knowledge of the books seemed to be lacking when he would talking about various things.

Sorry - I stand by my feelings that Jackson turned a great book into an action movie.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I was shocked at the commentary! I have often wondered;

did the writers suffer from hubris or ignorance?

Now I know.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I like your Jackson quote of the eye not being enough of a villan. But I didn't buy it when he tried it either. The villan in the first book is not an eye, the villans are many, 9 ringwraiths, a spy in Bree, orcs in Moria, a Balrog etc. It is typical Hollwood thinking that one must have a single person represent the villan in a film. Hollywood can't handle many of the "themes' in these books. Where was the Fear of the wraiths? A brilliant creation by Tolkien, an entity that overwhelms one with fear itself, not fear of the entity. why not explore this?

The fight in the book is a quick skirmish with 13 orcs, not a full blown brawl with a cave troll, and that is my point. Action expanded characters diminished.


I also liked Jackson's quote that he thought a physical fight between old wizards would be "humerous" I don't think humour was Tolkien's intention when he invisoned a confrontation between these two characters. Jackson does not have the "spirit" of this story whatsoever.

I guess you were typing this as I was typing my post. :)

In the commentary - Jackson says that he hates wizards using magic in fantasy movies. He might want to be reminded that Gandalf never used "magic" except on the Misty Mountains - and even then he says "'...I at least am revealed to them,' he said. 'I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.'"

Jackson makes no sense - in one breath he says that having a "fireworks" fight between Gandalf and Saruman would be too humurous and people would laugh - then he gives us the ridiculous wizards duel (and break dancing Gandalf). If he doesn't like wizards using magic in fantasy movies - then why did he bother to add in things that weren't even in the books - such as Saruman calling up the storm as they cross Caradhras?

Concerning the eye and the villians - I agree. There have been many horror and suspense movies where the villain wasn't clear cut. The fact that he said that the audience needed Saruman to be the main evil character is ridiculous. He could have built up the pyscological horror of the ringwraiths - as they are in the book. He could have had the eye a little more the way it is in the book (more as if it's searching and the longer you have the ring on the closer it gets to finding the wearer), instead the eye is in your face all the time.

[IronParrot]

This is less ignorance on Peter Jackson's part than it is misinterpretation on your part, I'm afraid. In your argument, you're using a tautological approach to the word "magic" to support your point. That doesn't hold water.

Obviously what Peter Jackson meant by saying that he didn't want a "fireworks" duel between Gandalf and Saruman is that he didn't want them shooting visible beams at each other. Why that's so difficult to understand, I can't see.

And as for Saruman bringing the mountain down, perhaps you don't remember that in the book, it was left ambiguous as to the cause of the storms that impeded them on Caradhras, and it was in fact suggested that Sauron himself could be responsible. I don't see how there's any sort of contradiction going on here. (It's yet another point that I only picked out from the book this time, I should note.)

Once again, some of you don't have the crucial appreciation of the intrinsic difference between film and the written word as storytelling media. Film is drama, and drama is based on interactions spurred by conflicts. Film has less room to be expository. It only makes perfect sense that everything be reduced to identifiable conflicts in order to move the story along. That's why you need Saruman as an identifiable villain in the first film - and besides, even within the film itself, I don't see how he's somehow "more" of a villain than Sauron. Sauron is identified as the major villain from the very beginning.

I would like to ask jerseydevil at this point - how would you shoot a scene of the Eye roaming Middle-Earth searching for the Ring? A wide shot of the map with the Eye roving back and forth?

As for the Cave Troll, on a visual level, that certainly made Frodo's saved-by-the-mithril stabbing look a lot more painful than if he was just speared by an ordinary orc.

"His knowledge of the books seemed to be lacking when he would talking about various things."
I don't see any indication that your "knowledge" of the books is any better.

Once again, liberties are absolutely necessary for visual storytelling alone to envelop all of the various senses that words are free to describe. Otherwise, the film would have ended up as another Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - so slavishly faithful to the original source that editing it to a reasonable runtime resulted in a choppy film that wasn't all too interesting from an original, artistic perspective.

You could go on and on about how Lawrence of Arabia should have stuck to The Seven Pillars of Wisdom scene-for-scene, but then where is there room for personal interpretation, the foundation of all art?

And once again, I hold to the position that a closer examination of the book reveals that the most important element, the essence of the story's themes and dynamics, is about as intact as it gets.

It's amazing how much material I originally thought was new, was actually in Tolkien's text all along.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
This is less ignorance on Peter Jackson's part than it is misinterpretation on your part, I'm afraid. In your argument, you're using a tautological approach to the word "magic" to support your point. That doesn't hold water.

Obviously what Peter Jackson meant by saying that he didn't want a "fireworks" duel between Gandalf and Saruman is that he didn't want them shooting visible beams at each other. Why that's so difficult to understand, I can't see.

I perfectly understood what jackson was referring to. I just think it's ridiculous to claim that having fire spouting from their wands is ridiculous - yet he has Gandalf spinning on the ground on his head. I personally think that the wizards duel should not have even have been in the movie - with or withouth fire spouting from their wands.

And as for Saruman bringing the mountain down, perhaps you don't remember that in the book, it was left ambiguous as to the cause of the storms that impeded them on Caradhras, and it was in fact suggested that Sauron himself could be responsible. I don't see how there's any sort of contradiction going on here. (It's yet another point that I only picked out from the book this time, I should note.)

I agree that the book is not very clear on this - but Tolkien seems to say that it's the mountain itself that is angry that they are attempting to cross. Again I don't think it was necessary to have Saruman calling up the storm.


(Gimli) 'It was no ordinary storm. It is the ill will of Caradhras.'
...
....with a deep rumble there rolled down a fall of stones and slithering snow...when the air cleared again they saw that the path was blocked behind them.
...
...with that last stroke the malice of the mountain seemed to be expended, as if Caradhras was satisified that the invaders had been beaten off and would not dare return.

I would hope that even Jackson knows that the weather can play the anatagonist also. Instead he has to have Gandalf and Saruman battling against each other.

Also - there was no reason to have the fellowship completely covered in the avalanche. It's also pretty impossible for them NOT to have gone over the edge in that scene. I have been on edges like that at Mt Rainier and they would have been over it in a second.

Once again, some of you don't have the crucial appreciation of the intrinsic difference between film and the written word as storytelling media. Film is drama, and drama is based on interactions spurred by conflicts. Film has less room to be expository. It only makes perfect sense that everything be reduced to identifiable conflicts in order to move the story along. That's why you need Saruman as an identifiable villain in the first film - and besides, even within the film itself, I don't see how he's somehow "more" of a villain than Sauron. Sauron is identified as the major villain from the very beginning.

Oh yes - the identifiable villian. Do you know how many movies would never have been produced if it was a requirement to ALWAYS have an identifiable villian? There are tons of suspenseful movies that have faceless nameless villians. The problem is it takes a director with more talent to make it. It's a lot easier to throw together special affects and action scenes - no matter what the level of detail is - than it is to actually make people sit on the edge of there seat and keep them in suspense.

I would like to ask jerseydevil at this point - how would you shoot a scene of the Eye roaming Middle-Earth searching for the Ring? A wide shot of the map with the Eye roving back and forth?

No - I thought it should be portrayed as originating from Mordor - searching - with fast flight sequences over Middle Earth as it gets closer and closer to Frodo. Then it shows that the eye is searching for Frodo - but it hardly ever finds his exact location.

As for the Cave Troll, on a visual level, that certainly made Frodo's saved-by-the-mithril stabbing look a lot more painful than if he was just speared by an ordinary orc.

Yeah - he made it more action oriented - even with the stupid slow motion as frodo screamed in pain.

I don't see any indication that your "knowledge" of the books is any better.

Well I guess that's your opinion that I don't know the books.

If you can show me where Aragorn is running from his heritage, where Gandalf acts like Saruman's whipped dog - then okay, maybe then I'd agree with you.

I do have to reread the book again - I've only read it 13 times.

[jerseydevil]

Once again, liberties are absolutely necessary for visual storytelling alone to envelop all of the various senses that words are free to describe. Otherwise, the film would have ended up as another Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - so slavishly faithful to the original source that editing it to a reasonable runtime resulted in a choppy film that wasn't all too interesting from an original, artistic perspective.

You could go on and on about how Lawrence of Arabia should have stuck to The Seven Pillars of Wisdom scene-for-scene, but then where is there room for personal interpretation, the foundation of all art?

And once again, I hold to the position that a closer examination of the book reveals that the most important element, the essence of the story's themes and dynamics, is about as intact as it gets.

It's amazing how much material I originally thought was new, was actually in Tolkien's text all along.
I disagree with you - and I DO understand the differences between film and book. But a lot of things could have been done to bring out the suspense. Halloween is more of a psycological horror movie than a slice and dice. LotR% was turned into a slice and dice movie.

And it annoys me that people keep acting as if I wouldn't accept any deviation from the book. That isn't true - but the thing is - so much that was changed didn't have to be. There could have been enough psycological suspense in the movie to keep people entertained with action sequences interspersed. Instead Jackson just had action sequence after action sequence.

[Erawyn]

What is wrong with changing a few things anyways? Why is it such a big deal if Jackson changed some things to make his movie? I agree with IP about the Harry Potter thing. That movie was horribly boring, just key scenes from the book acted out, with none of the feeling or detail that made the books moderately good. Jackson succeeded, if by altering things, to give the movie at least some of the detail and feeling that was in LOTR, much more than columbus and co. did by sticking unfailingly to the harry potter books.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
What is wrong with changing a few things anyways? Why is it such a big deal if Jackson changed some things to make his movie? I agree with IP about the Harry Potter thing. That movie was horribly boring, just key scenes from the book acted out, with none of the feeling or detail that made the books moderately good. Jackson succeeded, if by altering things, to give the movie at least some of the detail and feeling that was in LOTR, much more than columbus and co. did by sticking unfailingly to the harry potter books.
You can't compare The Lord of the Rings with Harry Potter. I can hate the movie or dislike it all I want - even if it's "Jackson's" movie. I didn't think it was as good as it could have been or should have been. It was good as an action movie - that is all.

[Lizra]

Boy, I sure wish I had tons of free time to re-read the books, watch the movie, maybe listen to the books on CD, watch the movies again, Since I don't, all I can add to this is.... I loved the books, and have been thrilled that someone made this beautiful film. I went thirty years between first reading of LoTR and seeing the new movie. I almost forgot Tolkien at different times in those 30 years, but now thanks to the movies (and forums!) I'll never forget the pleasures of Tolkien's work. Though the film is not perfect, it's given me lots of pleasure. Bilbo, is so wonderful in the film! :)

[Nibs]

There was soooo much action and characterization and background to introduce... into just three hours! I think P.J. and the crew did a fine job of giving a stunning visual "Reader's Digest" version of Fellowship of the Ring (you know, skip a chapter here, omit a character there), and I look forward to viewing the sequels.

After all, if all of us were to abridge the story contained in The Lord of the Rings to fit, say, a three-hour interval, we'd all have different views on things to include or omit (or alter)... just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong, flawed, or inferior.

[Amandil]

Reader's Digest indeed. *buried head in hands*

Here's my summary of this thread: Peter Jackson made a movie (not a film) for the weak of mind. Sounds like Holywood generally.

Oh, and regarding the "personal interpretation as the foundation of all art" idea, I beg to differ. "Personal interpretation" didn't even show up in the history of art until the late Renaissance (or so) when people started signing their names to works. That this sort of hubris was absent in the preceeding millenia of human history, I submit, means that either there was no art in human history until around the Renaissance, or personal interpretation is entirely contingent to good art. If Peter Jackson reallly loved the works of Tolkien, he wouldn't have been so concerned with putting his own mark on it. Did anyone give a rat's ass about Peter Jackson before they knew he was going to make these movies, and why should we give a rat's ass about his personal opinion now? What, is the slob some kind of genius? Somehow I doubt these films are going to put PJ in the Hitchcock-Kurosawa (sp?) category of great artists...

...but I rant.

[Maren]

I too am reading the books again after seeing the movie countless times!

Re-reading really makes me appreciate the grandeur of the story again, and it refreshes me to watch the movie because I can notice the fluid truths in the film more easily.

Reading the books again also make me really wish they would have put Glorfindel in the movie, and it makes me love the books even more than I did before!

Maren

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Jackson may have made the only kind of film you can make when this much money is at stake. That is the only defence one can seriously present. I am sure the pressures of the studio and their investors are formidable.

The arguement that all the changes made in the film are cinamatic necessities is nonsense.

I once read in letters that the original title of the rings was "Let's Hunt Some Orc!" So I am glad to see that little bone thrown to the fans.

[azalea]

Amandil, I'm not sure I understood what you meant, but I would disagree if you meant that those artists before the Renaissance didn't put in their personal interpretations just because they didn't sign their names. Personal interpretation happens whether you want it to or not, regardless of whether or not your name is on it. Music is a good example of this -- I can often tell who the artist is just by hearing a small part of a song I've never heard before, because their artistic "signature" permeates the song.


Anyway, back on topic: LotR was read to me as a child, and I read it as a teenager. I did not read it again until after I had seen the movie, although I really wanted to when I heard that the film was being made, because my brother said he was going to wait until after all of the films came out before he read it again, so that he could enjoy the films for themselves without making the inevitable comparisons to the book, and I thought that was a good idea, but decided I couldn't wait that long and read them after FotR came out. (wow, that was a long sentence) So when I saw the movie, I was very familiar w/ the world of ME, but it had been about, oh, 12 years since I had read LotR (although I had re-read The Hobbit a few times in that period). Thus, there were a lot of details I had forgotten about, and I feel like I had the best of both perspectives. I was excited that they were finally doing a live action movie of it, and hopeful that it wouldn't be total garbage.

So now to the point (thankfully :rolleyes: ). When I saw the movie, the things that stood out to me as someone who knew ME but hadn't been in a long time and had forgotten a lot were as follows:

No Tom B. and Goldberry. (I loved him, but honestly I don't think I remembered his name :o , I just remember thinking -- hey that guy I really like wasn't in it).

Felt very rushed (even after all that time I remembered that it took much much longer for the events of Book One to unfold. Even factoring in the "you have to keep things going in a movie" argument I thought it felt too rushed).

Saruman had a bigger role in this part (I didn't remember him having so much "speaking time" in FotR, I remembered his role being bigger in TT and RotK. This didn't bother me that much, because I liked that the movie dramatized events that in the books were only mentioned).

Frodo seemed too young, but I LOVED Elijah's portrayal, so that didn't bother me too much. (I know, I have been corrected a few times about the whole age thing, but in my mind he looks older than 18, and I like it that way:p ).

Merry and Pippin were changed a little, but this really didn't bother me too much.

Boromir was portrayed a little differently than I remembered.

Arwen's role being greatly expanded, but I found that understandable. Hey, I like love scenes!

The Council of Elrond was different. Elrond himself seemed more emotional than I pictured him (when speaking to Gandalf).

Those are the things that really stood out to me. I loved the movie, despite the changes. Then I read the books again, and the movie really had no effect on my re-reading it, other than to say to myself "Oh, they did that really well," or " I wish they had put that in," and some of "Why did they change that?"

Then when I saw the movie again, I saw a lot more of the differences, but it didn't diminish my liking of the movie. I like the movie as a movie, and don't expect it to be just like the book, but I do think it could have been done less as an action movie to allow for more episodes from the book.

[Blackboar]

I think it's very like the book especially the extended one.
I agree with you, Frodo does look very young when comparing him to Pippin snd Merry thinking how much younger they are than him!
Sam is also a lot younger than Frodo but looks the same age if not older!

[WallRocker]

I would have to agree with the Majority of the people posted on this thread. Even though Peter Jackson left out some of what I believe to be important scenes(Tom Bombadil, Barrow-Downs) the scenes left out were the least nesseccary for the story. All in all, Peter Jackson did a very good job.

[Eglantine Banks]

Very interesting discussion, ladies and gents.

I've read LOTR at least two dozen times and have seen FOTR ten times. Obviously I love both. I think that in many ways PJ did a great job of bringing Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth to life.

However, I agree with the criticism that there is too much "action" in the film, not enough character development. This is most obvious in the unnecessary, boring, ooh-let's-play-with-our-special-effects cave troll scene, but the "break dancing" wizards' fight is another example. I'm not saying cut out the fighting scenes and make it a talking movie -- not at all! It's just that every three minutes spent on an action sequence that could be out of any fantasy/sci fi movie is three minutes taken away from depicting the characters and locations that can only exist in this movie.

However, it's not just action that gets the upper hand over character development; it's that the scary, nasty parts of the story that are given more screen time. I think PJ as a director is more comfortable with showing nasty, scary, brutal stuff. Look at what he did with Bree. In many ways it was brilliant -- that heavy rain as they approached the gate of Bree was very evocative. And the Prancing Pony was a truly scary place. But hey -- in the book the Prancing Pony was a warm, welcoming place where there were other hobbits, and Frodo & Co. felt comfortable and at home. This is why Frodo did that foolish thing with singing and jumping around on the table and eventually winding up with the Ring on his finger. (Oops.) I would have preferred to see the movie scene done this way. That the moviemakers changed the Pony to a forbidding, frightening place illustrates, I think, a conscious choice to redefine Middle Earth as a place that is more frightening and has fewer peaceful places than Prof. Tolkien depicted it.

The absence of Tom Bombadil (a peaceful and comfortable character) and the emphasis placed on Lothlorien's frightening aspects (they are there in the book, just not as prominent as in the movie) support this idea.

-Eglantine

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Eglantine Banks
It's just that every three minutes spent on an action sequence that could be out of any fantasy/sci fi movie is three minutes taken away from depicting the characters and locations that can only exist in this movie.
The only argument I have against that is that, considering that a limited time was available for characterization and such, many of the main characters as we know them from the first film, change quite drastically to what they become by the end RotK. The hobbits find it quite normal to walk with full armor on, Legolas and Gimli eventually become quite close friends, and Aragorn becomes King... just to name a few. I think they focused characterization where it was needed most, especially with Boromir and Saruman (mostly :rolleyes: ).

[Amandil]

Egalantine, I think you make a good point regarding the Prancing Pony. I hadn't noticed that, but on reflection it seems quite true.

azalea, what I meant about art, Renaissance, and interpretation wasn't clear to you probably because I wasn't clear on it myself. (That's the fun of having a conversation -- the dialectic lets one's own self become more fully realized -- although that's not all there is to it.) I'll try to do a little better.

Notice the difference between a Gothic church and a Renaissance church. No indication of who was the great architect behind a Gothic church, but hit the Renaissance and we find that Bruneleschi (sp?) built that one, and so-and-so did the cupola on that one... Pre-renaissance art was no doubt expressive of the particular craftsman/artist, but the expression of the creator was not the main point of the art. Rather, it seems that the "signature" of the maker took a back seat to the greater "glory" of something Other to the maker. Once the Renaissance kicks in, in enters the new element of art for the glorification of the maker him/her-self. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. But it is a bad thing when the whole point of the art-work is to "point" to an Other. An example of this is adapting a book to the screen. Suddenly the "point" of the adaptation is the work being adapted, not the guy who does the adaptation. So my beef with the LotR movies is that they don't seem so much a tribute to Tolkien as a tribute to Peter Jackson. And I don't give a flying rats ass about Peter Jackson. I'm a Tolkien fan, after all. That's all.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Some of the commentary on the new dvd is quite interesting.

"I think the change is in keeping with the spirit of the Arwen character" I can't believe anyone could reasonably think this true.

"I never liked the idea of the song and Frodo accidently slipping the ring on his finger" I think this comment really betrays the writers belief that they were improving the narrative when making many of the film's changes. A cliche falldown for Frodo, one of how many in the film 3? 4?

"we were trying to get out of Rivendell as fast as possible" I think this comment, along with a similar one with regard to lothlorien is why the film seems rushed. Jackson seems, by his own admission, to be very uncomfortable slowing down the pace of a film after action sequences. What this film needed, for myself (and I believe many professional film critics made this point as well, as have many others here) was to breath during those sequences, and develop on a character level. I believe the rushed feeling of the film has more to do with this cinematic belief than with the lenght of the source material.

[Amandil]

Ahh, the voice of reason! Thank-you for this information and insight, squinteyedsoutherner. PJ's hubris is unreal.

[azalea]

Thanks for expanding on that; I now understand what you meant!:)

I disagree that PJ was trying to glorify himself, I really don't see that in the film. What I see as his fault is his obvious love of action/ fight scenes and special effects, which drew some of the blood out of the story, if you will. I see it not as an attempt to glorify himself or Tolkien, but an attemt to glorify ME through meticulous use of creative skill in making props, costumes, etc. Indeed, it did become PJ's interpretation of ME, because certainly Tolkien would have done things differently, I would have done things differently, you would have, and so on. Since we are all individuals, we must come to different conclusions about how things looked, how scenes played out that weren't detailed in the book, etc. PJ used other people's ideas, too, as I'm finding as I watch the appendices of the dvd. The unfortunate thing is, he failed to glorify the story as well as he could have because he was so hooked on the effects aspect of it, so you could say it became a glorification of visuals over script details. That was his real mistake.
Hey, he could easily have left part of FotR for TTT, and shortened the battle sequences there and in RotK. That would have allowed plenty of more time for "our" stuff to be shown. He might have, for instance, included the Barrow Downs, then stopped at the Gifts of Galadriel. Then TTT could have started w/ the Argonath, and he could have made that movie 2hrs, 45 min. long, too, because nobody will care about the length at that point (or at least I wouldn't;) ). But of course there are those for whom the battle sequences are the best part. It's all just a matter of preference, and trying to balance it all for a mass audience. The more I watch the Appendices, the more I see what a huge job it was to make the film. They probably could have gotten away with cutting back on the props budget. I mean, watching some of the detail they did on some of it was, well, let's just say there were things that took a lot of time energy and resources that got maybe one second of screen time!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Amandil
I don't give a flying rats ass about Peter Jackson. I'm a Tolkien fan, after all. That's all.

That's exactly how I feel. :)

I also agree it was a typical Hollywood action movie - the same cliches we've seen over and over again.

In terms of Bree - I never really considered that - although I did think that it felt different and darker than it came off in the book.

I think what LotR needed was a better director and writer. It needed someone that could balance the action and the need to tell the story and develop the characters.

The only thing that seems to match up with the book is the scenary. He did an excellent job bring ME alive, but he did a terrible job of bringing Lord of the Rings to life as a whole.

[Amandil]

Well, if it all boils down to preference there really isn't much left to say.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by azalea
I see it not as an attempt to glorify himself or Tolkien, but an attemt to glorify ME through meticulous use of creative skill in making props, costumes, etc. Indeed, it did become PJ's interpretation of ME, because certainly Tolkien would have done things differently, I would have done things differently, you would have, and so on. Since we are all individuals, we must come to different conclusions about how things looked, how scenes played out that weren't detailed in the book, etc.

That's not the point! The point is that he didn't do it exactly the way I would!!!

WAAAH


[pitiable self-righteousness]
Additionally, shouldn't you wait and see if the changes work in the next two films, just to be fair?
[/pitiable self-righteousness]

[presumptuous naïvety]
I think a better type of person to inquire to about the movies is one who has not read the books... you know, to see if the movies stand alone as good material. The few complaints I've heard concerning the movies are comprised mostly of variations of "It's soooo long" and "Hey, where's the ending?!"
[/presumptuous naïvety]

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nibs
I think a better type of person to inquire to about the movies is one who has not read the books... you know, to see if the movies stand alone as good material. The few complaints I've heard concerning the movies are comprised mostly of variations of "It's soooo long" and "Hey, where's the ending?!"
Well I have two friends that haven't read the books. One compared it to "Fast and Furious". Another keeps wanting to argue that Boromir should have been given the Ring and his plan should have at least been tried. This friend also felt the Hobbits were stupid and that Frodo should not have been the star (This friend is going to school for screen writing right now - actually getting his Masters). Because of this - and other comments - I do not think that Jackson brought the books to the screen very well. They both liked the movies - but did not think that they were the best movies or even close to them.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Another keeps wanting to argue that Boromir should have been given the Ring and his plan should have at least been tried.
Uh, I thought it was clear that using it would lead to the destruction of Middle-Earth, which was what they were trying to avoid... miss that part? Council of Elrond? Ring a bell?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
This friend also felt the Hobbits were stupid[/B]
Heck, I agree, in a way. We're talking about the first film, and that means that the hobbits are namby-pamby overeaters until they get whipped into shape through journeying and hardship.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They both liked the movies - but did not think that they were the best movies or even close to them.[/B]
Do you mean "movie"?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nibs
Uh, I thought it was clear that using it would lead to the destruction of Middle-Earth, which was what they were trying to avoid... miss that part? Council of Elrond? Ring a bell?

Being told and being visually shown are too different things. The extended DVD shows a lot more about the power of the Ring (the extended Isildur scene, the scene of Bilbo franticlly looking for the Ring). I think more of an emphasise on the Rings power was required. Right now - their just going to Mordor to destory it.

Without the whole background information that is covered in the Council of Elrond from the book it's hard to see why the Ring is of such a danger. I'm not saying that the ENTIRE "Council of Elrond" chapter or "The Shadow of the Past" chapter should have been recreated - but I think more of it should have been brought out.

Heck, I agree, in a way. We're talking about the first film, and that means that the hobbits are namby-pamby overeaters until they get whipped into shape through journeying and hardship.

Frodo was more able to handle it in the book than he appears in the movie. And agree that even in the book that Pippin and Merry thought that it was a run through the park in The Fellowship of the Rings. But you got the feeling (because of better character development) that there was more to the hobbits than eating. There were key moments where Frodo had that showed his strength in the books - but was watered down or non-existant in the movie.

Do you mean "movie"?
yeah - I mean movie.

[Nibs]

K. I can respect that.