Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

We seem to have a few Mooters here who are unable (or unwilling) to see the difference between a screenplay that strictly adheres to Tolkien's story on a scene-by-scene basis and one that captures the essence of Tolkien's great work. Capturing Tolkien's vision is not about whether Bombadil was included or whether Arwen took Frodo to the Ford but about nailing the themes that were important to Tolkien.

If you want to argue that Peter Jackson didn't follow Tolkien's story in filming the flight to the ford or the breaking of the fellowship, I will agree with you. (Although I would argue that PJ's changes were actually better for a movie adaptation.) But if you want to argue that PJ hasn't captured Tolkien's vision, I think you're all wet. ;) :)

To illustrate my point, I would encourage any Mooter who would argue that Jackson hasn't captured Tolkien's vision to please provide specific examples of plot deviations that CHANGED THE UNDERLYING THEMES of Tolkien's story.

Let's see what real differences we come up with.

[Elvengirl]

I pretty much agree with you. I thought FOTR was great.
No PJ did not change the basic plot of the story and I understand that he couldn't put every single part in the movie (Tom Bombadill). I think the scenes that stayed true to the book (or as close as possible) were very well done and did capture Tolkien's vision.

But the changes he did make were not for the better, such as Arwen's flight to the ford, Faramir and Osgiliath, Haldir's death, and Aragorn's cliff scene. They were ridiculous changes that did nothing to enhance the story. They were a waste of time that could have been used to include some of Tolkien's great work. That is what I am disappointed about.

[Celebréiel]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
well, IMHO, its impossible (damn hard) to say totally specific themes that Pj changed, because everyone that read the book has a different interpretation of it and what they got out of it. It depends also on where you are in life, your outlook. I know personally that re-reading lotr very recently I had a really different view of it and how things happend than when I first read it. Its annoying b/c Pj was all this is how Tolkiens work is and this is tolkiens work. Its one guys(a group of peoples *shrugs*) interpretation of it and what they viewed the themes to be... Even the most literal interpretation of the book probably wouldnt have nailed it down for everyone...maybe it would have been best to not make a movie at all.
Some people liked it...some people didnt,no matter how many times this topic is discussed.. its that simple. :p ;)

[Elvellyn]

The movies -as movies- were great!
The movies -as interpretations of the books- were...uh so-so.

[olsonm]

I've rarely seen a literal film adaption of a lengthy book (or a historical event for that matter). Tolkien felt the story needed to be altered to make a good film. But there is no blue print for such alterations. Each adaptor must make those choices for themselves and for their story telling style and strengths. I feel PJ has done a good job in adapting the story while playing to his strengths as a story teller. I feel some of the complaints are unfounded because they critique parts of the story that PJ never attempted to adapt. However, I do believe there are some who genuinely don't like PJ's movies from an enterainment point-of-view.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The first theme I think of off the top of my head is Hobbits. Tolkien specifically stated that the Lord of the Rings was about Hobbits; indeed, in the prologue, he as well as says it.
Another is Characters. In his Letters, Tolkien said that he would hate the defamation of the characters more than the ruining of the plot, IIRC.
I could mention the Orcs as a follow-up to characters, but that couldn't really be described as a Theme, but rather an intrinsic part of the world. :)

[BeardofPants]

*Yawn* This has been done so, so many times before. My biggest problem is with the reduction of the role of the hobbits, and the shift to the "world of men." I have several others, but really, BB, you're a waste of space, and I can't be arsed going through another cyclic tirade where I try and argue, and you flame me, and slither around like the slimy little wormtongue you are. Oh whoops, was that OT? :p

*round, and round, and round we go...*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To quote a certain Istar: "If only he could be cured." ;)

[azalea]

I'm going to give a pre-emptive warning here about this topic. everyone seems to get very emotional and upset when discussing it, for some reason. I just want to go ahead and remind everyone not to flame, to stay civil and on-topic, or just don't bother posting. I hate to have to keep closing valid threads due to their ruination caused by flaming and off-topic silliness, so Crickhollow and I may have to decide instead to take action against specific people, rather than close the thread. I guess it will just depend on how it goes. Please don't post if you cannot say something constructive. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. *End rant*

On topic: I think olsonm made an excellent point about the storyteller knowing his style and strengths, and producing work that uses those strengths, rather than trying to fit a mold and producing a lesser work as a result.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by azalea
On topic: I think olsonm made an excellent point about the storyteller knowing his style and strengths, and producing work that uses those strengths, rather than trying to fit a mold and producing a lesser work as a result. Thanks azalea. I'm glad someone reads my babblings. :D

[azalea]

:D Well, you know, being a moderator, now I have to read everyone's babblings! But that was no babble, that was a good post.:) And this is coming from one who babbles frequently.

Anyhoo... back on topic (or I may have to take action against myself for off-topic silliness!:eek: )...

[IronParrot]

"The movies -as movies- were great!
The movies -as interpretations of the books- were...uh so-so."
It's more important that they're excellent films than excellent adaptations. For an example of the exact reverse, take a look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

My take is that Tolkien's vision, above all, was that The Lord of the Rings is a buried part of history: a fabricated, extrapolated cultural mythology, so to speak. (I could point out all the specifics but it would be faster for you and me if you were to get a hold of some of Tom Shippey's writings on the matter.) In the context of LOTR, even Tolkien paints it in the perspective of being an English translation of the Red Book of Westmarch, a chronicle of something that really happened.

I think the intention with the Peter Jackson films - as stated in several interviews and documentaries by Mr. Jackson himself - was to look at the events of LOTR as if they actually happened. This is the same perspective Tolkien took: a retelling of a timeless myth.

Therefore, it's safe to say that the films were "based on the same pre-historical events as Tolkien's LOTR" rather than just based on Tolkien's text itself. Think of it as if it were a chronicle of the Trojan War called The Iliad that wasn't strictly based on Homer's Iliad verse for verse.

That said, I think the approach to LOTR was no different than the necessary filmic approach to any historical piece, like Lawrence of Arabia or Braveheart for instance: it filled in gaps, it put its own spin on certain subjective things, it played some themes common to Tolkien more than it played others, and it did it all in a very cinematically sensible way.

In the interest of LOTR's foundational principles - and Tolkien's work in general, with the study of language as a link to faded cultural legends - I think Peter Jackson did the story a great service by having the courage to take some liberties and demonstrate excellent filmmaking. Just as Tolkien wrote a long-lost mythos with the language of words, Jackson painted it with the language of cinema.

For that, as a Tolkien fan, I commend the film and forgive its differences from the book.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But folk always seem to ignore things which were specifically warned against by Tolkien, and which PJ with no regard to the author did anyway.

It's more important that they're excellent films than excellent adaptations

Normally, I might agree (note the word might). But this is the Lord of the Rings: in my humble opinion, at least, a part of the greatest literary work (Middle-earth) ever produced by human mind. It is something special, and special means must be taken to ascertain that it is treated properly. But even in a different story, I don't know that I would agree. I believe very strongly in the sanctity of sub-creation, that what one makes should NOT be tampered with, changed, or screwed up. Not to say that if it was not purely accurate, it would be worthless. But as I stated previously, Tolkien said something along the lines that the ruination of the characters would anger him even more greatly than the destruction of the plot. And who can possibly claim that the character's were preserved? In what way was "funny short person" the same as Gimli son of Gloin, save in stature? In what way was "stupid Scottish hobbit" the same as Peregrin Took, save in furriness of toe? In what way was "boob-flashing warrior elf-princess" the same as Arwen Undomiel, save that she carried a gem? In what way was "afraid of who I am" the same as Aragorn son of Arathorn, save that both were raised by Elves?

[Melko Belcha]

PJ never even bothered to follow the authors wishes in how his work should be treated if ever turned into a movie, PJ did what he wanted and pushed Tolkien out the door. All PJ saw was a chance to make a big movie that he would be remembered for, not because of any respect to the author and all the hard work he put into creating the story. As Tolkien has said, he wrote the story the way it really happened, all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right. PJ claims that he is a Tolkien expert and then in interviews he says things that proves he has hardly done any research on him, all he does in guess. PJ might be a fan of LotR, but he has no respect for the author, his family, or all the fans who have been reading and studying LotR over the past 40+ years.

[Lizra]

"Boob flashing warrior princess"? We saw different movies!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
PJ never even bothered to follow the authors wishes in how his work should be treated if ever turned into a movie, PJ did what he wanted and pushed Tolkien out the door. All PJ saw was a chance to make a big movie that he would be remembered for, not because of any respect to the author and all the hard work he put into creating the story. As Tolkien has said, he wrote the story the way it really happened, all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right.

Hear hear! :D

Liz, I presume that you refer to the 'boob-flashing' part?

[azalea]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right.

I disagree with this particular statement. I think PJ thought many of the changes he made were in the interest of making a viable movie. I happen to disagree with him for the most part, but I don't think he was intentionally trying to make LotR as if it were his own creation. He also stated in the commentary, etc. on the dvd that, for instance, they thought they'd have to "fight" to keep the pipe-smoking in. This tells me that he felt he had to do at least some of what he did to keep the money people happy, unfortunately. There were, of course things he changed or "interpreted" differently that were for his own satisfaction. IOW, he conciously made the changes, but I don't feel that his motive was to improve on the book. Fortunately for me it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the movies.

[Lizra]

I never saw a "boob flashing warrior princess" in the Arwen parts of these two films. Who did? :confused:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I forgot to mention "schitzo". ;)

First Movie: We (I, at any rate, and as BB has defended this I presume even he) get the impression that Arwen is a very capable warrior at the Ford. Of couse, the other parts I had no problem with, either in consideration with her "Xenarwen" side, or her character in the book. 1: "Capable warrior" and "Noble lady" can easily mix well, IMO. 2: She seemed much closer to the book Arwen there.

Second Movie: She comes off to me as sort of a blubbery teenager, a rather weak character. Which does not fit at all with either "Capable warrior" or "Noble lady".

As for the "boob-flashing", she wears a see-through dress in TTT, and at one it focusses on her, ahem, chest area.

[Lizra]

If that's it, then I think you are exaggerating a bit. :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, maybe a bit. ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
PJ never even bothered to follow the authors wishes in how his work should be treated if ever turned into a movie, PJ did what he wanted and pushed Tolkien out the door. All PJ saw was a chance to make a big movie that he would be remembered for, not because of any respect to the author and all the hard work he put into creating the story. As Tolkien has said, he wrote the story the way it really happened, all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right. PJ claims that he is a Tolkien expert and then in interviews he says things that proves he has hardly done any research on him, all he does in guess. PJ might be a fan of LotR, but he has no respect for the author, his family, or all the fans who have been reading and studying LotR over the past 40+ years. What does this tirade have to do with the thread topic? We've had posters like Melko Belcha and the Arwen-bashing crowd railing against Jackson in countless threads here. The point of THIS thread is for the naysayers to SHOW WHY Jackson didn't capture Tolkien's vision.

To this point, I'm to assume that Jackson was disrespectful to Tolkien's vision...plus "the author himself, his family and all the fans who have been reading and studying LotR over the past 40+ years" because he:

1) expanded Arwen's screen time and gave her a sword to hold; and
2) didn't get the characterizations exactly to everyone's satisfaction.

If you Jackson naysayers want to be taken seriously and have a real discussion on the question of whether or not he captured Tolkien's vision (as opposed to a strict interpretation of the books), we need a lot more meat to chew on than what you've given us thus far.

To be honest, I didn't think I'd prove my point this easily.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, Tolkien said destroying the characters would be worse than destroying the plot, but I believe, but I guess you're just going to stick with Jackson and say "Screw the old geezer!" :)

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by azalea
I disagree with this particular statement. I think PJ thought many of the changes he made were in the interest of making a viable movie. I happen to disagree with him for the most part, but I don't think he was intentionally trying to make LotR as if it were his own creation. He also stated in the commentary, etc. on the dvd that, for instance, they thought they'd have to "fight" to keep the pipe-smoking in. This tells me that he felt he had to do at least some of what he did to keep the money people happy, unfortunately. There were, of course things he changed or "interpreted" differently that were for his own satisfaction. IOW, he conciously made the changes, but I don't feel that his motive was to improve on the book. Fortunately for me it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the movies.
Sorry but I disagree, I truely feel like he thought he was improving the story. There are to many great cinematic scenes in the book that were left out for his additions. You talk about him making changes to make a viable movie, but his additons have hurt the movie in so many parts from what it could have been. Why add scenes when you have to completey rewrite major points in the story for your additions to fit? Yes there is alot of stuff I would have done different if I wrote the story myself, but I didn't, and I don't plan on making any changes to it, even if I was given the money and opportunity to make a movie or rewrite the story, even if I had full support of Tolkien's family. Tolkien wrote the story the way it should be told, whether in book, movie, or theater. IMO there is no excuse you can give that will make me accept in any way the stuff PJ has done, if you can't follow the book, don't make the movie, if you have ideas of your own, write your own story, and don't redo someone else's.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, a number of times I've heard Jackson say that he has taken Tolkien's story and actually improved upon it.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, a number of times I've heard Jackson say that he has taken Tolkien's story and actually improved upon it. I challenge anyone to find a direct quote where Jackson said he improved Tolkien's story.

On the other hand, I am on record as saying Jackson improved on Tolkien's story. :)

[Elf Girl]

Then you enjoy the elimination of the characters of Gimli, Merry and Pippin? I can't see why.

As for themes, what about the fading of the Elves? If he must focus so much on Men, then he could at least show how much Elves are giving way to them as "race of glory". But no, he was doing a great job when suddenly a bunch of armoured, walking-in-unison idiots who call themselves Elves, not to mention Haldir, show up to save Helms Deep.

Also the "expansion of Arwen's screen time" made Frodo look like a spineless wimp who couldn't resist the shard of Morgul-blade. Makes me think, "THIS is our Ringbearer?! He won't survive Moria, let alone Mordor!"

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, Tolkien said destroying the characters would be worse than destroying the plot, but I believe, but I guess you're just going to stick with Jackson and say "Screw the old geezer!" :)

I'm siding with Gwaimir this time. :)

It is pointless to ruin Faramir's noble character and to make Gimli out to be an idiot. That is not "capturing Tolkien's vision", your latest euphemism doesn't work either.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

This is a question that could be argued from many different angles, and good arguments could be made either way.

Personally, I tend to side with the pro-movie side, although I love the books dearly too. I think FOTR EE was a sheer masterpiece. The changes such as Arwen did not bother me much, because Glorfindel is not really elaborated on in the book. (I know his history and importance, however). Bombadil annoys me because I strongly believe Tolkien put him in the book early on before he had a sure notion of his direction. It says as much in his letters. I feel that he is irrevelant to the story, but JRR left him in just to achieve some mysteriousness. All told, when I watch the movie, it is like the book memories springing from my head straight to the screen.

For TTT, I am not quite as bullish for PJ. The movie was great, but I did not have that feeling of the book jumping straight to the screen. I definitely dislike the whole Gimli thing. I can think of no reason to do that. One of the few instances of out and out error in my opinion. I also dislike the Elves at Helms Deep, but I can live with it. Osgiliath was cool in my opinion because it added a little more depth to the movie in very quick fashion. I feel that unconsciously, the average viewer gets a feeling of the hugeness of Middle-Earth from that scene. It is my hope that the EE of TTT captures a little more feel from the book.

As far as Tolkien's vision goes, I think the Elves were captured very well. The languages were excellent, the sense of fading emanated from Galadriel, and their immortal being was explored. Elrond was different, and I didn't like him at first, but he does a good job showing his disdain for the weakness of men.

I agree that the movie was not centered around hobbits, but I do not think that it could have been done while still being completely effective and making money. Lets face it, that is a necessary part of all this. The movie had to be from the perspective of the people watching it.

FOTR EE rates 10 out of 10 in capturing vision.

TTT rates 7 out of 10 in capturing vision.

Both movies view as one continuous picture rate 8 out of 10.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
Osgiliath was cool in my opinion because it added a little more depth to the movie in very quick fashion. I feel that unconsciously, the average viewer gets a feeling of the hugeness of Middle-Earth from that scene.
In the reality Jackson has created, and also in Tolkien's reality, that scene (with the Nazgul) is impossible. Why didn't it just stab him? Why didn't it just get its pteradactyl to kill him?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sorry, I don't remember Elrond snubbing Men in the book...:confused:

[Black Breathalizer]

Elf Girl
Then you enjoy the elimination of the characters of Gimli, Merry and Pippin? I can't see why.I think most reasonable people would agree that while there are some differences between the movie Gimli, Merry, and Pippin from the books, it would be a gross misstatement to say that their characters were essentially eliminated. These types of gross exaggerations only weaken your case.

Elf Girl
As for themes, what about the fading of the Elves?I seem to recall a number of "our time is ending" comments from Elrond and Galadriel. I also recall seeing Sam and Frodo watching the elves marching to the Grey Havens to depart Middle-Earth and Sam saying "Somehow it makes me sad." I remember the flash forward scene of a forlorn Arwen wandering the empty forests of Lorien alone. I expect I'll see some very interesting stuff in the Grey Havens in Movie three. For a movie trilogy, I would argue that Jackson has pretty much covered this one, Elf Girl.

Elf Girl
Also the "expansion of Arwen's screen time" made Frodo look like a spineless wimp who couldn't resist the shard of Morgul-blade. Makes me think, "THIS is our Ringbearer?! He won't survive Moria, let alone Mordor!" There have been numerous threads about the film portrayal of Frodo. Let's just say that while you may have wanted Frodo portrayed as more of an "action hero," Jackson's approach turned out to be a more effective way of capturing the essence of Tolkien's Frodo for a live-action film. As other film adaptations have shown, simply copying the original for the big screen is no guarantee that the heart and soul of the book it has been taken from has been captured too.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

Yes, thanks for reminding me. That scene with the Nazgul in Osgiliath ruined a chance for some real fear and fright to be displayed. It was very, very stupid to just hover there like an imbecile. That scene irks me, bad.

Probably my worst is when they hide under the Elven cape. When they show the view from inside the cape the guys foot is RIGHT THERE BESIDE THEM! Then it switches to the outside view and he is like 50 feet away. I don't get it...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I think most reasonable people would agree that while there are some differences between the movie Gimli, Merry, and Pippin from the books, it would be a gross misstatement to say that their characters were essentially eliminated. These types of gross exaggerations only weaken your case.

I seem to recall a number of "our time is ending" comments from Elrond and Galadriel. I also recall seeing Sam and Frodo watching the elves marching to the Grey Havens to depart Middle-Earth and Sam saying "Somehow it makes me sad." I remember the flash forward scene of a forlorn Arwen wandering the empty forests of Lorien alone. I expect I'll see some very interesting stuff in the Grey Havens in Movie three. For a movie trilogy, I would argue that Jackson has pretty much covered this one, Elf Girl.

There have been numerous threads about the film portrayal of Frodo. Let's just say that while you may have wanted Frodo portrayed as more of an "action hero," Jackson's approach turned out to be a more effective way of capturing the essence of Tolkien's Frodo for a live-action film. As other film adaptations have shown, simply copying the original for the big screen is no guarantee that the heart and soul of the book it has been taken from has been captured too.

1. Why? In the movies, Gimli has very little personality except for "Look at me! I'm short!", Pippin has very little personality except for "Dumb-butt", and Merry has very little personality except for "Dumb-butt's smarter friend".

2. I would pretty well agree with this. I was fairly well satisfied with this aspect. Tho' I must say that some of my non-reading friends didn't understand, wondering why the Elves were leaving, and thinking they were just running away.

3. "Action hero", no. "More of an active character", yes. Frodo was poorly portrayed in my opinion. You think that Jackson's approach turned out to be more effective, but from what I have seen, you place Jackson over Tolkien (about 500 feet over).

Personally, I think that this might have been better in the LotR books forum. But the thread-starter pretty well never goes to the LotR books forum. I wonder if this means something...

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I seem to recall a number of "our time is ending" comments from Elrond and Galadriel. I also recall seeing Sam and Frodo watching the elves marching to the Grey Havens to depart Middle-Earth and Sam saying "Somehow it makes me sad." I remember the flash forward scene of a forlorn Arwen wandering the empty forests of Lorien alone. I expect I'll see some very interesting stuff in the Grey Havens in Movie three. For a movie trilogy, I would argue that Jackson has pretty much covered this one, Elf Girl.
My point exactly. He ruined the excellent job he was doing by having a bunch of strong, non-fading, alliance-renewing, so-called Elves in Helms Deep.

[Black Breathalizer]

What is happening here is the same thing that's happened on every other thread---you Purists just can't stop nitpicking long enough to savor the bigger picture. Capturing the heart and soul of Tolkien's work is much more than the individual issues of character portrayal or plot devices that have been shared here thus far.

One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause. Jackson solved a screenplay plot issue AND enhanced one of Tolkien's messages at the same time by bringing the elves to Helm's Deep. Was it in the book? Nope. But did it help illustrate a larger and more important point that Tolkien was making? ABSOLUTELY.

A screenplay can't always capture the feel of its source book by playing it literal. Sometimes a screenwriter has to be creative in order to do justice to the author. This is but one of many BRILLIANT examples of this.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause.

I fail to see that. There was very little "power" from the Fellowship. The vastly most important work was done by three of the same race.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause. Jackson solved a screenplay plot issue AND enhanced one of Tolkien's messages at the same time by bringing the elves to Helm's Deep. Was it in the book? Nope. But did it help illustrate a larger and more important point that Tolkien was making? ABSOLUTELY.
But since it directly controdicts another theme he has made a point of accenting, it only confused what exactly is the moral of the story.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What is happening here is the same thing that's happened on every other thread---you Purists just can't stop nitpicking long enough to savor the bigger picture. Capturing the heart and soul of Tolkien's work is much more than the individual issues of character portrayal or plot devices that have been shared here thus far.

One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause. Jackson solved a screenplay plot issue AND enhanced one of Tolkien's messages at the same time by bringing the elves to Helm's Deep. Was it in the book? Nope. But did it help illustrate a larger and more important point that Tolkien was making? ABSOLUTELY.

A screenplay can't always capture the feel of its source book by playing it literal. Sometimes a screenwriter has to be creative in order to do justice to the author. This is but one of many BRILLIANT examples of this.

Really, it comes down to the fact that NO-ONE can know what Tolkien wanted (and no, BB, Jackson is not God, therefore he is not omniscient, therefore he cannot know, even if he cared). So "literal" is really the only way to possibly have any surety of staying true to the author's vision. I'm not saying that every single bit should have been there. But I am saying that if you actually WANT to make a real adaptation, rather than just making money off of a story, than the best way to go about this is to alter as little as possible. Throw "comic relief" out of the window, or preserve what humour (not humor) the author has. Forget "strong female roles": heck, Galadriel and Eowyn fill this in pretty well. Both come off stronger than many of the males. Screw "making it suspenseful" and make it REAL.

Wow...for some reason I suddenly felt pity...

[Elf Girl]

Thank you Gwaimir. Thou has hit yonder nail on the head.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As long as I get to hit something on the head. ;)

[IronParrot]

Question:

Is there any reason why the naysayers have completely disregarded my earlier post?

Is it, perhaps, because all of your arguments are based on the fundamental assumption that Tolkien's work represents the absolute, indisputable, literal "truth" of Middle-Earth - an assumption I soundly refuted above, with my historiographical analysis of what Tolkien's foundational goals were regarding his work?

Could somebody please address this instead of picking on poor Breathalizer, who's probably feeling like "the easy target" right now?

Because so far, the main complaints I've heard about the changes in the films was that they were... HUSH... changes!

That looks a bit circular and tautological to me. "The adaptation was bad because it was different" (to paraphrase most/all of you) is hardly a valid argument.

I'll attack specifics later. Please at least attempt address my core arguments first.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Really, it comes down to the fact that NO-ONE can know what Tolkien wanted.So does this mean all of you who claim Jackson has trashed Tolkien's vision don't know what you're talking about? :)

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I'm not saying that every single bit should have been there. But I am saying that if you actually WANT to make a real adaptation, rather than just making money off of a story, than the best way to go about this is to alter as little as possible. Throw "comic relief" out of the window, or preserve what humour (not humor) the author has. Forget "strong female roles": heck, Galadriel and Eowyn fill this in pretty well. Both come off stronger than many of the males. Screw "making it suspenseful" and make it REAL.There have been many examples (Harry Potter comes immediately to mind) of screenplays that, in your words, WANT to make a real adaptation by altering as little as possible. The results have been lukewarm at best. Why? According to you, this is the best way to make it REAL. Then why didn't the first Harry Potter movie capture the public's imagination in the same way LOTR did?

The answer lies in the subject of this thread. Capturing a story's heart and soul for the big screen lies far less in a slavish following of the author's words and more on creatively illustrating on film what the author's story was really all about.

BTW, IronParrot is my new hero. :)

[Lizra]

I have seen Harry Potter mentioned many times as a bad (boring? :confused: ) adaptation. I've never read the book or seen the movie, but I take it the movie is not good? If someone said the same about LoTR, and I never saw the movies because they "were different", I think I would be missing out! That's just my opinion though! ;)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Question:

Is there any reason why the naysayers have completely disregarded my earlier post?

Is it, perhaps, because all of your arguments are based on the fundamental assumption that Tolkien's work represents the absolute, indisputable, literal "truth" of Middle-Earth - an assumption I soundly refuted above, with my historiographical analysis of what Tolkien's foundational goals were regarding his work?

Could somebody please address this instead of picking on poor Breathalizer, who's probably feeling like "the easy target" right now?

Because so far, the main complaints I've heard about the changes in the films was that they were... HUSH... changes!

That looks a bit circular and tautological to me. "The adaptation was bad because it was different" (to paraphrase most/all of you) is hardly a valid argument.

I'll attack specifics later. Please at least attempt address my core arguments first.

Well, since Black Breathelizer ignored many of our posts, I don't see why our side can't ignore your side. :p

BB, you know precisely what I meant, and you just threw that in to try and try and sound terribly clever.

Lukewarm at best, according to YOUR definition. See, some of us actually believe in literature, and believe in authors, and believe that their will should not merely be thrown to the ground and ground into the dust, as Jackson has especially done with the characters, but to a lesser degree with many other things. Some of us believe that remaining true to the story and tale is more important than having a "l337 movee, d00d". If you consider special effects, cheap laughs, making sure the movies are half composed of battle scenes, and other similar things more important than the story which is told and staying true to the wish of the author, then by Eru's halls, this movie is made specifically for you, BB.

Put simply, Harry Potter is a story written for children. One cannot expect it to be tremendously popular today, especially considering how most of the people of today view such stories. Also, Rowling just isn't as good an author as Tolkien. :p

[squinteyedsoutherner]

For me, the film's problems are not (just) thematic. Take the scenes in Bree. A warm, charming and inviting Inn is transformed into a dark, muddy, rainy ominous place. The actions leading up to Frodo putting the ring on are changed from the original song to a Hollywood cliche falldown, one of 5 or 6 in the first film alone for Frodo. Then, in the commentary, the change is defended by Jackson saying "I never liked the idea of Frodo standing up and singing and accidently slipping the ring on his finger" Multiply this over two films and you have my point of view.

I also can't help notice the grammar of the initial post. "Tolkien's vision" which is possessive meaning belonging to Tolkien. Letter #210 clearly ends any debate on where Tolkien would stand on the changes to the story. I like the company.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
BB, you know precisely what I meant, and you just threw that in to try and try and sound terribly clever.You caught me. :D

This thread is beginning to sound a lot like the other Purist threads. I asked for specific examples of how Jackson's movie failed to capture the heart, and soul of Tolkien's work. Personally, I see a big difference between a Gimli joke or an unexpected Arwen appearance from "the big picture" so to speak.

I keep hearing, "well, Tolkien would have hated this and hated that." Oh really? How do you know? JRR Tolkien sold the movie rights to LOTR to Saul Zantz before he died. He understood that he wouldn't have editorial control over its presentation. He was comfortable with that or he wouldn't have made the deal. As great as Tolkien was, he was no different that thousands of other novel writers who have sold their movie rights over the years. Many film adaptations of great books have disappointed fans of the source material while only a select few haven't. For most fans, Jackson's films fall in the "select few" category. IMHO, the movie trilogy is forging its own identity apart from the books as a modern-day film classic.

My personal view is that Tolkien would have appreciated the tremendous love, passion, and group commitment, the filmmaking team put into telling his tale. Would he have agreed with 100% of the changes they have made for the film version? Probably not. But I think he would have been the first to say that Jackson has done a good job of capturing the essence of his story on film.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

You are ignoring facts. You can't argue that Tolkien would have liked the screenplay after reading letter #210, in fact, it seems likely he would have lashed out at least as hard as he did against Zimmerman's screenplay. You also can't discuss "Tolkien's vision" and then ignore the man's own written views and expect to be taken seriously.

"Strider does not whip out a sword (on Weathertop) his sword was broken. Why then make him do so here in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons"

"Gandalf does not say they should leave as soon as they can pack, 2 months elapse. The elapse of time should be indicated, if by no other means than the change to winter in the scenery and the trees"

"Seasons are carefully regarded in the original and should be the means by which the artists indicate the passage of time"

"the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration and the intrusion of unwanted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies"

JRR Tolkien from letter #210


Notice that Tolkien is arguing that small changes have a significant effect on the whole. That the Weathertop swordfight undermines the psychological fear of the wraiths. That time passage can easily and quickly be shown by season changes which also relate to the theme of the tale. This letter goes on to suggest Helm's Deep be removed if time is an issue since the battle in the final book is more important and battles can be repetitious. That geography and time cannot be compressed without damaging the story. That the script contains way too much fighting. That Frodo's quest is more important than all the other action in The Two Towers. That if Saruman's death is to be changed then there is no point in killing him at all, as well as many other elements of HIS vision. Your arguement is not supported by the facts whatsoever.

[Melko Belcha]

I agree with squinteyedsoutherner.

All of the small and large themes in LotR plays to the full vision of Tolkien's, to change one of those themes is to change the vision. Look at Frodo's resilience to the Morgul wound, in the book when Frodo was attacked at Weathertop he struck at the Witch-king with is sword and called on Elbereth after he was stabbed, in the movie Frodo falls on the ground screaming after he was stabbed, in the book Frodo carried the splinter from the Morgul blade for 17 days, a wound that would have overcome even the strongest of men, and still resisted the Witch-kings comand at the Ford, in the book he had to be carried to the Ford and saved by an Elf. What does this have to do with the theme or vision? How about the weak will preveil where the wise can not.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I see a big difference between a Gimli joke or an unexpected Arwen appearance from "the big picture" so to speak.
Very true. But what about Gimli becoming a joke, and Arwen making Frodo look, as I said before, like a spineless wimp? Honestly, doesn't our beloved Ringbearer have any mettle at all?

[Elfhelm]

Making Gimli a bafoon is an easy, cheap trick. Tolkien would not have done that. Tolkien's vision, especially as regards Gimli and Legolas, is how two vastly different people can learn to appreciate each other's culture. We are meant to respect them both and hope they overcome their prejudices, and when they do, it is hoped we will take a lesson from it. Where are the Glittering Caves? Why didn't Legolas see more of Fangorn? Or is it just that this particular vision of Tolkien's is not profitable to New Line Cinema? (Or am I just prosletizing my heterodoxy again.)

[Black Breathalizer]

The real issue here is that you Purists are so focused on your individual little peeves that you are unable to step back and appreciate the beauty of the collected whole.

Tolkien's book was about many things, among them was:
--the power and beauty of self-sacrificing friendship;
--of the ability of the smallest person to change the world;
--keeping hope and faith alive in the darkest of hours;
--how industry and technology are destroying our spiritual connection to nature; and
--the importance of understanding and appreciating our differences.

There are many more I haven't touched on, but you get the idea. Personally, I think Jackson's adherance to these and other critical themes from the books is much more important than whether Arwen had a sword. In contrast, the underlying messages of a book tend to be the first things that get ignored in many big screen screenplay adaptations.

Thank goodness, Peter Jackson truly understood Tolkien.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, if he truly understood Tolkien, he must not given a rat's behind about him, seeing as how so many things Tolkien specifically mentioned he threw the creator into the corner and did it HIS way, regardless of what Tolkien said.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The real issue here is that you care nothing for Tolkien since Jackson came along, if you ever did. A true disciple of the PJ indeed. :)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

No, the real issue here is that you, breathalizer, are factually incorrect (as usual) when you use the term "Tolkien's vision". Letters (which I can tell you have not read) does not support your initial post. Tolkien believed that the small details could not be seperated from the larger themes. He was very specific on this, even to the point where he would get involved in the translations of his books into other languages, often complaining about word choice.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, since Black Breathelizer ignored many of our posts, I don't see why our side can't ignore your side. :p


listen to yourself :D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Who is, squinty?

I can't, I type, not speak. :p

[Celebréiel]

BB, after reading all this I think people are putting forth really good points supporting why they didnt like the movie, and the themes they thought were changed...If were all 'too focused on little peeves' your just as focused on worshiping the ground PJ walks on and need to take a step back yourself . :p
Like many people have said before no one can say they 'truely' understands Tolkien and what he 'truely' meant to say and do with his works. Anyone who claims that is full of it.
We can only view it from our own perspective and what we got out of the books (or movies) so no matter how PJ did it, even if it was totally accurate to the books, somepeople wouldnt like it. Cant we just accept the fact that some people like the movies and some people dont? :)

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Who is, squinty?

I can't, I type, not speak. :p


My point was your acting like a two year old. :rolleyes:

[Elf Girl]

BB, will you please say something about the point I have made many times about the Elves at Helms Deep destroying the whole fading-of-the-Elves business? And maybe stop repeating yourself and counter our points? If you do not, I will be forced to listen to my growing suspicion that you are merely out to cause trouble, and not actually debate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, Celebreiel, I've often wondered that. There are a number of people on this site who feel that the movies quite adequately portrayed Tolkien's work. But none of them are as rude, militaristic, and patronising about it as Black Breathelizer. Most of them understand that we are not idiots because we disagree.

My point was that if BB could just go around treating us the way he does and ignoring many of the points we make, why should we have to answer what everyone says? The childish behaviour comes rather from the one who day and night sings praises to Peter Jackson, and yet ignores many of the points made about flaws in his work, in my opinion.

[Elfhelm]

Rag, if you look you'll see Iron Parrot and Gwaimir both have massive post numbers. I've only been here a year and I know that Iron Parrot understands when another long standing member is being sarcastic.

But Iron Parrot, many of us are bothered not so much by a couple changes for cinematic simplicity or cuts because it doesn't all fit, but by characterization changes. You seem to say it's a tautology to object to characterization changes simply because they are changes. But in fiction and drama, according to every theorist since Aristotle, character is central to the story. So if I object to a cheery not being red on the grounds that a cherry is supposed to be red, you may call that a tautology all you wish but the fact remains, it's supposed to be red. And Gimli is supposed to be a respectable person, not a fall guy.

And the difference between the brothers Boromir and Faramir is really important. Boromir is just a traditional Beowulf-like guy who faces everything straight on and he's not equipped to deal with the moral dilemmas the One Ring forces on him. Boromir has courage but not wisdom. Faramir on the other hand, would like to be like Boromir, but he isn't and never will be because he loves the old scrolls and spends so much time learning from history. He is supposed to be so respectful of Gandalf, having helped him research the One Ring already, that when the hobbits say they are on a quest and Gandalf sent them and they think he's dead, he immediately helps them. He knows what the One Ring is already. He knows it must be destroyed. And by now Sam and Frodo are practically lost, but from Faramir they get help, friendship, food, and a new sense of hope. But the writers of the script made Faramir so dark and gloomy that I don't even like him anymore. Poor Eowyn - is this the boring creep she has to look forward to spending her life with? Because unless things change, I am now hoping that PJ will change that, too.

[Elfhelm]

I just want to officially object to Peter Jackson's obesity being continually brought up when disagreeing with him. It really detracts from your arguments if you show yourself to be so heartless.

I think the movies are beautiful (for the record).

[Ragnarok]

I think most people have seen Meet the Parents, anyways

Its just a movie focker.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I just want to officially object to Peter Jackson's obesity being continually brought up when disagreeing with him. It really detracts from your arguments if you show yourself to be so heartless.

I think the movies are beautiful (for the record).

Yes, you're right, that was uncalled for. I want to officially retract that. Though I don't think "continually" is really accurate. But it was cruel, and I shouldn't have done it.

Do you mean beautiful as movies, or beautiful as adaptations, or both?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

For the record, I editted out the rude comment, as a step beyond retraction, and would like to officially apologise.

[Entlover]

Before we get too bent out of shape over PJ's alterations, let's recall that we've only seen 2/3 of the movie(s).

It's possible that Faramir will redeem himself in RotK, that Frodo will show enough backbone to keep everyone happy (he'd better if he's going to make it to the Cracks of Doom), that Arwen will keep her clothes on and stay out of people's way, that Shelob will be so cool we'll forget all our differences in sheer terror and admiration.

Or maybe not. But as Tolkien knew well, civilized people can disagree without getting personal about it. Waste of time.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
BB, will you please say something about the point I have made many times about the Elves at Helms Deep destroying the whole fading-of-the-Elves business? And maybe stop repeating yourself and counter our points? If you do not, I will be forced to listen to my growing suspicion that you are merely out to cause trouble, and not actually debate. If you are genuinely interested in a debate with me and not out to cause trouble, perhaps you should rethink your approach. Calling Jackson's elves a "bunch of armoured, walking-in-unison idiots" in your counterpoint makes you come off sounding juvenile at best.

If you were paying attention to what the movie was saying rather than freaking out over the appearance of the elves, you would have understood that it perfectly folded into Tolkien's grand themes, particularly given the screenwriters need to streamline this part of the plot.

Elrond has made it clear that the battle for Middle-Earth is no longer the elves' affair. Yet after telling Arwen there is no hope, he responds to her passionate reply. After consulting with Galadriel, Elrond decides to assist Rohan, despite his misgivings. (No doubt this will be expanded in the Extended DVD.) This was the movie trilogy's "last hurrah" for the elves of Middle-Earth and their selfless support of mankind allowed Helm's Deep to hold out long enough for Gandalf and Eomer to show up.

It worked in the movie in large part because the elves ARE fading away and their appearance at Helm's Deep didn't alter or deemphasize that fact. On the other hand, their appearance allowed Jackson to reemphasize one of Tolkien's most important themes.

[Black Breathalizer]

One more thing:

Originally posted by Elf Girl
As for themes, what about the fading of the Elves? If he must focus so much on Men, then he could at least show how much Elves are giving way to them as "race of glory". But no, he was doing a great job when suddenly a bunch of armoured, walking-in-unison idiots who call themselves Elves, not to mention Haldir, show up to save Helms Deep.(Note - the bold emphasis in the above quote was added by me.)

I would say ESPECIALLY Haldir. Haldir gave the audience someone to care about within the squadron of archers who came to Helm's Deep. Because of this, Haldir's death emphasized to the audience the ultimate sacrifice that these immortals were making to save Mankind.

[Elf Girl]

Hey, I am a juvenile.

As for an actual debate, after considering your post, I think the Elves (at Helms Deep) would have been a nice touch- had they not looked like they were saving the day. If, perhaps, Theoden had had more troops, and the Elves were merely a token of "We do care what happens to you", it would have made more sense. (It also kind of messes up the phrase "Last Alliance", but that is beside the point.)

I have also been thinking that perhaps it is necessary to simplify some aspects of LotR as Jackson did. It is quite possible to simplify at least some of Tolkien's themes into the movies, and Jackson has done so. However, not all of the public is going to think it out as far as you have, BB. So why should Jackson, except thinking, "Hmm, I need Elves in the plot, I need Arwen in the plot, I need Elrond to hate Aragorn... Let's have Arwen get Elrond to send Elves to save Aragorn!"

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Hey, I am a juvenile.That was a GREAT comeback, Elf Girl! :D

One teensie weensie point - The so-called Last Alliance of Men and Elves wasn't the absolute last alliance of men and elves at war in Tolkien's books either.

[Black Breathalizer]

Here's another great example of a small change that enhanced Tolkien's "selflessness of true friendship" theme:

In the FOTR, after Gandalf causes the Balrog to fall in the mines of Moria, the creature flicks his firey whip and grabs the old wizard by the ankle.

In the book, the Balrog pulled Gandalf down with him. In the movie, Gandalf is thrown over the edge but is freed from the clutches of the whip and is left weakly hanging on the edge of the broken bridge. At the time, many posters here were upset about why Peter Jackson chose to give us a shot of Gandalf's face as he looks at Frodo before (it seemed) giving up and falling to his death rather than strictly following Tolkien's text.

It is clear now why he did it. If PJ had followed Tolkien's text, it would have been the Balrog who determined the wizard would fight him to the death. Instead, PJ has Gandalf making that key decision.

After seeing Gandalf dive down to regain his sword and then launch an attack on the Balrog, the poignant shot of Gandalf's face looking at Frodo before he releases his grip on the bridge has a powerful new meaning for the audience. Gandalf realizes that a fall from the bridge will not kill a powerful being like a Balrog. After his fall, he knew the enraged creature would continue to pursue them. So Gandalf's look at Frodo and his "Fly, you fools" line before letting go is a key moment in the movie where the old wizard realizes he must sacrifice himself if the ringbearer is to make it safely away from the mountains.

It could be argued, that in this instance, Jackson was more faithful to Tolkien's themes than the author was himself. :)

[IronParrot]

Elfhelm:
"But Iron Parrot, many of us are bothered not so much by a couple changes for cinematic simplicity or cuts because it doesn't all fit, but by characterization changes. You seem to say it's a tautology to object to characterization changes simply because they are changes. But in fiction and drama, according to every theorist since Aristotle, character is central to the story. So if I object to a cheery not being red on the grounds that a cherry is supposed to be red, you may call that a tautology all you wish but the fact remains, it's supposed to be red. And Gimli is supposed to be a respectable person, not a fall guy."
Of course character is central to the story. But who dictates that Gimli is "supposed" to be respectable? (Which he is... I maintain that his occasional comic buffoonery does not detract from the fact that he is still mighty in battle and represents the dwarves nobly in his dedication to the Fellowship. Besides, his lightheartedness is something taken straight from the book - Gimli and Legolas comparing their kills comes to mind. As for him falling over on the odd occasion, you can't argue with the fact that dwarves just aren't built like elves.)

I'm going off on a tangent here. Back to the question: who dictates that characters are "supposed" to be a certain way? Well, just the book. Clearly, this sort of argument isn't discussing the specifics at all from a logistical standpoint, but is rather prejudicially attacking them based on the fact that they are different.

That's like saying that the Nazis in The Sound of Music weren't mean enough, so therefore, the film's not true to history and should be completely disregarded. Or that William Wallace was more of a rogue terrorist than a laudable freedom fighter, so suddenly all one hundred and seventy-nine minutes of Braveheart is trash. It reminds me of all the arguments I've read that Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ is the toilet-fodder defecation of cinema because it doesn't follow the Bible. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't hold up. The film has to be analyzed - and analyzable - on a standalone basis, first and foremost.

My point is: You can't hold to Tolkien's writings letter by letter as if it were absolute indisputable truth, and that everything else is "wrong". As I've already pointed out before (though everybody ignored it, perhaps because I'm right): Tolkien's fundamental approach to The Lord of the Rings was one of rediscovering a lost mythical past by way of extrapolation.

Peter Jackson's approach to the material is exactly the same. It is not so much based on the English translation of the Red Book of Westmarch as it is based on the "historical" events of the War of the Ring and the Downfall of the Lord of the Rings.

Watch the DVD interviews. On many occasions, the likes of Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens and Richard Taylor cite that the perspective of the films is that these events really happened. That is the same approach Tolkien took, and this is something you can tell from right within the book itself: The Lord of the Rings is self-referential. Tolkien pretended he took what Bilbo, Frodo and Sam wrote - a historical document from the perspective of the Shire - and brought it into our present consciousness. I would very firmly argue that Jackson did the exact same thing.

And as with any legendary epic worth mentioning, both historical and literary, therein lies interpretation. Maybe T.E. Lawrence wasn't supposed to be an egotist struggling with the fruits of fame. Maybe Robin Hood wasn't supposed to be such a valiant defender of peace and justice and all that Richard the Lionhearted was supposed to stand for. Maybe the Artful Dodger wasn't supposed to sing "Consider Yourself", which I think is a really catchy song. Maybe Spartacus is suddenly a worthless movie because the title character didn't really have a surviving son, and Crassus wasn't actually gay. (I don't know this for a fact.)

The film was not meant to be, and absolutely should not be, a cinematic edition of "Books on Tape". (Apparently, some of you disagree.)

Once again, the "it differs from Tolkien, so it's bad" argument does not stand. You can't take every account or adaptation of the Trojan War and say, "that's not how Homer envisioned Achilles, Priam, Hector and Paris." Saying this about The Lord of the Rings is just as absurd.

[IronParrot]

Elfhelm (continued):
And the difference between the brothers Boromir and Faramir is really important. Boromir is just a traditional Beowulf-like guy who faces everything straight on and he's not equipped to deal with the moral dilemmas the One Ring forces on him. Boromir has courage but not wisdom. Faramir on the other hand, would like to be like Boromir, but he isn't and never will be because he loves the old scrolls and spends so much time learning from history. He is supposed to be so respectful of Gandalf, having helped him research the One Ring already, that when the hobbits say they are on a quest and Gandalf sent them and they think he's dead, he immediately helps them. He knows what the One Ring is already. He knows it must be destroyed. And by now Sam and Frodo are practically lost, but from Faramir they get help, friendship, food, and a new sense of hope. But the writers of the script made Faramir so dark and gloomy that I don't even like him anymore.
At times like this, I'm not even going to bother writing up a full response. I might as well quote myself from another thread. I wrote this the day after the film was released:
Well, now that I saw the film a second time, I understood the changes with Faramir far more.

Upon reflection, he is still the same character as Tolkien's Faramir - and before you rope me my the neck and drag me through the Emyn Muil, let me explain why.

In Tolkien's work, why is Faramir so resistant to the Ring? Well, it's certainly in his character that he is less ambitious than his brother, and is the neglected younger son in many ways. But his concern for the defense of Gondor is no different.

In the film, what Jackson/Walsh/Boyens changed was not Faramir's fundamental personality, but rather the information he had.

I would argue that a major reason why Faramir allowed Frodo to go in the book was because he was well aware of the nature of Boromir's death. He knew that it had something to do with "Isildur's Bane", and that there was dissension in the Fellowship.

He doesn't know any of this. In the film, he lets Frodo go right after two critical moments: first, Sam tells him of Boromir's fall - and second, he sees how the Ring draws evil when the airborne Nazgul confronts Frodo. He witnesses firsthand the power of the Ring, but prior to that, did not know of its power to corrupt, and its utter inability to do good.

In the book, he knows all of this early enough to make a firm, early decision to forsake the Ring.

Also notice that Faramir does not take the Ring. He still resists, but in his desire for the defense of Gondor, he plans to bear it as a gift to his father.

Also notice that while the attack on Osgiliath and Faramir's retreat over the river is a passing "background" event in ROTK, the threat from the East is clearly established in the film. In the film, Faramir has the additional motive of coming to Gondor's defense; such urgency, and the nature of what he does after he leaves Frodo, is not mentioned until far later in the book.

I would dare say that Tolkien's Faramir would have done exactly the same thing - resist taking the Ring for himself, but take the Ring to Gondor - had he possessed the knowledge of the preliminary assault on Osgiliath, and lacked the knowledge of the nature of Boromir's fall.

What you are seeing in both versions is the same character, just under completely different circumstances that necessitate completely different reactions.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I have also been thinking that perhaps it is necessary to simplify some aspects of LotR as Jackson did. It is quite possible to simplify at least some of Tolkien's themes into the movies, and Jackson has done so. However, not all of the public is going to think it out as far as you have, BB. I disagree. I believe most people understood it, particularly people unfamiliar with the books. On the other end of the spectrum, most book purists were probably too busy reacting to the change to appreciate its meaning.

I do appreciate your posts, Elf Girl. You are a worthy opponent. :)

[Elf Girl]

Hahah! I'm a worthy opponent! :D ;)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
That was a GREAT comeback, Elf Girl! :D
Wasn't it, though? ;) :rolleyes:

Since my parents ar only letting me on the computer for 10 more minutes today, I am answering one point only. More tomorrow, I promise.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would say ESPECIALLY Haldir. Haldir gave the audience someone to care about within the squadron of archers who came to Helm's Deep. Because of this, Haldir's death emphasized to the audience the ultimate sacrifice that these immortals were making to save Mankind.
I would rather expect that the vast majority of the audience had no idea who Haldir is, let alone why Aragorn is hugging him. What they are probably thinking:

"Who's that ugly guy with the dark, dark, eyebrows and the light, light, hair? And the squashed looking face?"

People at my school have described Haldir with all of those.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Blackbreathalizer and Iron Parrot what planet are you guys on?

You are trying to argue that the film is true to Tolkien's vision when the man himself is on the record blasting Zimmerman for EXACTLY THE SAME changes Jackson made to the narrative. Tolkien even specificly implies in the letter that Zimmerman doesn't understand the core of the tale if he is proposing these changes. I guess you can both continue these moronic claims that "Jackson truely understands Tolkien" (which by default has to mean that Tolkien doesn't truely understand Tolkien) if you wish but you are reaching new depths of stupidity here.

Just because Tolkien liked to answer fan mail questions and discuss his story as though it was real doesn't change the fact that the story is fiction and he is it's author- and changing the story is changing the story. (Tolkien does discuss writing the tale at great length in some letters even going into parts that were difficult for him and what he was thinking when writing certain passages, so this whole "the story is history" angle is nonsense as it relates to character and plot changes).

I would pay money to see someone try to tell Tolkien that there is no absolute truth with respect to his characters and therefore they can be modified. I would love to see the look on Tolkien's face when Aragorn tells Elrond "I have never wanted to be king" Read some of his responses to readers who proposed alterations to his characters or questioned their choices Iron Parrot and your thesis is dead. He blasted Zimmerman for making ONE joke at the expense of the hobbits in his screenplay and it was no where near the level of some of the stuff in the film. Tolkien never responded favourably to a change made to his characters by someone else. You either used what he wrote or you left it out, that is clear from letters.

Helm's deep is perhaps the best single example of Jackson not at all being in accord with Tolkien. Jackson expanded the 11 page battle into 1/3 of the second film while Tolkien suggested to Zimmerman that he should leave it out if he didn't have enough time because battles can get boring and there is a bigger one in ROTK anyway.

The question here is not are these good films (which is subjective) the question is do they adhere to "Tolkien's vision" The author has said no; what is left to discuss?

"It could be argued that Jackson was more faithful to Tolkien's themes than the author himself"

What is this the twilight zone?

[Melko Belcha]

Iron Parrot and BB need to listen to squinteyedsoutherner, like he said, Tolkien has already stated that the movies are not his vision, and he did it 40 years before PJ even began the movie. Take the time to read Letters and get some insight into who Tolkien is, because I can tell you have no idea who Tolkien is.

[IronParrot]

This is going to be split over several messages. Stupid post length limit.

squinteyedsoutherner, you make some very good points, so I'll actively not ignore you.
"You are trying to argue that the film is true to Tolkien's vision when the man himself is on the record blasting Zimmerman for EXACTLY THE SAME changes Jackson made to the narrative. Tolkien even specificly implies in the letter that Zimmerman doesn't understand the core of the tale if he is proposing these changes. I guess you can both continue these moronic claims that "Jackson truely understands Tolkien" (which by default has to mean that Tolkien doesn't truely understand Tolkien) if you wish but you are reaching new depths of stupidity here."
Now, I'm not going to go quite as far as BB and claim that Jackson was truer to Tolkien than Tolkien himself. I'm not going to use contentious terms like "Tolkien's vision" because after three years of being here, I don't think there's a single person on this bulletin board who is qualified to define those words. (Michael Martinez, if you read this, don't grill me out for it. :) )

However, what I will say is this: it doesn't matter what Tolkien thinks of those changes. Certainly he understands his own creation better than anyone. Certainly he is the only one who has a clear idea of his personal vision.

Now, while I think that Tolkien was an indisputable genius, and that his writing is simply superb in many ways that could never be captured on film - the non-linear flow of Books III to V come to mind, as a pinnacle of literary structure in the English language - from everything I have read, Tolkien knows nothing about filmmaking.

Tolkien may know writing and language better than pretty much everybody else you can name, past or present. However, he was not into film at all, and had at best a layman's understanding of the movie-making process.

His reaction to anybody "modifying" the work is of course going to be negative. It's based on a natural sense of possession of his own rightful creation. There are indeed some authors who will claim that the movie adaptations were better than their actual works, but Tolkien wasn't one of them, simply because... he... doesn't... like... movies.

I will in fact quote #210, apparently everybody's favourite source for this kind of thing, and demonstrate my point.

"the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration and the intrusion of unwanted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies"
- Tolkien
This is the primary assumption that falls. I'd have a more comprehensive thing to say if Tolkien actually cited examples of what he saw as poor films (The Wizard of Oz being the litmus test at the time he wrote this). So I'm not going to address his flawed assumption that "unwanted matter" - in a word, changes - are the root of all evil.

The canons of narrative art in differing media are vastly different. Tolkien was a scholar of languages, not a scholar of cinema. Allow me to point out some ways that film is completely different from literature:

- Control of time. Film has a certain need for consistent pacing, a tight timeframe and at least some sense of linearity (even in the case of backwards-forwards-upside-down films like Memento, which didn't exist back then). You can't push and pull with film like you can with literature. The first two chapters of The Lord of the Rings takes longer than the rest of the book, and the last chapter spans year after year after year as well. You can't do this in film.

As you read this you probably want to quote Tolkien again:
"Gandalf does not say they should leave as soon as they can pack, 2 months elapse. The elapse of time should be indicated, if by no other means than the change to winter in the scenery and the trees"
And:
"Seasons are carefully regarded in the original and should be the means by which the artists indicate the passage of time"
Not so easy. Tolkien himself created environments so lush and diverse that at times, you can't tell which season is which: you know it's winter because there's snow all over the Misty Mountains, but can you tell the passage of time when you're in a seasonless place like Lothlorien? (Of course not. Neither could the characters.)

For all you know, in many of these cases, the change in time is present in the film - just in an implicit way. We don't really know how long they spent in Lothlorien, even though we only "see" one night, and time really flies there. We don't know how long it took for Gandalf to ride to Minas Tirith and back, or for Gollum to be interrogated and the Black Riders to leave Minas Morgul. Just because we're not explicitly told doesn't mean it was an instantaneous thing.

[IronParrot]

In the specific example of Gandalf's stay in the Shire, the gap is from April to June. Ooh, that's a big difference in the trees.

The gap between Gandalf's and Frodo's departures is a better example to work with: Spring green to autumn yellow, right? Again, not so easy. Film (and even still photography) is a language of its own in terms of the use of colour. The cinematography in the film tells a story of its own: you start out in the lush greenery of the Shire, but as you proceed onwards, by the end of TTT everything is less contrasty, less green, more saturated and more earthly. In pictures, oranges and reds are fiery colours associated with the industrialization of Isengard and the flames of Mordor. The film is extremely consistent about this: I watched both FOTR and TTT again today and the significance of colour cannot be understated. Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie very obviously recognized this. (See interviews.)

There's also the logistical bit with sets, but as we all know, digital colour timing can do anything. I speak from experience.

And what about other time changes? What about the huge gap between the 111st birthday and when Frodo actually leaves? Those are a huge problem in particular. And you can't just use "X years later" text arbitrarily - in fact, it's usually a bad idea to use it at all. (See Bicentennial Man for a textbook example of why not to do this.) In film, it's a cheat device. It's a cop-out of narrative storytelling. In a book, it works perfectly because words alone can twist time and space in as many dimensions as the author wants. Tolkien's own grasp of structure, if put into abstract terms, would probably confound students of higher-order mathematics. In film, achieving this level is not even possible.

One of the changes from FOTR Theatrical to FOTR Extended that I thought was commendable was the removal of that tacky "The Shire... 60 Years Later" thing. That detracted from the original product, and the flow works remarkably better in the Extended version.

Tolkien said:
"Strider does not whip out a sword (on Weathertop) his sword was broken. Why then make him do so here in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons"
Maybe this is best left until we've seen Narsil/Anduril reforged, so we have some kind of clue as to why it's been put off until ROTK: but my temporary response to this is that in film, everything has to be built on visual dynamism. That's why they're called "moving pictures": they MOVE! Now, Tolkien had a very keen visual sense, but much of the tension-release dynamic he creates with his writing - particularly in defining setting and mood - is one example of where "a picture is worth a thousand words" most definitely applies, in the sense that a single frame can capture a lot of what he writes.

Visual dynamism implies visual variety. Otherwise, it's boring. Strider still wards off the Nazgul by way of flaming brands, in case nobody noticed. His sword is broken, but unlike the book, the film doesn't have time to explain why he doesn't just carry another one (regardless of whether Narsil is in Rivendell or in his pocket). That kind of thing raises questions, and sticking to the book is no excuse for discontinuity.

[IronParrot]

Some other major ways film differs from text:

- Perspective - First-person perspective, particularly in terms of what characters are thinking and feeling, is practically impossible in film. Voice-over narration is a tacky device as it is unless it's stylistically appropriate (as in Fight Club, which LOTR is not), or used in introductory/transitional/closing montages (as is actually very well demonstrated by LOTR). Tolkien's writing reached out to all five senses plus one. Especially the "plus one", since the Ring was so largely a psychological device, and so much of what happens to the characters happens at a deep psychological level. In film, you only have visuals at your disposal, and to a lesser extent, sound. You can zoom out as much as you want and paint on an epic canvas, but you can only zoom in so much.

- Narration - in addition to the aforementioned point about VO's being cheesy, film also doesn't have the liberty of "telling" so much. Film is all about "showing", because with visuals, that's all you do. The written word is a combination of showing and telling. Writing instructors would encourage the former, but it's still a balance, and Tolkien does tend to "tell" from time to time. Especially when you have characters telling selected parts of their life story to someone else, as in the Council of Elrond.

Somebody's going to say "flashback! flashback!" but in response to that, excessive flashback is also really bad. It's good if used appropriately: LOTR does it to just the right extent out of narrative considerations, though that's already making a sacrifice. The Godfather, Part II does it right because the flashback makes visual sense in a parallel, thematic manner. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has the only good extended half-hour storytelling flashback in any film because... well, actually, that's one of the weak points of an otherwise near-perfect film.

So in a movie, you don't have the luxury of being able to explain things openly. That means if you stick to the book, you have all kinds of questions drifting about that can't be answered very conveniently. Why doesn't Aragorn have a working sword? Why is Frodo so reluctant to leave the Shire during the summer? You can't just come out and explain everything. It's highly ambiguous and interpretable. It's just like how if you look at a picture, or any given frame of a film, everybody notices different subtleties about it. The written word is more explicit: there is a greater control over the focus of the verbal "camera", so to speak.

If Tolkien's fundamental assumption about film (i.e. different media not being that different) falls - and it does - all subsequent arguments that essentially amount to "because Tolkien said so" also fall.

By all indications, the only kind of movie "faithful to Tolkien's vision" (in the words of the purists) would be a really crappy movie. Obviously somebody's going to say that, well then, maybe LOTR should not be filmed, ever.

Some of you probably agree with that. I certainly don't. I love Tolkien's work. I love his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings to the core of my being. And that's reason why I'd rather see an excellent tributary production that truly excels in the cinematic medium, than so-so cinema that sticks to the source down to the letter. The current films belong to the former - and by cinematic standards, they are indeed unparalleled achievements, and that's an opinion that can be justified on purely objective and quantitative terms of merit.

[IronParrot]

Now for more directed responses to squinteyedsoutherner.

Just because Tolkien liked to answer fan mail questions and discuss his story as though it was real doesn't change the fact that the story is fiction and he is it's author- and changing the story is changing the story. (Tolkien does discuss writing the tale at great length in some letters even going into parts that were difficult for him and what he was thinking when writing certain passages, so this whole "the story is history" angle is nonsense as it relates to character and plot changes).
I don't see that it's nonsense. You're going to have to qualify that statement with something more concrete. Of course Tolkien had some difficulty with writing the thing. LOTR is extremely detailed and intertwined, and its complexity is virtually unparalleled in any work of literature I can think of. (Take that, Shakespeare-heads.) I would say that the amount of constructive detail and consistency he put into it was in the interest of the argument that "the story is history," simply because history has to be believable and consistent. Tolkien constructed an entire world and made it work, down to the very names of each individual character. Most of his fantasy-genre imitators just make up nonsense names and places without any regard for a historical approach to consistency and depth.

I'm not going to argue with the fact that LOTR is indeed a literary house of cards: take something out and you have a huge mess on your hands. Let's take a look at the nature of film once again: running time constraints. Now, I don't think the changes in the film were fundamentally out of a need to arbitrarily change Tolkien. The most severe restriction on how much the film could include was its running time. It has to take something out due to the running time issue - you can't just make a movie as long as you want, for contractual and budgetary reasons. DVD relaxes that a bit, and helps significantly - after watching the Extended version of FOTR, it was obvious to me that trimming it down to three hours for the theatrical release was clearly upsetting to the crew, having painstakingly shot all that extra material that was straight from the books.

But my point is: they have to take something or other out because of limited time. Because of LOTR's intricacy, that means they have to change a lot of stuff to compensate so the film makes sense unto itself, as an individual entity. Of course this is going to differ from the books. Of course it's going to detract from Tolkien's [Insert Mystical V-Word Here]. I won't claim that it's an improvement on Tolkien, but it's certainly an improvement on a hypothetical adaptation that remains 100% true to the rest of the text regardless of what's been cut, and regardless of matters pertaining to continuity issues.

[IronParrot]

I would pay money to see someone try to tell Tolkien that there is no absolute truth with respect to his characters and therefore they can be modified. I would love to see the look on Tolkien's face when Aragorn tells Elrond "I have never wanted to be king" Read some of his responses to readers who proposed alterations to his characters or questioned their choices Iron Parrot and your thesis is dead. He blasted Zimmerman for making ONE joke at the expense of the hobbits in his screenplay and it was no where near the level of some of the stuff in the film. Tolkien never responded favourably to a change made to his characters by someone else. You either used what he wrote or you left it out, that is clear from letters.
I take cheques.

There is a fundamental difference between readers proposing alterations to characters, and readers proposing interpretations - especially in a different medium. Nobody's changing Tolkien's work here (by work, I mean his text). The films are a distinct interpretive entity, and nobody's forcing them onto anybody else.

First of all, in the case of the frequently cited characters - Aragorn, Pippin, Gimli, Faramir - I remain unconvinced that their characterizations in the film directly, flatly, indisputably, completely contradict their characterizations in the book. And yes, I said Faramir. I'm not going to go into too much detail - Faramir is the same character under different circumstances, Pippin is probably less of a delinquent in the film than he is in the book, Gimli isn't exactly the be-all and end-all of seriousness, Aragorn lacks the lust for power that would make him vulnerable to the allure of the Ring, yada yada yada.

And I'm going to go ahead and say that it doesn't matter what Tolkien says about it. Before anybody tosses me into the fires of Mount Doom, I'm going to justify this by citing one important point that has been completely overlooked: despite his possessiveness and control over his own work, Tolkien was a staunch defender of interpretability and meaning being in the hands of the reader, not the author. From the most-quoted Tolkien statement of all time:

"I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
- You know darn well where he said this
Tolkien's intentions are of course the basic meanings and motivations behind LOTR, but if it's not in the body of the main text itself, it's all fair game for reader interpretation. Tolkien's interpretation of his own writing, even though it is the most informed take possible, does not preclude readers from taking a different perspective and flatly disagreeing.

With any given work of literature, the author's intent - especially when it is explicitly stated - is completely open to scrutiny and deconstruction. It is not to be held as some sort of gospel truth as to how a book should be read. Just because Tolkien didn't base anything on the Second World War, and is furthermore rolling in his grave every time somebody brings up that comparison, that doesn't preclude you from pointing out some of the eerier parallels. In that manner, there's nothing wrong with a distinct interpretive entity (such as the films) that analyzes his intents, motives, themes and characterizations a little deeper and decides to emphasize some things over others, and extend some of them in a logical progression. Especially when it's done out of necessity, as I already pointed out when referring to running times.

[IronParrot]

Helm's deep is perhaps the best single example of Jackson not at all being in accord with Tolkien. Jackson expanded the 11 page battle into 1/3 of the second film while Tolkien suggested to Zimmerman that he should leave it out if he didn't have enough time because battles can get boring and there is a bigger one in ROTK anyway.
Cutting Helm's Deep would probably provoke a bigger fan outcry than cutting the Scouring of the Shire. Or Tom Bombadil. Combined. Not saying that Peter Jackson should pander to the fans... I applaud him for not doing so too much, and staying within reason.

The question here is not are these good films (which is subjective) the question is do they adhere to "Tolkien's vision" The author has said no; what is left to discuss?
The quality of the films isn't as subjective as you'd think, first of all... there are many objective reasons why LOTR is an important cinematic work of art. Not everybody likes Star Wars (God forbid), but its significance to cinema is undeniable.

Of course, that's not the point of this discussion. The point is the whole "vision" idea. I posit:

a) "Capturing Tolkien's Vision" is impossible in any medium other than the written word, especially film;

b) "A Literal Interpretation" is not necessarily the same thing as "Capturing Tolkien's Vision", because Tolkien read into his own work a whole lot, as his many quotations from Letters in particular tend to prove;

c) Therefore, you might as well try for a best-fit interpolation and take Tolkien's route: personal interpretation and applicability to the reader.

"It could be argued that Jackson was more faithful to Tolkien's themes than the author himself"

What is this the twilight zone?
Not touching it... BB, this is your territory.

[IronParrot]

At this point, I congratulate anyone who was actually open-minded enough to read through everything I said above.

On a point of clarification, my thesis about changes being made out of necessity and time constraints could probably use an example. Try this line of thinking on for size:

Problem: Two hours a film? Impossible.
Solution: Negotiate with New Line for three.

Problem: Three hours a film? Impossible.
Solution: Too bad. Trim everything and save a bit for the DVD.

Problem: What to cut?
Solution: The journey from Buckleberry Ferry to Bree. Rationale: the stay in Crickhollow takes too long, and the Old Forest can be left implicit or even mentioned in passing later.

Problem: No Old Forest -> No Bombadil -> No rescue from Barrow-wights or cool weapons for the hobbits.
Solution: Aragorn can give the hobbits swords.

Problem: So Aragorn carries enough swords for four hobbits but doesn't even have one himself?
Solution: Okay, now he does.

Problem: What about Narsil? Surely he doesn't carry a working sword and a broken one at once.
Solution: Narsil's in Rivendell.

Problem: Then why hasn't it been reforged yet?
Solution: I'll get back to you on that in the third film.

And so on.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
1)Cutting Helm's Deep would probably provoke a bigger fan outcry than cutting the Scouring of the Shire. Or Tom Bombadil. Combined. Not saying that Peter Jackson should pander to the fans... I applaud him for not doing so [b]too much, and staying within reason.


1) I disagree. Many fans of Tolkien's works do NOT think it is wholly centered on fighting and battles, see? The Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil have probably had much more of an outcry than Helm's Deep would have, in my opinion. Especially considering that specific quote, made directly in the context of filming it. That quote proves that Tolkien did not think that fights and battles were not what the Lord of the Rings is all about, in my opinion.
And why not? The fans are the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works for years or decades. Why should PJ screw them over in favour of the audience? They have been those who loved Tolkien all of their lives, as opposed to those who wouldn't read a book the size of LOTR to save their lives. (Not all of the general audience, but a large number).
Too much? He didn't "pander to the fans", he "pandered to the larger amount of people", i.e. those he thought he could get the most money from.

By all indications, the only kind of movie "faithful to Tolkien's vision" (in the words of the purists) would be a really crappy movie. Obviously somebody's going to say that, well then, maybe LOTR should not be filmed, ever.

I love Tolkien's work. I love his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings to the core of my being. And that's reason why I'd rather see an excellent tributary production that truly excels in the cinematic medium, than so-so cinema that sticks to the source down to the letter

Well, if you think "cool movie" is more important than "Lord of the Rings", then that's business.

Ah, I see you're sticking with BB on the whole, "If you don't agree with me, bow down and worship PJ, then anyone can see that you're such a fake. You don't give a sh*t about Tolkien if you don't think the movies were perfect" deal. :)

[IronParrot]

"1) I disagree. Many fans of Tolkien's works do NOT think it is wholly centered on fighting and battles, see? The Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil have probably had much more of an outcry than Helm's Deep would have, in my opinion. Especially considering that specific quote, made directly in the context of filming it. That quote proves that Tolkien did not think that fights and battles were not what the Lord of the Rings is all about, in my opinion."
I don't think it's all about fighting and battles either. However, I don't think it's safe to make an assumption about the fans when a lot of other readers I know regard the Scouring of the Shire or Tom Bombadil to be ever so slightly more extraneous than Helm's Deep. That's open to debate.

"And why not? The fans are the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works for years or decades. Why should PJ screw them over in favour of the audience? They have been those who loved Tolkien all of their lives, as opposed to those who wouldn't read a book the size of LOTR to save their lives. (Not all of the general audience, but a large number)."
First of all, you can't assume that "The Fans" with a capital F are a homogeneous body that enjoys Tolkien for all of the same reasons. Therefore, to say that "PJ screws them over" is a far-reaching blanket statement. Once again, nobody's forcing you to interpret LOTR the same way Peter Jackson did. However, a lot of people seem to be forcing other fans to interpret LOTR the same way Tolkien did. Holy double standard, Batman.

"Too much? He didn't "pander to the fans", he "pandered to the larger amount of people", i.e. those he thought he could get the most money from."
If you think studios lay down $300M on a film project for profit, you have a serious misunderstanding of the movie business.

The claim that it's "pandering down to the larger amount of people" is a serious miscalculation of the modern layperson film audience's level of, what shall I call it, "civilization".

Watch mainstream cinema. Watch arthouse cinema. There are certain conventions that really differ between the two. Stylistically, the film of LOTR is so far on the arthouse end of the spectrum that any accusation of it pandering to the mainstream comes off as a sly and politically correct way of saying "people who haven't read the book suck, and they have no right to understand the movie if they haven't read it first."

"Well, if you think "cool movie" is more important than "Lord of the Rings", then that's business."
There's no contradiction there. There is a contradiction between "watchable" and "strictly adherent to the text". There is no contradiction between "really watchable" and "mostly adherent to the text".

A film of The Lord of the Rings that sticks to the letter would be a pretty boring movie. That seriously misrepresents the work more than any minor changes ever will, because if there's one thing everybody on this thread can agree on, it's that Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings was anything but boring.

"Ah, I see you're sticking with BB on the whole, "If you don't agree with me, bow down and worship PJ, then anyone can see that you're such a fake. You don't give a sh*t about Tolkien if you don't think the movies were perfect" deal."
Maybe you should read my posts before you reply.

You can dislike the movie all you want on your own prejudicial terms. That doesn't make the movie intrinsically worse. And I'd hardly call the films perfect - I have gripes with every movie I've ever seen, sometimes very minor. Except Casablanca, which actually is perfect.

I don't agree with everything Peter Jackson does, but I certainly admire how he does it, and I see his rationale. I don't think Aragorn's tumble off the cliff was particularly necessary, but I can see - or rather, am willing to see - why it was done.

An interpretation you disagree with isn't automatically a bad analysis. I think Peter Jackson's take on things is very defensible.

[IronParrot]

In the interest of fairness, I'm going to argue against Breathalizer and subsequently antagonize everybody on this thread.

BB, although I'm in the pro-film camp (so to speak), I would agree with your detractors in that you are being overly presumptuous with the term "Tolkien's vision".

To imply that every major theme in LOTR was a deliberate creation by The Professor Himself is a fallacy. Everybody reads into LOTR more than they should, and there even comes a point when The Professor Himself is completely sick of it. (The Second World War comparisons come to mind.)

So, I don't think what you are intending to say is that Jackson has somehow "improved on Tolkien's vision". That's just not possible, because if you improve on somebody else's vision, it's not their vision anymore. Einstein "improved on Newton's vision" of dynamics at the subatomic level, but that meant that it was no longer Newton's vision.

Your arguments would probably have a lot more merit if they were less extreme, because you are certainly at times trying to force your own interpretation of Tolkien's themes and motifs on other people. I have bashed those against the film (and to some extent, even Tolkien himself) for doing that, so I'm not going to spare you here. You can't presume

This is exactly why I think SparkNotes (and related resources) are absolutely horrible and should be avoided by anybody with any respect for literature, especially after reading capsule analyses of LOTR. That kind of thing encourages adherence to a certain interpretation without regarding the material itself in an original, creative manner.

Only part of the creativity in literature is attributed to the author. The rest is attributed to the reader. Tolkien supported this. In fact, he hated - nay, "cordially disliked" an author's dictation of what everything is supposed to mean.

This is a comment directed to both sides: if you don't realize that, then maybe you should read the book before speaking up.

The real issue isn't, "is Peter Jackson true to this mystical Vision thing everybody keeps talking about?" but rather, "does the film demonstrate an exceptional level of creative interpretation of the work, most of which has already been noticed by the reading audience, a large portion of which was intended by the author (but some of which was not)?"

Which is a quick and dirty way of saying: "Does the film notice major themes and motifs in Tolkien's work and bring them to light?" I say Yes, but nobody has the authority to say which ones "count" and which ones don't. Not even Tolkien himself.

In a discussion such as this one, we have to reduce the variables to as simple and general terms as possible. I think the whole crux of this thread is: focus on the big picture, not the specifics. Some would say that the specifics affect the big picture. Okay then, focus on the biggest picture, not the big picture.

The biggest picture is that
1) Tolkien wanted to tell a really good story;
2) Tolkien left the interpretation of it up to the reader.

I'd challenge you all to refute those two points, except you can't, so I won't bother asking.

And Breathalizer, if you're going to start a thread asking a very general question about thematic considerations, isn't it a bit of a contradiction on your part to reduce the whole thing to specifics? If you're going to lay the burden of proof on those against the film (and rightly so), at least respond to some of their more salient arguments instead of hitting the same point over and over and over again.

Let's have less rehashing on this thread. Haldir this, Faramir this, screw it all - let's talk about fundamentals. Let's have better general arguments - I think the likes of squinteyedsoutherner are a good start.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't think it's all about fighting and battles either. However, I don't think it's safe to make an assumption about the fans when a lot of other readers I know regard the Scouring of the Shire or Tom Bombadil to be ever so slightly more extraneous than Helm's Deep. That's open to debate.

And yet you make an assumption about the fans when a lot of readers regard the Scouring of the Shire alone to be an intrinsic part of the Lord of the Rings standard. I fail to see the difference.

First of all, you can't assume that "The Fans" with a capital F are a homogeneous body that enjoys Tolkien for all of the same reasons. Therefore, to say that "PJ screws them over" is a far-reaching blanket statement. Once again, nobody's forcing you to interpret LOTR the same way Peter Jackson did. However, a lot of people seem to be forcing other fans to interpret LOTR the same way Tolkien did. Holy double standard, Batman.

Yes, that was a bit harsh. But in no way does PJ favour them to the general audience.

-blink- Um...Tolkien WROTE the book. I don't know about you, but I believe that the wishes of an author regarding his book and his world are rather important.

If you think studios lay down $300M on a film project for profit, you have a serious misunderstanding of the movie business.

The claim that it's "pandering down to the larger amount of people" is a serious miscalculation of the modern layperson film audience's level of, what shall I call it, "civilization".

Watch mainstream cinema. Watch arthouse cinema. There are certain conventions that really differ between the two. Stylistically, the film of LOTR is so far on the arthouse end of the spectrum that any accusation of it pandering to the mainstream comes off as a sly and politically correct way of saying "people who haven't read the book suck, and they have no right to understand the movie if they haven't read it first.

If they don't want profit, then what do you think they want?

I've watched a large amount of cinema (I highly doubt it was all "arthouse", and PJ's LOTR never seemed to be all that really different to me. You have the hero (who, incidentally, seems to be Aragorn more than Frodo to me), you have the love interest, and you have the comic relief. And, of course, the monster scenes and battles.

Darn, you caught me. I despise every creature on earth that hasn't read the book. They are lesser forms of life, and everyone would be better off if they were dead. :rolleyes:

There's no contradiction there. There is a contradiction between "watchable" and "strictly adherent to the text". There is no contradiction between "really watchable" and "mostly adherent to the text".

A film of The Lord of the Rings that sticks to the letter would be a pretty boring movie. That seriously misrepresents the work more than any minor changes ever will, because if there's one thing everybody on this thread can agree on, it's that Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings was anything but boring.

Mostly adherent to the text? Boy that's obviously subjective. :eek:

There is a contradiction, in your opinion. Personally, I think something which was "strictly adherent to the text" would be worth watching, simply because it was "strictly adherent to the text". But I think the best would be "mostly adherent to the text", which as I said before, is obviously subjective. (Or maybe I'm just too stupid to see it. ;))

Maybe you should read my posts before you reply.

You can dislike the movie all you want on your own prejudicial terms. That doesn't make the movie intrinsically worse. And I'd hardly call the films perfect - I have gripes with every movie I've ever seen, sometimes very minor. Except Casablanca, which actually is perfect.
quote]

You said before:
[QUOTE]I love Tolkien's work. I love his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings to the core of my being. And that's reason why I'd rather see an excellent tributary production that truly excels in the cinematic medium, than so-so cinema that sticks to the source down to the letter
Which certainly seems to me to imply that if anyone really love Tolkien's work, then they'd rather see PJ's movies than something which was closer to the text.

Aha, so now people who don't agree with you are bigots, as well. :)

[IronParrot]

"And yet you make an assumption about the fans when a lot of readers regard the Scouring of the Shire alone to be an intrinsic part of the Lord of the Rings standard. I fail to see the difference."
The difference is that my statements are inclusive of both parties. I'm not saying that there's little to no outrage about the Scouring of the Shire. Search Entmoot a bit, and you'll find that I was the first one on this board to complain about the Scouring of the Shire being cut, a full year or two before such a prospect was even announced!

Your assumption, however, is that because Tolkien feels a certain way about Helm's Deep, the "real fans" do as well. Oh, so now the real hardcore fans have to agree with Tolkien, or they're not part of the Club, right?

"Yes, that was a bit harsh. But in no way does PJ favour them to the general audience."
In no way, eh? So what's the relevance of lines upon lines upon lines of material that could only be appreciated by people who have read the book (references to the Valar, "a shortcut to mushrooms", etc.) but aren't critical to understanding the plot? I'd say the status quo is a fine compromise.

"-blink- Um...Tolkien WROTE the book. I don't know about you, but I believe that the wishes of an author regarding his book and his world are rather important."
Important in that we know what the author was like as a person, and what he saw in his own work as the most critical reader of himself.

This is completely different from implying that Tolkien's views are the be-all and end-all of The Lord of the Rings. A number of reputed Tolkien scholars directly reject Tolkien's claims that LOTR is free of allegory.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Tolkien was a major proponent of freedom of analysis on the part of a given reader, regardless of the intent of the author.

"If they don't want profit, then what do you think they want?"
Do you want a list?

Harvey Weinstein is NOT Mark Ordesky is NOT Peter Jackson is NOT Philippa Boyens. One of those four names was profit-motivated, and he ditched the project.

In terms of profit, studio execs play a different part than the film crew. Studio execs are the ones making profit-motivated decisions, because since they are the ones who lay down the cash, they are the ones who get the bulk of the profit! (Unless you're John Lasseter or George Lucas.) Besides, in terms of percentages, it doesn't make mathematical sense.

If you can point out just how specific changes in the film were made to pander to the profit motive of the New Line execs laying down the $300M production budget (not counting the massive marketing costs), I await your proof. The only demand of theirs that I can clearly see was that the theatrical releases be kept to three hours.

Speaking in movie-making terms, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens had tremendous creative freedom, and were not bound by any studio pressures besides the three-hour limit (and perhaps the PG-13 rating). The typical Hollywood profit-driven system works like this: producer says, "it would be really cool to make this movie: I'll hire a director to do it for me." With LOTR: "I really want to direct this movie: I'll beg for cash - lots of cash - from a producer who is willing to put the whole studio at risk."

LOTR had a pre-sold audience in the fan base. If it abandons the pre-sold audience, then the fans would only see it once each, and it would not generate enough interest among non-fans to hit a combined total of about $650M in domestic grosses. In terms of audience patterns, you also have to analyze week-to-week depreciations and such - and in that arena, LOTR held up really well.

So learn about the film business before you say "he's doing it for money." This is almost as ignorant as the similar accusations against George Lucas. Almost.

I've watched a large amount of cinema (I highly doubt it was all "arthouse", and PJ's LOTR never seemed to be all that really different to me. You have the hero (who, incidentally, seems to be Aragorn more than Frodo to me), you have the love interest, and you have the comic relief. And, of course, the monster scenes and battles.
So you're willing to read into the book a little deeper (or are you? maybe you're just taking Tolkien's word for everything at face value) - but you're not willing to see anything in the film beneath the surface?

If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. Clearly, you need to watch more movies... or maybe you only watch really good ones, in which case you should continue doing so.

I just sure hope you're not one of those people who sees film as an inferior medium where brains and thinking aren't required. It scares me that a lot of people think that way. It does a great disservice to film as an art form.

[IronParrot]

Darn, you caught me. I despise every creature on earth that hasn't read the book. They are lesser forms of life, and everyone would be better off if they were dead.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but you do seem to imply that people who have not read the book are a secondary consideration. I fundamentally disagree. If the film can't stand alone as a work of art, it's either a) not a film, or b) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

The ideal condition is that you don't need to have read the book to understand the film, though it helps. Which is the status quo.

Mostly adherent to the text? Boy that's obviously subjective.
It's true that "mostly" is a relative term, but in the interest of a response: Mr. Jackson, meet Mr. Bakshi. QED. I, for one, appreciate the total absence of Aruman the Red.

There is a contradiction, in your opinion. Personally, I think something which was "strictly adherent to the text" would be worth watching, simply because it was "strictly adherent to the text". But I think the best would be "mostly adherent to the text", which as I said before, is obviously subjective. (Or maybe I'm just too stupid to see it.
Just because it's "strictly adherent to the text" doesn't automatically make it worth watching, especially if it throws all filmic conventions out the window and becomes a video edition of Books-on-Tape. Books-on-Tape are not distinguishable standalone works of art. If it's not a distinguishable standalone work of art, a filmic adaptation isn't even worth talking about, let alone watching.

Which certainly seems to me to imply that if anyone really love Tolkien's work, then they'd rather see PJ's movies than something which was closer to the text.
No. Read my earlier statement: a boring and faithful film of LOTR still misrepresents the text, simply because it's boring, and the text is not. That's all I'm saying.

Aha, so now people who don't agree with you are bigots, as well.
No, people who try to force Tolkien's interpretation of his own work down my throat are the real bigots.

I have not ONCE suggested that every Tolkien fan must like the film. I have, however, lost count of the number of claims above that something is intrinsically bad if it differs from Tolkien, and intrinsically good if it agrees with him - regardless of medium, regardless of context.

The book is better than the movie. I'm not denying that one bit. But it's better for a book to be better than a very well-crafted movie (in objective cinematic terms) than for it to be better than a celluloid shadow of itself.

[Black Breathalizer]

Our noble hero, Iron Parrot, and his joke-a-minute, dwarf companion, Black Breathalizer, sneak out the side door of Castle Entmoot and watch hundreds of Purists pounding on the door. Breathalizer turns to Iron Parrot:

Blackie: Come on, we can take 'um!

Iron Parrot: No, my stout-hearted friend. I can take these Purists on all by myself.

Iron Parrot "flys" into the fray and quickly destroys all the Purists' arguements with ease. Afterwards, Blackie says:

Blackie: You are the longest postingest, the cunningest, and most reckless man I ever knew! Bless you, laddie!

The End. :)

[IronParrot]

Hey, give them a chance to hit back before calling it game over...

[Melko Belcha]

Why do you think that a film that followed the book 100% would be boring? I would rather see a low-budget film with cheap special effects that was true to the book then a high budget film with the most advanced special effects to date, but changed, to me, some of the key elements in the book, characters are at the top of that list. I fully agree that LotR should never have even been tried to be made into a movie, the book has to many details and depth to be captured on film, IMO.

I think everybody here knew that there was going to be stuff cut out of the book, and many can be agreed with even if we don't like it, Bombadil, Old Forest, Crickhollow, but when key scenes from the book, that are very important to the plot and character development, are cut out for big special effects scenes that have nothing to do with the story or plot to me is not understandable, other than trying to please the everyday movie goers. Best example is the stairway scene in Moria over the gift giving scene for the theater release. I didn't mind the staircase scene to much when I first saw the movie, but after seeing the EE I couldn't believe they had cut that great scene, and for what? Action, special effects, and movie sales. For special effects it is an amazing scene, as for the story it had no place, it took out time that could have been used for character development or a number of things.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
The difference is that my statements are inclusive of both parties. I'm not saying that there's little to no outrage about the Scouring of the Shire. Search Entmoot a bit, and you'll find that I was the [b]first one on this board to complain about the Scouring of the Shire being cut, a full year or two before such a prospect was even announced!

Your assumption, however, is that because Tolkien feels a certain way about Helm's Deep, the "real fans" do as well. Oh, so now the real hardcore fans have to agree with Tolkien, or they're not part of the Club, right?

Did I say that there wouldn't be any outrage over the removal of Helm's Deep? If I did, I beg your pardon, it was late at night.

What I am saying is that Lord of the Rings is Tolkien's work. And if Tolkien feels a certain way about his work, and thinks that it should be treated in a certain way, than I think that reasonable people will, if not agree, than at least respect the intent and purpose of the creator.

In no way, eh? So what's the relevance of lines upon lines upon lines of material that could only be appreciated by people who have read the book (references to the Valar, "a shortcut to mushrooms", etc.) but aren't critical to understanding the plot? I'd say the status quo is a fine compromise.

You almost had me there. But when I thought about it more, what really are those? It seems to me that they're just a few bones thrown to keep the savage, hungry fans happy.

Important in that we know what the author was like as a person, and what he saw in his own work as the most critical reader of himself.

This is completely different from implying that Tolkien's views are the be-all and end-all of The Lord of the Rings. A number of reputed Tolkien scholars directly reject Tolkien's claims that LOTR is free of allegory.

I disagree. Personally, I think that if someone creates a world or a story, that world or story is, in a way, "sacred" to them, that they should be almost revered in regards to that story. Certainly, I would think Tolkien would have jurisdiction over say, Lewis' Space Trilogy. However, as he created the Lord of the Rings, I think that out of at the very least courtesy, if not any actual respect for him, his views and wishes should be respected, and placed higher than those of one who decides to make movies on his works, or those who study his works. Personally, I find claiming to know someone better than they themselves know them pretentious.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Tolkien was a major proponent of freedom of analysis on the part of a given reader, regardless of the intent of the author.

He was against allegory. But I do not think that he meant for his story to be analysed, dissected, observed, taken apart, etc., but for it to be read and enjoyed. Though if you provide good evidence to the contrary, I'm sure I will listen to you.

Personally, I think that the author dictating what everything is supposed to mean is greatly separate from the author dictating what everything is.

Do you want a list?

Harvey Weinstein is NOT Mark Ordesky is NOT Peter Jackson is NOT Philippa Boyens. One of those four names was profit-motivated, and he ditched the project.

And do you have actual proof for this, or am I just to take it for granted?

In terms of profit, studio execs play a different part than the film crew. Studio execs are the ones making profit-motivated decisions, because since they are the ones who lay down the cash, they are the ones who get the bulk of the profit! (Unless you're John Lasseter or George Lucas.) Besides, in terms of percentages, it doesn't make mathematical sense.

Yes, I thought I said that the studios would be more profit-motivated...:confused:

If you can point out just how specific changes in the film were made to pander to the profit motive of the New Line execs laying down the $300M production budget (not counting the massive marketing costs), I await your proof. The only demand of theirs that I can clearly see was that the theatrical releases be kept to three hours.

I could cite plenty of examples which have been stated by the Jacksonites to be needed to make the film more popular (which, as a natural result, brings more profit).

Speaking in movie-making terms, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens had tremendous creative freedom, and were not bound by any studio pressures besides the three-hour limit (and perhaps the PG-13 rating).

No comment, no comment, no comment...!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The typical Hollywood profit-driven system works like this: producer says, "it would be really cool to make this movie: I'll hire a director to do it for me." With LOTR: "I really want to direct this movie: I'll beg for cash - lots of cash - from a producer who is willing to put the whole studio at risk."

LOTR had a pre-sold audience in the fan base. If it abandons the pre-sold audience, then the fans would only see it once each, and it would not generate enough interest among non-fans to hit a combined total of about $650M in domestic grosses. In terms of audience patterns, you also have to analyze week-to-week depreciations and such - and in that arena, LOTR held up really well.

So learn about the film business before you say "he's doing it for money." This is almost as ignorant as the similar accusations against George Lucas. Almost.

Then call me an ignorant moron. :) I prefer the written word to the moving picture, and don't have the time to learn about both.

So you're willing to read into the book a little deeper (or are you? maybe you're just taking Tolkien's word for everything at face value) - but you're not willing to see anything in the film beneath the surface?

By all means, no. While I strongly hold that the Lord of the Rings is a story, and is meant mainly (if not entirely) to be so, it also undeniably has some very big themes. The movie also definitely has themes, but they are not as instrinsic and as much of a part of it, in my opinion. I suppose this is the difference between the themes slipping through by accident to manifest themselves in glorious genuinity as opposed to one attempting to place the themes within (which, by the way, is not at all wrong in the least, but indeed commendable. But I think that inserting them can never be as good as them just making their own way in.

If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. Clearly, you need to watch more movies... or maybe you only watch really good ones, in which case you should continue doing so.

I don't know that watching more movies is really a necessity. :p But I have most certainly watched a very large number. And they are not by any stretch of the imagination all really good ones. But very many movies have themes and similar things in them, regardless of quality.



That depends on what you mean. I most definitely think that movies can be made very well, and cause people to think. But I also think that having the visual images provided for people tends to cut down on the brainwork and the imagination required. But when films make people think, it is about things more important than visuals. I still think that while it is not necessarily the case, movies do tend to be somewhat less "intellectual" than books.

So I probably fit into the "Narrow-minded fool" category on this one. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I wouldn't go quite that far, but you do seem to imply that people who have not read the book are a secondary consideration. I fundamentally disagree. If the film can't stand alone as a work of art, it's either a) not a film, or b) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

I think they should be a secondary consideration, though I certainly do agree that it should be able to stand alone. But the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works all their lives, I would think should be thought of first, when making a movie of his works, rather than the "general audience" (I could go into this some more, but I just don't have the time at the moment.)

The ideal condition is that you don't need to have read the book to understand the film, though it helps. Which is the status quo.

In a way, yes. Though I think the most important is that it remains true to Tolkien (by which I do NOT mean a word-for-word filming). However, this is VERY closely followed by the ability to stand alone, which I think is necessary to the movie.

It's true that "mostly" is a relative term, but in the interest of a response: Mr. Jackson, meet Mr. Bakshi. QED. I, for one, appreciate the total absence of Aruman the Red.

-laughs-

True, true, that's one thing I believe that it could certainly do without. ;) Though I do feel inclined to point out that it seems to have been valid to a degree (as I have spoken with a number who have constantly mixed up Saruman and Sauron). I don't

Just because it's "strictly adherent to the text" doesn't automatically make it worth watching, especially if it throws all filmic conventions out the window and becomes a video edition of Books-on-Tape. Books-on-Tape are not distinguishable standalone works of art. If it's not a distinguishable standalone work of art, a filmic adaptation isn't even worth talking about, let alone watching.

That is your opinion. Personally, I think that it does. But, evidently, I am wrong, as you present this as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Unless I missed an "I think", "In my opinion" an "I believe", or something along those lines...I wonder what departing so far from the definite truths makes me...but I digress.

No. Read my earlier statement: a boring and faithful film of LOTR still misrepresents the text, simply because it's boring, and the text is not. That's all I'm saying.

Ah. I see now. Thanks. :)


No, people who try to force Tolkien's interpretation of his own work down my throat are the real bigots.

So then, you know more about Tolkien's works than he did?

I have not ONCE suggested that every Tolkien fan must like the film. I have, however, lost count of the number of claims above that something is intrinsically bad if it differs from Tolkien, and intrinsically good if it agrees with him - regardless of medium, regardless of context.

The book is better than the movie. I'm not denying that one bit. But it's better for a book to be better than a very well-crafted movie (in objective cinematic terms) than for it to be better than a celluloid shadow of itself.

There were parts of it that I would not call "well-crafted", but anyway...Whew! Done! :) I thought I'd never be finished! -collapses-

IP, would I be correct in guessing that you plan in going into the field of film? You certainly know a whole lot about it. :)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Iron Parrot

1. you asked me to be concrete on the LOTR as history issue. You brought up the Trojan war vs the Iliad. It may be the case that at some point in his life Agamemnon said "I do not want to be king, I have never wanted it" then again maybe he said no such thing. I really don't know. I do, however, know with 100% certainty that Aragorn never said it. That is the difference between history and fiction.

2. I did not bring up Helm's Deep to argue that it should have been removed because Tolkien suggested it to Zimmerman. I brought it up to highlight the fact that the very thing Jackson decided to expand into the center-piece of his film was the very thing Tolkien believed expendable. I believe that puts to rest any claim that Jackson understands Tolkien's vision.

3. I brought up Bree to highlight the fact that a significant number of changes made to the film are not due to the particulars of cinema vs literature (and I couldn't agree more with Tolkien that many films are ruined by exaggeration) but are due to the director's love of Horror and darkness. I also wanted to point out that in the commentary Jackson clearly declares that a specific change was made because he didn't like Tolkien's version. I believe that statement to be VERY significant and I suspect that it is the real root of many of the film's changes.

4. Like and /or dislike of ANY film is subjective. A film's importance in history is a different issue. Titanic was a huge cultural moment, but I hated the movie and so did many critics.

I'm out, later............................................. .....

[IronParrot]

MB:
"Why do you think that a film that followed the book 100% would be boring? I would rather see a low-budget film with cheap special effects that was true to the book then a high budget film with the most advanced special effects to date, but changed, to me, some of the key elements in the book, characters are at the top of that list. I fully agree that LotR should never have even been tried to be made into a movie, the book has to many details and depth to be captured on film, IMO."
A jolly singing guy in yellow boots is a really great idea on paper, but I can't name a single director who could pull off Tom Bombadil on film with a straight face.

Some things in LOTR are indeed unfilmable. That doesn't suddenly mean the whole thing is unfilmable.

You also fail to note what I have talked about time and time again - that contractual time constraints will prevent a cover-to-cover film of LOTR "true to the book" from ever being made. So you have to cut in order to fit the time constraints. But when you do that, you don't just leave everything else intact, because there's a chain reaction to deal with: other things have to be rearranged to compensate. Read my earlier example about ten posts up.

As for whether LOTR should have been filmed at all, we'll just have to agree to disagree there: I'd say that an excellent production (in terms of artistic merit by itself, regardless of the adaptation) is far better than no film at all. I refer once again to The Wizard of Oz, which is one of the least faithful adaptations there is, but is a highly regarded film that has perhaps transcended the original source.

What you are proposing is that you'd rather see LOTR turned into a television miniseries - it fits your description of it having a low budget, and the necessity of it being really, really long. That's a different discussion entirely; there are a number of reasons why the TV miniseries is a different (and arguably inferior) medium. We're talking about film here.

So with a "faithful" adaptation, there are two options:
1) it goes on forever
2) some parts are left out due to time, but the rest sticks to the text anyway

... and in the context of film, neither works. In the context of film, you're sacrificing cinematic artistic merit for the sake of sticking to the content of a vastly different medium.

"I think everybody here knew that there was going to be stuff cut out of the book, and many can be agreed with even if we don't like it, Bombadil, Old Forest, Crickhollow, but when key scenes from the book, that are very important to the plot and character development, are cut out for big special effects scenes that have nothing to do with the story or plot to me is not understandable, other than trying to please the everyday movie goers. Best example is the stairway scene in Moria over the gift giving scene for the theater release. I didn't mind the staircase scene to much when I first saw the movie, but after seeing the EE I couldn't believe they had cut that great scene, and for what? Action, special effects, and movie sales. For special effects it is an amazing scene, as for the story it had no place, it took out time that could have been used for character development or a number of things."
To assume that every change was made to "please everyday moviegoers" is a ridiculous argument. The bit in Moria was indeed gratuitous in a way, and the fact that the gift-giving scene was nudged out was a problem I had with the original theatrical release. But it was solved, so that's not even worth discussing... the Extended Edition takes care of a lot of issues.

Whether or not the gift-giving scene was "key to the plot" is a different issue. Except for the Phial of Galadriel, which was in the original cut, everything there was covered implicitly. They all left Lothlorien with the Elven cloaks, for example. The restoration of that scene in the DVD was much welcomed, though.

[IronParrot]

GW:
"What I am saying is that Lord of the Rings is Tolkien's work. And if Tolkien feels a certain way about his work, and thinks that it should be treated in a certain way, than I think that reasonable people will, if not agree, than at least respect the intent and purpose of the creator."
Tolkien didn't know enough about film to make a qualified decision, and furthermore, LOTR was indeed unfilmable while he was alive. Things have since changed.

"You almost had me there. But when I thought about it more, what really are those? It seems to me that they're just a few bones thrown to keep the savage, hungry fans happy."
And there's something wrong with that? Additionally, they total up to a lot more than "just a few bones". There is an incredible amount of verbatim dialogue that non-fans would not recognize as verbatim. That alone allows those familiar with the book to have an additional layer of appreciation for the material.

I believe I did have you there, thank you very much.

"I disagree. Personally, I think that if someone creates a world or a story, that world or story is, in a way, "sacred" to them, that they should be almost revered in regards to that story. Certainly, I would think Tolkien would have jurisdiction over say, Lewis' Space Trilogy. However, as he created the Lord of the Rings, I think that out of at the very least courtesy, if not any actual respect for him, his views and wishes should be respected, and placed higher than those of one who decides to make movies on his works, or those who study his works. Personally, I find claiming to know someone better than they themselves know them pretentious."
I'm not claiming that I (or anybody else) know Tolkien better than he does. Nobody's claimed that - especially the people working on the film itself. As I've said on numerous occasions, they don't know Tolkien better than Tolkien, but they sure as hell know cinema better than Tolkien. And as the film is an independent artistic entity first and an adaptation second, as it rightly should be, this is the right direction.

"He was against allegory. But I do not think that he meant for his story to be analysed, dissected, observed, taken apart, etc., but for it to be read and enjoyed. Though if you provide good evidence to the contrary, I'm sure I will listen to you."
I believe the burden of proof is on you, if you're to make such a statement. All works are subject to analysis. All works worth mentioning, anyhow. If Tolkien didn't mean for us to analyze and dissect his work, let's delete Entmoot to comply with his wishes, why don't we?

Tolkien was an English scholar himself. His theses, particularly regarding Beowulf, were largely founded on the idea of looking at the historical and cultural significance of languages and literature rather than quibbling about trivial details on a microscopic level. Compare this to, say, your approach to the film.

"Personally, I think that the author dictating what everything is supposed to mean is greatly separate from the author dictating what everything is."
The latter case does not exist.

[IronParrot]

"Do you want a list?

Harvey Weinstein is NOT Mark Ordesky is NOT Peter Jackson is NOT Philippa Boyens. One of those four names was profit-motivated, and he ditched the project."
"And do you have actual proof for this, or am I just to take it for granted?"
I do have actual proof of this. Why not begin with their job descriptions?

Harvey Weinstein took the studio-centric, profit-motivated approach while the contract was still with Miramax: he argued for two films, around 2.5 hours in length each, and threatened to take the rights to another director if Jackson couldn't find another studio to fund the project within a week and a half - even though Jackson was the one who proposed the project to Miramax in the first place. Weinstein is still listed as an executive producer and receives a percentage, despite the fact that after the thing was shipped to New Line, he had absolutely no involvement with the film. Weinstein did not have a single say on the content of LOTR.

Mark Ordesky was the one at New Line who got Jackson off the ground and argued for expanding the thing into three films. To make such a move out of a profit motive is ridiculous, because the production and marketing costs have just spiked by 50%, and if the first film isn't successful, you have two flops coming down the tubes instead of one. Such a move would not make a penny of economic sense if it were done out of profit.

Peter Jackson does not get a huge cut out of all this, other than a standard director's salary and royalties. The biggest benefit of LOTR's success, for him, is that in the future studios will be more likely to fund his other dream projects similarly. Take, for instance, the $200M that he's rumoured to be given to work with King Kong. Most of the more significant changes from book to film can't even be attributed to him directly.

Philippa Boyens, as a reputed Tolkien scholar, was hired by Peter Jackson to help adapt the film. She is responsible for a good number of changes that were made. The amount of profit the film makes has virtually no impact on her monetary income from this.

But let's address your unfounded assumptions about the movie business. So just because a director wants to see a story come to life, like many fans do - and he has the means to do it himself - he's suddenly subject to accusations of doing it for profit? That doesn't make sense, especially considering that directors and production companies (in this case, Wingnut) get a very meagre share of the profit compared to Hollywood distributors.

The "it was done for money" argument is silly and ignorant. Don't use it.

Yes, I thought I said that the studios would be more profit-motivated...
The studio in question is New Line Cinema. They lay down the funding, market and license the movie, and collect most of the profit. The production company that actually makes the movie, Wingnut Films, is a separate entity.

I could cite plenty of examples which have been stated by the Jacksonites to be needed to make the film more popular (which, as a natural result, brings more profit).
Then those other "Jacksonites" should shut up and let me talk instead, because they are obviously ignorant of the aforementioned facts regarding the way the film industry works.

[IronParrot]

Then call me an ignorant moron. I prefer the written word to the moving picture, and don't have the time to learn about both.
That doesn't make you an ignorant moron, but it does make you less than qualified to talk about cinematic considerations.

By all means, no. While I strongly hold that the Lord of the Rings is a story, and is meant mainly (if not entirely) to be so, it also undeniably has some very big themes. The movie also definitely has themes, but they are not as instrinsic and as much of a part of it, in my opinion. I suppose this is the difference between the themes slipping through by accident to manifest themselves in glorious genuinity as opposed to one attempting to place the themes within (which, by the way, is not at all wrong in the least, but indeed commendable. But I think that inserting them can never be as good as them just making their own way in.
I don't see that the film fails to do that. It can be analyzed just as rigourously, and there are a number of hidden, perhaps unintentional motifs to be found everywhere - as is the case with the book. But the very nature of the plot dictates that some themes will ultimately stick out: fall of the Elves and the rise of Men, nature and industry, the lust for power being a source of corruption, and all that stuff. It's intrinsic to the story regardless of what either Tolkien or Jackson intended.

"I don't know that watching more movies is really a necessity. But I have most certainly watched a very large number. And they are not by any stretch of the imagination all really good ones. But very many movies have themes and similar things in them, regardless of quality."
There's a lot more to artistic merit in film than the presence of "themes and similar things".

"I most definitely think that movies can be made very well, and cause people to think. But I also think that having the visual images provided for people tends to cut down on the brainwork and the imagination required. But when films make people think, it is about things more important than visuals. I still think that while it is not necessarily the case, movies do tend to be somewhat less "intellectual" than books."
Then you haven't watched the right films. Or you have, but they were all less-than-perfectly-faithful adaptations of books.

[IronParrot]

"I think they should be a secondary consideration, though I certainly do agree that it should be able to stand alone. But the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works all their lives, I would think should be thought of first, when making a movie of his works, rather than the "general audience" (I could go into this some more, but I just don't have the time at the moment.)"
"Though I think the most important is that it remains true to Tolkien (by which I do NOT mean a word-for-word filming). However, this is VERY closely followed by the ability to stand alone, which I think is necessary to the movie."
Then we'll have to agree to disagree here.

My take on any adaptation, regardless of how religiously dedicated I was to the source material, is that it has to be a good film first and a good adaptation second.

A good film that isn't a good adaptation is still a good film, and is worth watching.

A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a bad film, and isn't worth watching.

Niether case applies, because for the record, I think LOTR is a pretty darn good adaptation. Though it's a far better film.

"True, true, that's one thing I believe that it could certainly do without. Though I do feel inclined to point out that it seems to have been valid to a degree (as I have spoken with a number who have constantly mixed up Saruman and Sauron)."
(points finger) Pandering to the masses! Pandering to the masses! Sacrilege!

"That is your opinion. Personally, I think that it does. But, evidently, I am wrong, as you present this as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Unless I missed an "I think", "In my opinion" an "I believe", or something along those lines...I wonder what departing so far from the definite truths makes me...but I digress."
It is indeed Absolute Truth that Books-on-Tape are not regarded as distinct artistic entities.

"So then, you know more about Tolkien's works than he did?"
No, but I am certainly free to interpret them whichever way I want, regardless of what something is supposed to be. That's a level of unintentional applicability, which is something about the book you lauded a few paragraphs up.

"There were parts of it that I would not call "well-crafted", but anyway...Whew! Done! I thought I'd never be finished! -collapses-

IP, would I be correct in guessing that you plan in going into the field of film? You certainly know a whole lot about it."
I don't claim that the film is perfect down to the last detail. I have my own set of gripes about LOTR, but they aren't a major dent in the final product.

As for going into film... no comment. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
GW:

Tolkien didn't know enough about film to make a qualified decision, and furthermore, LOTR was indeed unfilmable while he was alive. Things have since changed.

But he did know about the story, and what parts of the story were most important. Which is more important: the story, or the film?


[quote]And there's something wrong with that? Additionally, they total up to a lot more than "just a few bones". There is an incredible amount of verbatim dialogue that non-fans would not recognize as verbatim. That alone allows those familiar with the book to have an additional layer of appreciation for the material.

I believe I did have you there, thank you very much.

Verbatim dialogue, often quoted at the wrong time, and even sometimes by the wrong person.

I'm not claiming that I (or anybody else) know Tolkien better than he does. Nobody's claimed that - especially the people working on the film itself. As I've said on numerous occasions, they don't know Tolkien better than Tolkien, but they sure as hell know cinema better than Tolkien. And as the film is an independent artistic entity first and an adaptation second, as it rightly should be, this is the right direction.

I wasn't even talking about the film. :p I was referring to the Tolkien scholars you mentioned who say that the LOTR is allegorical, despite what Tolkien says.

I believe the burden of proof is on you, if you're to make such a statement. All works are subject to analysis. All works worth mentioning, anyhow. If Tolkien didn't mean for us to analyze and dissect his work, let's delete Entmoot to comply with his wishes, why don't we?

Tolkien was an English scholar himself. His theses, particularly regarding Beowulf, were largely founded on the idea of looking at the historical and cultural significance of languages and literature rather than quibbling about trivial details on a microscopic level. Compare this to, say, your approach to the film.

Now, now, don't think you're going to take me in with that. Tolkien was by his own admission a terrible niggler.
BTW, let me congratulate you. You are truly a master of the subtle insult. :)

The latter case does not exist.

I beg your pardon?

So just because a director wants to see a story come to life, like many fans do - and he has the means to do it himself - he's suddenly subject to accusations of doing it for profit?

Did not PJ himself say on the DVD that he wanted to do a fantasy movie, and said "Why not do Lord of the Rings?" This doesn't sound like wanting to see it come to life to me, but actually more interested in the popularity of LOTR.

As for the rest of that post, I won't touch it, mainly because I am ignorant of the film-making things discussed there.

[IronParrot]

squinteyedsoutherner:
"1. you asked me to be concrete on the LOTR as history issue. You brought up the Trojan war vs the Iliad. It may be the case that at some point in his life Agamemnon said "I do not want to be king, I have never wanted it" then again maybe he said no such thing. I really don't know. I do, however, know with 100% certainty that Aragorn never said it. That is the difference between history and fiction."
No, you don't know that with 100% certainty. When it comes down to issues of certainty, you can only cite what he did say, not what he didn't. So whenever Tolkien didn't have characters speaking during the timeframe of the book, they were mute? Ambiguity is vastly different from absence. If anything, Aragorn not wanting to be king is a natural extrapolation from how he bides his time before claiming the throne or looking into the Palantir, as well as his lack of any lust for power that would let him be seduced by the Ring.

"2. I did not bring up Helm's Deep to argue that it should have been removed because Tolkien suggested it to Zimmerman. I brought it up to highlight the fact that the very thing Jackson decided to expand into the center-piece of his film was the very thing Tolkien believed expendable. I believe that puts to rest any claim that Jackson understands Tolkien's vision."
Then we're arguing different things.

Tolkien has a certain vision of his book. Tolkien also has a certain vision of a hypothetical film based on his book. His suggestion that Helm's Deep is expendable belongs to the latter category.

My understanding is that we're discussing whether or not Jackson was true to Tolkien's vision of the book, not Tolkien's vision of a hypothetical film. If we're discussing the latter, then there's no debate: of course Jackson wasn't true to Tolkien's vision of the film, because it's his job as a director to have a cinematic vision of it himself. Tolkien wasn't in the director's chair, and wasn't qualified to be anyway.

"3. I brought up Bree to highlight the fact that a significant number of changes made to the film are not due to the particulars of cinema vs literature (and I couldn't agree more with Tolkien that many films are ruined by exaggeration) but are due to the director's love of Horror and darkness. I also wanted to point out that in the commentary Jackson clearly declares that a specific change was made because he didn't like Tolkien's version. I believe that statement to be VERY significant and I suspect that it is the real root of many of the film's changes."
It is due to the particulars of cinema because the creation and juxtaposition of contrasting moods is completely different on a celluloid canvas.

From all indications, Jackson didn't like Tolkien's version - in the context of filming it. The basic argument here is that Tolkien's version would not work in a film, and as a film director, he is qualified to darken the tone accordingly.

Once again, I bring up time constraints as the primary root of the changes. Time compression means a faster-paced film. That means a faster-paced first act. That means the events of Book I, Chapters 1 through 9 can't be as comfortable and easygoing for Frodo and company as they are in the book. If this journey is quickened and less comfortable, the mood of the settings has to be altered in order to match.

"4. Like and /or dislike of ANY film is subjective. A film's importance in history is a different issue. Titanic was a huge cultural moment, but I hated the movie and so did many critics."
There are two components to the quality of a given film: entertainment value and artistic merit. Entertainment value is in the eyes of the beholder; this is the measure of how much you "like" or "dislike" it, and it is indeed subjective. For example, the quality of the adaptation affects the degree to which fans of the source material are entertained.

Artistic merit, however, is inherent. It also refers to the film as an independent entity, so this does not cover anything to do with adapting the source. To sacrifice artistic merit in order to pump up the entertainment value for a specific demographic is a mistake.

It's true that artistic merit is also subject to debate and criticism; however, the focus is still on the intrinsic qualities of a given film, and not how much certain people do or do not like it.

The best films, of course, have a high degree of both entertainment value and artistic merit. As the former will never apply to everybody, it might as well apply to as many people as possible, as long as it is not at the expense of the latter.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
[B][quote]I don't see that the film fails to do that. It can be analyzed just as rigourously, and there are a number of hidden, perhaps unintentional motifs to be found everywhere - as is the case with the book. But the very nature of the plot dictates that some themes will ultimately stick out: fall of the Elves and the rise of Men, nature and industry, the lust for power being a source of corruption, and all that stuff. It's intrinsic to the story regardless of what either Tolkien or Jackson intended.

It just seems to me to not come off as well as Tolkien's book in that regard. Maybe because Tolkien's stories and mythology were the work of most of his adult life. :) While Jackson certainly did a lot of work on this, he didn't spend nearly as long as Tolkien did.

There's a lot more to artistic merit in film than the presence of "themes and similar things".

Yes, I said that they were in many movies, regardless of quality.


Then you haven't watched the right films. Or you have, but they were all less-than-perfectly-faithful adaptations of books.

Then I suppose I'm totally ignorant in the way of films. :) Just curious: Could you quickly give a few examples of "the right films"?



A good film that isn't a good adaptation is still a good film, and is worth watching.


A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a bad film, and isn't worth watching.[QUOTE]

Just wanted to point out that if you flip it over:

A good film that is a bad adaptation is still a bad adaptation, and does not stick to the story.

A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a good adaptation, and remains true to the story.

A bad film that is a bad adaptation is a complete waste of time.;) (NOTE: None of these were intended to portray PJ's Movies, and were nothing but a sidetrack from my feeble mind.)

Just for the record, I think that a bad film that was a good adaptation would be worth watching, if I were familiar with the source material. But as I freely admit, I'm ignorant on the matter of film. :) -shrugs- And as a natural result thereof, my opinion doesn't count. :)

P. S. Have you seen the BBC Narnia productions? Would you qualify them as bad films?

[quote](points finger) Pandering to the masses! Pandering to the masses! Sacrilege!
Heh-heh. No comment, as it could turn into something full-blown, and I just have neither the time nor the energy for that. :)

It is indeed Absolute Truth that Books-on-Tape are not regarded as distinct artistic entities.

I did not mean that, but rather the last sentence:
If it's not a distinguishable standalone work of art, a filmic adaptation isn't even worth talking about, let alone watching.
But that gets into the "adaptation vs. film" thing again, on which we agree to disagree. :)

No, but I am certainly free to interpret them whichever way I want, regardless of what something is supposed to be. That's a level of unintentional applicability, which is something about the book you lauded a few paragraphs up.

Now that I look it over, I think I misread you. I was thinking his interpretation of his story and his characters, not the themes etc. therein. Or was that what you meant?

[IronParrot]

GW:
"Verbatim dialogue, often quoted at the wrong time, and even sometimes by the wrong person."
Only "wrong" in relation to the context in the book. Besides, I only brought up verbatim dialogue as an example of something that only fans would recognize as being from the book, whereas non-fans wouldn't know that. So this argument is bunk.

"I wasn't even talking about the film. I was referring to the Tolkien scholars you mentioned who say that the LOTR is allegorical, despite what Tolkien says."
Hold on a sec.
"In the 'Foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote: 'I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence'. As with the denial of any link between rabbits and hobbits (see chapter 1), the evidence is rather against Tolkien here. He was perfectly capable of using allegory himself, and did so several times in his academic works, usually with devastating effect. In his 1936 lecture on Beowulf, for instance, Tolkien offered the British Academy audience 'yet another allegory' (it was not the first in the lecture)..." (etc.)
- Tom Shippey, J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, Chapter 4

I'm not going to quote all eight pages of the thing about allegory. But you get the idea. It's actually a very interesting read.

"Now, now, don't think you're going to take me in with that. Tolkien was by his own admission a terrible niggler.
"
Indeed he was. So if he could read his own work so critically (and he certainly does), as his audience, why can't we?

"Personally, I think that the author dictating what everything is supposed to mean is greatly separate from the author dictating what everything is."
The latter case does not exist.
"I beg your pardon?"
What I'm saying is that any of Tolkien's claims of what things are are exactly the same as what he meant them to be. The absolution of the former does not exist. I stand by that firmly.

If it's not explicitly stated in the body of the text itself, it's open to analysis, no matter how the author intended it. Tolkien probably didn't intend most of the things we noticed about his work, and his intentions-to-possible-analysis ratio is almost as low as the likes of Shakespeare or Moses.

"Did not PJ himself say on the DVD that he wanted to do a fantasy movie, and said "Why not do Lord of the Rings?" This doesn't sound like wanting to see it come to life to me, but actually more interested in the popularity of LOTR."
Maybe you should listen to the entirety of his comments instead of the segment you want to hear. Just because he decided to do LOTR doesn't imply that he did it because it was popular. He goes on to talk about how he did LOTR because it's the mother of all fantasy, so if you're going to make a fantasy movie, you might as well do it based on the best fantasy story of all time. That sounds like reverence for the book to me.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's late, don't have time to say much, but I will say that I don't really know how you're defining "reverence". That sounds like respect yes, but that is not what I am talking about.

[IronParrot]

"Just curious: Could you quickly give a few examples of "the right films"?"
The Lord of the Rings. :p

No, but seriously, some of the content in films both original (Citizen Kane, Casablanca) and adapted (The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia) have enough under-the-surface matter in them to fill a couple of doctoral theses. In my graduating year in high school, on the English exam, I wrote an impromptu essay on Casablanca instead of talking about any of the works I studied in class. I fell just short of 100% because I forgot the names of two of the three screenwriters.

"A good film that is a bad adaptation is still a bad adaptation, and does not stick to the story.

A bad film that is a good adaptation is still a good adaptation, and remains true to the story."
That's true enough. To me, it doesn't matter. To you, it obviously does. My set of priorities appear to match Peter Jackson's. Yours is probably a lot closer to Tolkien's. But who's directing the movie?

"Just for the record, I think that a bad film that was a good adaptation would be worth watching, if I were familiar with the source material. But as I freely admit, I'm ignorant on the matter of film. -shrugs- And as a natural result thereof, my opinion doesn't count.

P. S. Have you seen the BBC Narnia productions? Would you qualify them as bad films?"
I've seen the production of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It's a decent television re-enactment, but I never actually thought of it as a film. As far as I'm concerned, an actual Narnia movie has never been made, though the current project that was recently greenlighted looks very promising.

Compare the similar BBC productions of Shakespeare to, say, the Franco Zefferelli Romeo and Juliet. The latter is a film. The former is a rendition of the stage play in a soundstage with cameras rolling.

As for whether or not a film is worth watching: Well, I keep picking on Harry Potter, and that's probably not fair. It's a pretty decent film in itself, though a lot of its flaws can be attributed to sticking too close to the source, despite what else has been trimmed. They practically wrote a four-hour screenplay for it, shot most of it, and ended up cutting so much out that some transitions don't make as much sense as they should.

One of the things that actually always annoyed me about The Fellowship of the Ring (theatrical version) is that Galadriel says her staple line, "I will diminish into the West, and remain Galadriel" - but at that point, the name Galadriel has never been mentioned in the movie, so the line makes no sense. But it's a beautiful line and I'd be up in arms if it weren't there (and I'm sure you would too), so they could have at least mentioned her name earlier. This was fixed in the DVD, thankfully.

The Wizard of Oz is, of course, my favourite example of a wonderful movie that is, at the same time, a horrible adaptation. The latter does not bug me when I watch the film, because I recognize it as a distinct entity.

"Now that I look it over, I think I misread you. I was thinking his interpretation of his story and his characters, not the themes etc. therein. Or was that what you meant?"
Now I'm really confused. I think I misread you and responded accordingly. Then you misread me and... oh, whatever.

"It's late, don't have time to say much, but I will say that I don't really know how you're defining "reverence". That sounds like respect yes, but that is not what I am talking about."
I say that Jackson filmed LOTR out of reverence for the book, in the sense that Jackson thought, "it's such an amazing story, it deserves to be put on film (and the Bakshi version doesn't count)." In that way, he had a great deal of passion for and appreciation of the material he was dealing with. You'll note from the interviews and documentaries that he was reading passages of LOTR every single day for a few years. Some directors of movie adaptations never even read the books they are working on until they are hired for the project.

An incredible number of people who worked on LOTR - from screenwriters like Philippa Boyens all the way down to the Maya modellers in Weta Digital's CG labs - were already familiar with the book prior to being hired for the film. Peter Jackson wouldn't have taken the effort to hunt down John Howe and Alan Lee, his still-painting Tolkien-visualization equivalents, if he didn't want the film to be as best a representation of Tolkien as possible - even if he has to make logistically-motivated sacrifices.

On the subject of definitions, it looks like "respect" is being defined as "do what Tolkien says", something with which I wouldn't necessarily agree.

[Black Breathalizer]

Whooweee...it takes a long time for those of us in the "ignorant movie-going masses" category to read through all this point/counterpoint stuff. ;) :)

Speaking of definitions, let me give you my own working definition of "Tolkien's vision." For me it means, "does the work capture the key themes and emotional tugs of the story?" as opposed to "is it a scene-by-scene mirror of the books?"

So this is why I look at "inventions" of Jackson's, such as his decision to have Merry and Pippin distract the orcs at Amon Hen and lead them away from Frodo as a brilliant big screen vehicle for streamlining the plot AND effectively communicating one of Tolkien's most important themes.

Is it "in the book,"? Nope. But does it capture the very essence of Tolkien's work? Yep. And if you people think the importance of self-sacrificing friendship IS NOT part of Tolkien's vision for the tale, then I give up. :)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Whooweee...it takes a long time for those of us in the "ignorant movie-going masses" category to read through all this point/counterpoint stuff. ;) :)

:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Can I join you, GW?

... :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Certainly. ;)

:rolleyes:

[squinteyedsoutherner]

.............and let me add my own :rolleyes: to your arguements Iron Parrot, you truely are on another planet. Aragorn is a fictious character created by Tolkien. He begins and ENDS with Tolkien. He does not exist in some 4th dimension of infinite possibility where he might have said "I don't want to be king" - where he may wear pink leg warmers and hang out at gay bars in Bree - where he may be taking tap dance lessons in his spare time. Your arguements are laughable, and if you truely believe them, then I can understand why the film's changes don't bother you, afterall, just think of the possibilites.

[Elf Girl]

I think I'll join you, GW, BoP and Squinty.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...his decision to have Merry and Pippin distract the orcs at Amon Hen and lead them away from Frodo as a brilliant big screen vehicle for streamlining the plot AND effectively communicating one of Tolkien's most important themes.
If it was really that important to one of Tolkien's most important themes, don't you think he would have put it in the books?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
If it was really that important to one of Tolkien's most important themes, don't you think he would have put it in the books? Tolkien wasn't infallible. Perhaps...{drumroll} ...he didn't think of it.

This is the reason why Arwen and Aragorn's romance is resigned to the appendix. Tolkien thought of it after he was ready to crown his king and wasn't willing to rewrite his earlier stuff (yet again) to include it in the same way Jackson has.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Tolkien spent over a decade writing and rewriting and editting and rewriting.

Also, Black Breatheliser, don't pretend we're stupid. :) He said that it was relegated to the appendices because it did not fit in with the rest of the Lord of the Rings.

[Black Breathalizer]

We keep going around and around but I've yet to have any of you book purists really address the central question of this thread:

What central themes of the books did Jackson supposedly mess up on?

And pleeeeeeze don't give me yet another "geez, Gimli was comic-relief" examples. Let's talk THEMES!

[Elf Girl]

Are you saying that the developing deep friendship and loyalty between two individuals who at first thought themselves enemies isn't part of the theme of friendship you cite so often?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

We keep going around and around but I've yet to have any of you book purists really address the central question of this thread:

Translation: Uh-oh, better change the subject! :rolleyes:

And CHARACTERS. Tolkien himself said that that was one of the most important things. And it was about HOBBITS. Both of these are poorly adapted.

Seriously, BB, why do you feel the terrible urge to make everyone think the same way you do?

I also noted you left the challenge to your "PJ was truer to Tolkien than Tolkien was" coment untouched...

[BeardofPants]

The fading of the elves, and of the third age:
Pj has them turning up at helms deep to fight against Saruman's hoard. Is this the mark of a race whose fëa is fading? Whose time was drawing to a close? Not to mention the fact that it completely mucks up the Last Alliance. In Tolkien's world, the elves are estranged from the world of men: if Men are to overthrow Sauron, then they have no one to turn to except themselves. PJ has completely shot this theme to pieces.

Reduction of the role of hobbits, and how even the smallest can come through:
Pj has taken out the scouring which would have shown how the hobbits had come in a full circle from a primarily internallly turned race, to one that was forced to fight for the freedom of the shire. No longer could the hobbits rely on the rangers fending for them, or for Gandalf to turn up at some opportune time. In PJ's world, it seems we will not get to see the maturation of the hobbits as a people. However, I reserve my judgement until I've seen the last insallment. The POV on the movie shifts from the hobbits to that of Aragorn (primarily.)

The elvish concern with preserving their realms:
PJ gives us turbo-Galadriel, a fiercesome queen who seems more concerned with terrifying the be-jeezus out of everyone and stealing the ring, than preserving her people, and her realm. Elrond seems more concerned with xenophobia towards an inferior Aragorn, and telling off his daughter to worry about *his* realm. Again this hearkens to my point about their "fading"; rather than being geographically, and socially isolated from 'man-kind' they're gallivanting around the neighbourhood kicking elvish butt. So much for the inwardly turned aspect of the elves. There is no real allusion to the timelessness of Elrond's realm. A cursary mention is made of the lack of time passed in Lothlorien.

What it means to be a hero:
Admittedly, we're still waiting for the third installment, so I can't really give an absolute fail to PJ on this theme, however, thus far he hasn't succeeded too well. Frodo has turned into a mouse who likes to have occasional bouts of diarrhoaea/constipation, and random episodes of falling over. Tolkien's Frodo was scared at every turn, but displayed great courage in overcoming his fear. PJ's Frodo was just plain scared, and was oftentimes cowering behind some random member of the fellowship. Aragorn has turned into a reluctant king-to-be, easily caught off-guard by an elven hussy. The phrase, "All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost?", no longer makes sense, because movie-Aragorn is clearly lost, and has no sense of self-worth in regards to either his love for Arwen, or his kingdom. Also, both his and Frodo's characters are completely bungled at the end of fellowship: Tolkien's more kingly Aragorn would never had left Frodo's side had he known Frodo's intentions to desert.

Environmental themes:
Pj has given a cursary examination of this particular theme to his credit: however, he fails to look beyond Saruman's obvious contribution. The theme is a lot more complicated than the obvious pulling down trees and making evil machines with them: it ties in with that whole thing with the fading of the third age.

[BeardofPants]

The power of friendship:
The conversion of Pippin and Merry into two giddly little midgets (read: comic), and the loss of the Conspiracy means that their role in the fellowship makes no sense. Why are they there? Other than to provide light relief? "I think Elrond, that in this matter it would be well to trust rather to their friendship than to great wisdom" Unfortunately their roles have been trivialised to the point that their parts within the fellowship seem irrelevant. How can we even rely on their supposed great friendship with Frodo when their introduction into the journey seems like an accident? When there has been no build up of a relationship with Frodo during the introductory segments of the Fellowship of the Ring? However, I do feel that PJ did a pretty good job with the relationship of Sam and Frodo, offset with Gollum (who was amazing. PJ does have some redeeming features occasionally.)

Overcoming racial prejudice, and casting aside ancient history:
The mangling of Gimli and Legolas' friendship is to me, one of the most disappointing things that PJ bungled. There is no sense of reparation between these two characters in Fellowship: such that there is a definate absense of the burgening of a new friendship. What we do get is a rather comfusing competition between them at Helm's Deep over how many kills they managed to get, which I guess is the culmination of their friendship. PJ also failed to really bring across how bitter the hatred was between these two races. We also have Elrond being openly scornful against 'man-kind', which is ludicrous given that he is half-elven!

The Istari, and the theme of wisdom:
I ask, would Tolkien's Gandalf have managed to attract the scorn of a mere elf (Elrond)? Would he have resorted to Sumo Wrestling with Saruman? Would he have stupidly told Saruman where the ring was? In Tolkien's world, the role of the Istari is clear: they are emissaries sent directly from the Undying Lands to work against Sauron (by guiding the free peoples of Middle Earth.) Their wisdom, and and their knowledge are imcomparable with the other races in middle earth. And yet: we have Elrond openly scorning against Gandalf. How can Gandalf even hope to rouse the peoples of Middle Earth against Sauron, when he can't even get Elrond to trust him?!

The breaking of the fellowship:
Perhaps one of the more important themes of the book was reduced to mere battles, blood, and gore. The boss-fight with Lurtz was laughable, and faintly reminescent of Monty Python ("'tis only a scratch!") PJ managed to completely muddy the waters with this one. What we get is an extended scene of a battle. There is no examination of why the fellowship was doomed (which is a whole other theme which I can't be bothered getting into: the theme of fate, the doom of the elves et al, the prophecies of Illuvater, etc) to fail. Nada. We get Lurtz instead. Yippee. Frodo's consideration for the other members of the fellowship is lost because they already know about his departure, and aid him in it! And Aragorn's loyalty to Frodo is cut, with him instead chosing to let him go alone.

Finding hope when all seems lost:
Faramir was supposed to be a ray of light in a dark place. In the movie, he is transformed into an evil bastard who takes Frodo captive. Bree: again was turned into something dark and scary.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hurrah! Reinforcements! ;)

[BeardofPants]

:D So did I leave anything out?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not that I can think of. But then, I am halfwitted. ;)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The fading of the elves, and of the third age:
Pj has them turning up at helms deep to fight against Saruman's hoard. Is this the mark of a race whose fëa is fading? Whose time was drawing to a close? Not to mention the fact that it completely mucks up the Last Alliance. In Tolkien's world, the elves are estranged from the world of men: if Men are to overthrow Sauron, then they have no one to turn to except themselves. PJ has completely shot this theme to pieces. Baloney. The fading of the elves has been a CLEAR theme in the theatrical and extended DVD releases. I've pointed the evidence of this out in an earlier post. If you'd like I could repeat it again.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Reduction of the role of hobbits, and how even the smallest can come through.You obviously haven't been watching the same films that I have. That is a central theme of PJ's.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
The elvish concern with preserving their realms:
PJ gives us turbo-Galadriel, a fiercesome queen who seems more concerned with terrifying the be-jeezus out of everyone and stealing the ring, than preserving her people, and her realm. If you are going to argue this point, you might want to reread Tolkien's version first since PJ mirrored it to a large extent.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
What it means to be a hero:
Admittedly, we're still waiting for the third installment, so I can't really give an absolute fail to PJ on this theme, however, thus far he hasn't succeeded too well. Frodo has turned into a mouse who likes to have occasional bouts of diarrhoaea/constipation, and random episodes of falling over. Tolkien's Frodo was scared at every turn, but displayed great courage in overcoming his fear.So has PJ's Frodo.
Originally posted by BeardofPants
Environmental themes:
Pj has given a cursary examination of this particular theme to his credit.Thank you for acknowledging PJ's efforts to address this theme on film.

More later.

[Melko Belcha]

I fully agree with BeardofPants. I think their is enuff examples in this thread of why PJ did not capture Tolkien's vision. Sorry if you disagree BB, but after reading many of these posts I feel even more now that PJ did not capture Tolkien's vision then I did before this debate started. Just except that people don't have the same opinion then you, I except your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) Baloney. The fading of the elves has been a CLEAR theme in the theatrical and extended DVD releases. I've pointed the evidence of this out in an earlier post. If you'd like I could repeat it again.

2)You obviously haven't been watching the same films that I have. That is a central theme of PJ's.

3)If you are going to argue this point, you might want to reread Tolkien's version first since PJ mirrored it to a large extent.

4)So has PJ's Frodo.

5)Thank you for acknowledging PJ's efforts to address this theme on film.

More later.

1)Yes, indeed. It WAS a clear theme, quite well done indeed. But then Jigglypuff had to lead a force of Elves to the aid of Rohan.:rolleyes:

2)Really? Care to show how?

3) I'm not quite sure what BoP was saying, so I don't really know how to respond. Somewhat OT, but I will quote Tolkien's description of her at the "transformation".
She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.
Ring? Ring? What Ring? I didn't see a ring.
Somehow, I don't think "great light" meant the dark, greenish tint.
Didn't seem to me to be tall beyond measurement. And as for beautiful beyond enduring...:eek:
Terrible and worshipful were fairly well portrayed, in and of themselves. But these terms could be used to describe something that wasn't rather monstrous in appearance, and judging from previous description, I think this is what was meant.
I didn't notice her laughing in the first place, let alone again...
4) EJW does always seem to be hiding behind other members of the Fellowship. And he certainly didn't come off as the same perservering Hobbit of undying will in the movie as he did in the book, at least to me.
5) :)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
More later.

When you have some more time, could you please address/refute some of my points with examples? In particular: could you expand on PJ's version of the elves fading, How the hobbits come through, how PJ showed the preservation of the Elvish realms, How heroism was portrayed through Frodo et al, and anything else you'd like to bring up? So far you have refuted my points with nothing but "nonsense, blah, blah" without supplying any evidence. So, when you have a bit more time, maybe?

[Elf Girl]

Thank you very very very much for that, BoP. Can't wait to hear more of BB's opinion. :)

[Elfhelm]

BoP, I can't refute anything you're saying, but I can refute the urban legend in your sig, vis.:

It ain't true. Not only does the Navy disclaim it, the anecdote shows up in a 1992 collection of jokes and tall tales. Worse, it appears in Stephen Covey's 1989 The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, and he got it from a 1987 issue of Proceedings, a publication of the U.S. Naval Institute.

Furthermore, the Lincoln docked at Alameda, California on October 10th, 1995 - the other side of the continent from Newfoundland. hehe

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I thought you felt the movies are inadequate adaptaions, Elfhelm?:confused:

[Elfhelm]

Uh... yes, sort of... and that's why I can't refute her.

I feel they are an interpretation, that they are beautiful, that I enjoy them, but I have several strong disagreements with the screenwriters. On the other hand, have you seen what screenwriters did to Great Expectations, or what directors do to Shakespeare on an almost daily basis? *shudder* In comparison with those travesties, LotR is a pretty fair interpretation. I also have pointed out that excellent artists such as Alan Lee have added their personal touches to their renditions, and only the book is true.

And one other thing BB should know - a literal interpretation is what I did to BoP's joke, and it is impossible to do such a thing to a fantasy novel. The very thread title is preposterous. (Yes, I do see that I can click the rolly eyeballs over there... :rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
BoP, I can't refute anything you're saying, but I can refute the urban legend in your sig, vis.:


Yes, I know. That is why I put the word actual in quotes. I'm well aware that the joke has been around for 40 odd years. :p

Edit: Oops, sorry, went postal there on ya. :o :D Currently smacking myself in the head now. Chocolate chip cookies will be available shortly.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
When you have some more time, could you please address/refute some of my points with examples? In particular: could you expand on PJ's version of the elves fading? Fair request. I'm happy to respond. My quick n' dirty answers earlier were only because I felt compelled to respond yet had no time.

Jackson had numerous references in FOTR to the "time of the elves being over" by Elrond. He also gave us the symbolism of the falling leaves in Rivendell and the passing of the elves in the Grey Havens, complete with Sam's "Somehow, it makes me feel sad" line. In Lorien, Galadriel talks about "diminishing and going into the west." In TTT, we have the scene between Elrond and Arwen about the "time of the elves being over" again and the need for her to pass into the West. This was followed by the scene of a lonely Arwen wandering through the lifeless trees of Lorien when Elrond foretells her final fate after the death of King Elessar. We also see another scene of the elves leaving Rivendell for the Grey Havens.

Particularly for a movie, I think Jackson has done a good job of illustrating the fading of the elves. Just as importantly, there is NOTHING in Elrond sending Haldir and the elves to Helm's Deep that detracts from this theme.

Elrond said that men will have to determine their own fate now. But the fact that he sent the archer squadron to help Rohan is a sign that even as the elves prepared to leave the shores of Middle-Earth forever, Elrond was willing to again come the aid of men once more. It does nothing to diminish the "fading of the elves" theme while providing the movie with yet another shining example of the importance of people working together for a common cause.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Particularly for a movie, I think Jackson has done a good job of illustrating the fading of the elves. Just as importantly, there is NOTHING in Elrond sending Haldir and the elves to Helm's Deep that detracts from this theme.



I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree. As GW so eloquently put it:

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, indeed. It WAS a clear theme, quite well done indeed. But then Jigglypuff had to lead a force of Elves to the aid of Rohan. :rolleyes:

[Wayfarer]

There's something further that BB fails to realize.

As many references as Jackson /tries/ to put in to the fading of the elfs (most of which don't work), it's not particularly helpful because the elfs in Jackson's film are not the Elves of tTlkien.

They're pointy eared, anal retentive, sexually ambiguous, overly blond wannabes. Jackson's Mr. Smith the Elf, the tight-up, scornful, racist which is portrayed in the film, in /no way/ compares to Elrond, the wise, understanding, helpful, elven lord of Tolkien's middle earth. Freaky Stoner Queen, despite the voice modulation and photographic negatives, doesn't come close to equalling Galadriel, powerful and noble ringbearer. In the same way Pretty Elf, no matter how many fancy and unrealistic combat manuvers he can pull off, doesn't match up to Legolas, who'se stature was like a young oak tree (although he comes much closer).

From Pointy Ears, to Samurai Swords, to Racial Magic, Jackson's Elfs are a weak bastardization of Tolkien's majestic Elves.

And on, And on! Jackson's Short Furryfoots do not display the same character that Tolkien's Hobbits displayed. His Humans are not of the same calibre as the Men of Middle Earth, his dwarves bear only a passing resemblance.

Say what you will, and perhaps there is some truth to your words, BB. Perhaps Jackson has tried and managed to reproduce the same themes that are found in Tolkien. His effort must still ultimately fail to compare to tolkien because he is attempting to repeat the same themes in a different universe- one with elfs, men, dwarfs that to those that don't know better superficially resemble Men and Elves and Dwarves, but are profoundly different upon closer examination. This is why no matter how hard you try to justify it, Jackson's Sort Of Middle Earth is not the Middle Earth of Tolkien. The Music of the Ainur, the theme of Illuvatar, is only there faintly, like a dim echo or the traces of a wine-bottle poured into the great river. It's recognizable, to those that know it, but it has been diluted almost beyond recognition.

[Black Breathalizer]

Nice post, Wayfarer. You weren't your usual wild-eyed, stark-raving mad self for a change. ;) I would agree that there is no way that any film (regardless of who produces and directs it) will ever capture the total magic of Tolkien's masterpiece.

But I guess I'm just easier to please that you are. I have spent years looking at Tolkien art and saying things like, "oh NO, Frodo doesn't look like THAT" or "you've gotta be kidding me, THAT is a ringwraith?" I also stood in line for the premiere of Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings with excitement and high hopes only to leave the theatre disappointed and very embarrassed at the effort that was made.

The bottom line is that I can separate the books from the films and admire and enjoy the differences between the two without having to feel I'm dividing my loyalties. Whatever your feelings about the films, I truly believe they reflect a deep love and respect for Tolkien's work.

I appreciate the genuine seriousness that Peter Jackson has given this project. From the art design, to the incredible casting, to the scripts, there has been a passion for "getting it right." You may not agree with all (or any) of the production's decisions, but I believe the decisions were made with a careful eye toward what was "true to Tolkien." I honestly believe that RETURN OF THE KING will be THE BEST movie in THE BEST movie trilogy I've ever had the privilege of enjoying during my lifetime.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Whatever your feelings about the films, I truly believe they reflect a deep love and respect for Tolkien's work.
Yes he has a respect for Tolkien's work, but not Tolkien himself. There is a big difference between respecting someones creation and respecting the creator. That to me is the main problem, PJ carried more about the little stuff that he liked (dark gloomy action) then the stuff the author liked.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The elves in the film do not square at all with Tolkien's analysis in Letters. The "fading of the elves" is not as simple as just leaving middle earth, the elves are changing. By the end of the third age, according to Tolkien, the immortal elves have become overwhelmed by the sorrows of an ever changing - ever dying world. They have retreated from the day to day "goings on" of middle earth and reside in little islands like Lothlorien, Mirkwood, Rivendell and the Havens and have little contact with the outside world. Their energies are now spent on maintaining their realms (Tolkien uses the word embalming to describe this) against the constant change they face and in most cases keeping all but a select few visitors out.

This estrangement is necessary for the sense of loss and nostalgia that surround events like the "Last Alliance" and other great moments in middle earth's past. This sense of nostalgia is an important part of Tolkien's writing and I would argue largely missing from the film. The fact that the characters become heroic themselves while they yearn for the heroes of days gone by is important to this story and having Elves arrive at Helm's Deep diminishes the heroic deeds of the men there. Tampering with things like the Last Alliance only shows how much the screenwriters "don't get" the original vision. I would highly recommend letters for anyone who wants to read these descriptions in full, they are very enlightening and very divergent from the film.

Tolkien's Elves would not have fought at Helm's Deep based on his own analysis of their collective mindset, nor do Elrond's words to Gandalf "who will you look to when we are gone" make any sense in light of the fact that the elves are no longer much of an "active" presence in the world by Tolkien's own description.

My biggest issue with the Elves at Helm's Deep is; from where have they come in so short a time? A quick look at a map of middle earth will show how close Isengard is to Helm's Deep and how far Rivendell and Lorien are. During the telepathic sequence it is said that "Isengard has been unleashed" and the marching army of Saruman is shown leaving Orthanc. It is not possible that any Elves could arrive in time once this was underway unless geography has been contracted or changed.

Like almost all of Jackson's major changes; Elves at Helm's Deep does not work on many levels. It does not square with Tolkien's own analysis of their state of mind nor does it square with his map or his sense of history and nostalgia for events long past. The last alliance was just that.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Nice post, Wayfarer. You weren't your usual wild-eyed, stark-raving mad self for a change. ;) I would agree that there is no way that any film (regardless of who produces and directs it) will ever capture the total magic of Tolkien's masterpiece.

But I guess I'm just easier to please that you are. I have spent years looking at Tolkien art and saying things like, "oh NO, Frodo doesn't look like THAT" or "you've gotta be kidding me, THAT is a ringwraith?" I also stood in line for the premiere of Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings with excitement and high hopes only to leave the theatre disappointed and very embarrassed at the effort that was made.

The bottom line is that I can separate the books from the films and admire and enjoy the differences between the two without having to feel I'm dividing my loyalties. Whatever your feelings about the films, I truly believe they reflect a deep love and respect for Tolkien's work.

I appreciate the genuine seriousness that Peter Jackson has given this project. From the art design, to the incredible casting, to the scripts, there has been a passion for "getting it right." You may not agree with all (or any) of the production's decisions, but I believe the decisions were made with a careful eye toward what was "true to Tolkien." I honestly believe that RETURN OF THE KING will be THE BEST movie in THE BEST movie trilogy I've ever had the privilege of enjoying during my lifetime.

After 361 times saying "Jackson has improved Tolkien", and preaching about how Jackson was a perfect (at any rate far above adequate) adaptation of Tolkien's books, now all of a sudden you're a Separatist? Wow...:eek:

[Melko Belcha]

I really like the way the person at the Ecyclopedia of Arda said it.
The Lord of the Rings is an historical novel, and the trivial fact that its history is a fictional one is really beside the point. Its consistent adherence to its own underlying reality is a key (perhaps the key) strength of the book. Even the tiniest of changes within the story can potentially have profound effects on the fabric of its universe, and it's that universe, as much as the stories he set in it, that is Tolkien's true legacy.

[Elfhelm]

The bottom line is, Faramir is supposed to help the hobbits; Faramir is supposed to have a little dignity; Faramir is not supposed to threaten them, abuse Gollum, shuffle around sweaty and unshaven, drag them into the crossfire of a war, and plot to steal what Gandalf said must be destroyed. That is not Farmir. Bottom line.

[Wayfarer]

Nice post, Wayfarer. You weren't your usual wild-eyed, stark-raving mad self for a change. My entire reality just came crashing down about my ears. Where, oh /where/ did I go wrong?

[Telmelion]

This topic seems to be already diverting from the listed subject "the themes of LotR" to "the differences between the movie LotR and the book". I think the idea of friendship being able to overcome great odds is portrayed wonderfully in the book and the movie through Frodo and Sam's relationship. This is why I don't mind the scenes in Osgiliath, because those scenes only strengthen this theme.

I also think that the Arwen and Elrond scenes strengthen the idea of the fading of the elves. The only changes that annoy me are the changes that are not true to Tolkien AND don't strengthen the underlying themes of LotR. I.E. the change of merry and pippin's role in FotR and the ents choosing NOT to go to war.

That is my humble opinion.

[Wayfarer]

*/rubs hands together gleefully.

Now that you've brought up the /themes/ of LOTR I can pounce.

Guess what, guys. Friendship wasn't the theme of the book. Neither was the idea that small people can do big things too. Both of those were true, but they weren't what the novels were about.

Tolkien himself said that there were two themes to the LOTR- The desire to escape death, and the desire to escape deathlessness.

Jackson Lords and A Ring film didn't even come close to capturing this, instead focusing on the trivial things mentioned above. Which is another reason why it does /not/ capture the spirit of tolkien.

[Melko Belcha]

Great point Wayfarer

Letters #185
The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete.
Letter #204
But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness.
Letter #211
It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory.

Check the Index to The Letters of JRR Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings: Contents, author's intentions: real theme is death and immortality: if you would like to read more on it.

[azalea]

Well, I think he portrayed a lot of the "trying to escape death" theme, but is only touching on the "trying to escape deathlessness" one. But these two themes are I think a little too broad to be dealt with in a film adaptation of any adventure-style story. Then again I think "the elves are leaving ME" may be too specific.
I think the themes of "each person doing what he can to fight regardless of how insignificant his part seems in the great scheme of things" and that of "carrying on in the face of hopelessness" are two important "lesser" themes in the book. I think the theme of "devotion to one who has earned your respect" is another. These may not be THE themes, but they certainly come across as one reads.

Now, do I think that PJ transferred these themes from the book adequately? And futhermore, is it even important that he did/ does? To me, a good movie adaptation need not do that to tell the story. But it makes it all the more rich when it does.
I think PJ did well with the first of the themes I brought up (the insignif one). Adequate, but then all I require there is adequacy -- he need not hammer it into the ground, or it would be preachy. The second one came across well in the second movie (to the point of almost becoming preachy, but not quite. That speech Sam made I would have done without the music in the background. I would have saved it for AFTER the speech). The third I mentioned is coming across pretty well, but the "who has earned your respect" part is lacking there. More needed to be shown, but this is where PJ and I differ -- he wants flashy scenes, I would have gone the subtle route. His style is the preferred in modern moviemaking; that's just the way it is now.

My point in part, I guess, is that the story can be told and not include "themes" infused by the author. PJ DID try to include some themes, and actually played up some aspects of the book that may not have needed to be. My question is, did he do it successfully? And even if he didn't, can't the movie still be a passable adaptation of the story of Frodo taking the Ring to be destroyed and Aragorn becoming King? Certainly it is no comparison to the genius of the book (and I would argue could NEVER be), but if we're debating Literal versus Non-literal, agreeing that it is acceptable to film it that way (referring to the question I just asked) would be a step in agreeing that a non-literal interpretation is itself acceptable.

[Telmelion]

I have never read "Letters", so Tolkien's themes of death and deathlessness that were listed are new and interesting to me. IMHO, I thought that death was one of the big themes in the Silmarillion when I read it, but to me it seems that death and immortality were themes only shown in the background of LotR.

However...I'm not going to dispute anything that Tolkien said himself, of course, so I won't argue about it.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Telmelion
I'm not going to dispute anything that Tolkien said himself, of course, so I won't argue about it.

I think we should feel free to dispute with Tolkien.

For instance, I think the hero's journey is the theme, whether or not the author realizes it. And I think the power of an individual to stand against seemingly unsurmountable obstacles is a major theme.

The author NEVER has the last word, you know. :p

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Jackson had numerous references in FOTR to the "time of the elves being over" by Elrond. He also gave us the symbolism of the falling leaves in Rivendell and the passing of the elves in the Grey Havens, complete with Sam's "Somehow, it makes me feel sad" line. In Lorien, Galadriel talks about "diminishing and going into the west."
Agreed on those points.
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In TTT, we have the scene between Elrond and Arwen about the "time of the elves being over" again and the need for her to pass into the West.
I don't understand this. Would wise, caring, non-racial, fading Elrond have disputed his daughter's choice to be reckoned among the Atani? He loved her, would he not have wished her happiness?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Just as importantly, there is NOTHING in Elrond sending Haldir and the elves to Helm's Deep that detracts from this theme.
Does not a host of Elves showing up and evening the odds against the enemy detract just a little from "Our time is up, let's go to Valinor Arwen!"

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Elrond said that men will have to determine their own fate now. But the fact that he sent the archer squadron to help Rohan is a sign that even as the elves prepared to leave the shores of Middle-Earth forever, Elrond was willing to again come the aid of men once more. It does nothing to diminish the "fading of the elves" theme while providing the movie with yet another shining example of the importance of people working together for a common cause.
If Elrond really thought that Men had to determine their own fate, why did he send the archer squadron? Why was he willing to come to the aid of the Rohirrim if he was packing up for Valinor and telling Arwen that Men were hopeless? Why did it matter to this strange, cruel, racial character who has replace our Elrond? The one who said that Men were weak and there was no hope in them?

[Elfhelm]

The elves DID fight in the War of the Rings. They did not fight in any of the battles that Hobbits witnessed and therefore it wasn't recorded in the Red Book, but they did fight in Mirkwood. You can look it up. So, fading or not, they didn't leave it up to mankind to go it alone.

[azalea]

Also, Elrond did in fact wait (a long time, by man-years) until Sauron was defeated before leaving. I think the elves, although they were leaving ME, did not want to see it destroyed and taken over. If they hadn't cared, they would all have already left. Really, their realms would have been in a lot of danger if Sauron HAD won, and they were still there, becuase it would have been difficult to get to the coast without running into Sauron's armies. So that tells me they did care about defeating Sauron. It isn't as if all the elves were leaving right away, and they wanted to have their realms protected so that they could live in peace for the remainder fo their stay.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
The elves DID fight in the War of the Rings. They did not fight in any of the battles that Hobbits witnessed and therefore it wasn't recorded in the Red Book, but they did fight in Mirkwood. You can look it up. So, fading or not, they didn't leave it up to mankind to go it alone.
Yes, I am completely aware of this. However, it is totally out of character for the movie Elrond (the xenophobic one) to come to the aid of mankind.

Men. Men are weak. The race of men is failing. The blood of Númenor is all but spent, it's pride and dignity forgotten.

It should have ended that day, evil was allowed to endure... Isildur kept the ring. The line of kings is broken. There's no strength left in the world of men. They're scattered, divided, leaderless...




Originally posted by azalea
Also, Elrond did in fact wait (a long time, by man-years) until Sauron was defeated before leaving. I think the elves, although they were leaving ME, did not want to see it destroyed and taken over. If they hadn't cared, they would all have already left. Really, their realms would have been in a lot of danger if Sauron HAD won, and they were still there, becuase it would have been difficult to get to the coast without running into Sauron's armies. So that tells me they did care about defeating Sauron. It isn't as if all the elves were leaving right away, and they wanted to have their realms protected so that they could live in peace for the remainder fo their stay.
Yes, of course, in the book. But in the movie:

Tollen i lû. I chair gwannar na Valannor. Si bado, no cÃ*rar.

[It is time. The ships are leaving for Valinor. Go now, before it is too late]

Emphasis mine.

[Elfhelm]

My interpretation of the movie situation is that some of Elrond's people were going to Lothlorien to meet up with Galadriel's people, and that they together went to Helm's Deep. And Arwen was originally among the group but they edited her out. So what we are seeing as she sets out with them is the beginning of her journey to visit with Auntie G.

The reason I mention the Battle of Mirkwood is that it would have required yet another location and another battle scene to show that the elves actually cared, here.

I think we're getting out of hand here. Let's look at the discussion again. BoP said the appearance of the elves at Helm's Deep detracted from the fading motif. BB said that the archers do not diminish the fading motif. Elf Girl insisted that it did. I pointed out that in fact the elves did stay and fight, just not at Helm's Deep. So obviously, the elves staying and fighting does not detract from the fading motif for JRRT either.

So I am supporting BB on this point, and adding that in order to show the elves involvement it was necessary to have them at Helm's Deep because the movie is already three hours long! He can't show the Battle of Mirkwood so he has them help at Helm's Deep.

This never bothered me because I knew that the elves were against Sauron and wouldn't leave Middle Earth until the trouble they started with that blasted Oath was brought to a conclusion. They shot the Sheriff but they still had to deal with the Deputy.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
My interpretation of the movie situation is that some of Elrond's people were going to Lothlorien to meet up with Galadriel's people, and that they together went to Helm's Deep. And Arwen was originally among the group but they edited her out. So what we are seeing as she sets out with them is the beginning of her journey to visit with Auntie G.
Actually Granny G. Lol!

Anyway: So are you saying that the host was all from Lorien, and only a few Elves journeying there were from Rivendell? I was under the impression that Galadriel saw the attack in here mirror, and telepathically communicated with Elrond via Nenya, telling him to send a host. (All of which strikes my as very weak plot device-ing.) I may be wrong though, the whole thing was a bit fuzzy in explanation.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I think we're getting out of hand here. Let's look at the discussion again. BoP said the appearance of the elves at Helm's Deep detracted from the fading motif. BB said that the archers do not diminish the fading motif. Elf Girl insisted that it did. I pointed out that in fact the elves did stay and fight, just not at Helm's Deep. So obviously, the elves staying and fighting does not detract from the fading motif for JRRT either.
But in the Battle of Mirkwood and the assaults upon Lorien, the Elves were defending their homeland, not actively coming to anyones aid. Again, I fail to see how a host of Elves showing up to aid Men does not detract from "Men have failed, our time is ending, let's go to Valinor immediately".

Originally posted by Elfhelm
This never bothered me because I knew that the elves were against Sauron and wouldn't leave Middle Earth until the trouble they started with that blasted Oath was brought to a conclusion. They shot the Sheriff but they still had to deal with the Deputy.
Again, this may be true of the book Elves, but the movie Elves seem all to eager to leave Middle Earth.

[Elfhelm]

Granny G., right!

The film has a lot of logic problems, the tied/untied hands, Gandalf not remembering his name even after seeing Merry and Pippin and Treebeard, Eomer doubled over from a single punch to his chain mail, fingernails that grow backward ... so yeah, I'm saying they have Elrond and Galadriel planning together to send elves from both settlements ... despite the obvious impossibility of them travelling so far so fast. Of course, we're all waiting for the theatrical release in order to refresh our memories. I could change my interp when I see it again.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
But in the Battle of Mirkwood and the assaults upon Lorien, the Elves were defending their homeland, not actively coming to anyones aid. Again, I fail to see how a host of Elves showing up to aid Men does not detract from "Men have failed, our time is ending, let's go to Valinor immediately".
Exactually. Sauron marched his troops against the Elves homes, the Elves did not march out to fight Sauron's army until he was defeated.

Appendix B:
...and when the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lorien over Anduin in many boats. They took Dol Guldur...

The Elves fought for their own survival and the survival of their land, not for the overthrow of Sauron. I don't mean to make the Elves look bad, but the time of the Elves was over.

Another reason I don't like the Elves at Helm's Deep is because if they still have Elladan and Elrohir show up it will defantley seem like there are to many Elves helping Men. I know you will say that since Elladan and Elrohir showed up in the book then that prove that Elves at Helm's Deep was not a bad thing, but Elladan and Elrohir would have known Aragorn since his early childhood, and they had worked with the Dunedain of the North before. They came (IMO) out of respect of Aragorn and wanting to be by his side at the biggest moment of his life.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The motivations of the elves are discussed in great detail in letters, one need not speculate on what Tolkien was trying to present. And I wouldn't worry about being hard on the elves Melko, Tolkien was hard on them also.

[IronParrot]

Aw man, I leave for a few days and look what happens... so much to respond to. Guess I'm booking off all day tomorrow so I can spend it catching up.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
But in the Battle of Mirkwood and the assaults upon Lorien, the Elves were defending their homeland, not actively coming to anyones aid.

Yep, which fits my point that by the time the War of the Ring had rolled around, the elves had become increasingly internally driven, and socially isolated; concerned with preserving their realms, and butressing them from outside attack rather than actively going out amongst men to fight against Sauron. The Last Alliance is called such for a reason. And this all ties in with the theme of fading.

[Elf Girl]

Thank you, BoP.

A penny for your thoughts, BB. :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Okie dokie, Elf Girl. :)

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner The elves in the film do not square at all with Tolkien's analysis in Letters.With all due respect to squinty, his analysis is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with book purists when it comes to discussing the films. With them, there is always an underlying sense of "if you unwashed movie-going baboons -- and Peter Jackson -- would learn to READ, then maybe you'd begin to understand Tolkien."

First and foremost, Jackson's films and Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us. The movies were developed to tell us an entertaining story about characters and themes that excite, move, and inspire us like the books did. I have nothing against people who enjoy the books so much that they become Tolkien scholars. But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.

For all the detailed analysis of Tolkien's personal correspondence and writings to acertain what he "really" intended to say in LOTR, Tolkien himself is on record as saying his story was simply "an attempt to tell a long tale." To me, recreating LOTR on film depends upon a screenplay that recreates the book's emotions by capturing its most compelling themes, not one that gets an "A" from Tolkien scholars for its expert scholarly research.

This film series isn't about JRR Tolkien's brain -- it's about his heart.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
With all due respect to squinty, his analysis is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with book purists when it comes to discussing the films. With them, there is always an underlying sense of "if you unwashed movie-going baboons -- and Peter Jackson -- would learn to READ, then maybe you'd begin to understand Tolkien."

First and foremost, Jackson's films and Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us. The movies were developed to tell us an entertaining story about characters and themes that excite, move, and inspire us like the books did. I have nothing against people who enjoy the books so much that they become Tolkien scholars. But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.

For all the detailed analysis of Tolkien's personal correspondence and writings to acertain what he "really" intended to say in LOTR, Tolkien himself is on record as saying his story was simply "an attempt to tell a long tale." To me, recreating LOTR on film depends upon a screenplay that recreates the book's emotions by capturing its most compelling themes, not one that gets an "A" from Tolkien scholars for its expert scholarly research.

This film series isn't about JRR Tolkien's brain -- it's about his heart.

Ah, so those of us who don't agree with you are wrong...in the head, I suppose? And no you are just plain wrong about that.

In response to the rest:

Translation: Um...shut up! :rolleyes:

P. S. We have given you many themes, and you basically ignored us. Then, saying that the important thing is that it captures the themes strikes me as hypocritical.

I don't think anyone denied its research value...it is rather well researched. But they still did not do it well, IMO.

But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.

Do you mean to say that you and Jackson know Tolkien better than Tolkien did? Heck, Jackson to truer to Tolkien than Tolkien was, so he probably knew him better, too. :rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Do you mean to say that you and Jackson know Tolkien better than Tolkien did?You people are the ones attempting to "prove" Jackson had it all wrong using Tolkien's letters. I'm saying the themes you've highlighted were also addressed by Jackson. What I get in response is "yes, but..." We're talking about a freakin' film adaptation and I'm supposed to ignore the evidence of Jackson's efforts to illustrated the fading of the elves and their sadness because of some obscure reference about the "inherent nature of the elves" in a book on Tolkien's correspondence?!?!?!?!

I'll give your team one point for scholarly research and take away one point for lack of common sense. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

There are two very important matters which put the lie to any claim that Mr. Jackson "captured the spirit" of LOTR.

The first is the fact that he made serious changes to several of Tolkien's most important characters. When one changes the nature of any character, perforce one changes the story itself. For instance, the character who suffers most in the first film is Aragorn. In the book, Aragorn is at once a vulnerable rather lonely man (remember his interaction with the hobbits in Bree when he says that "a hunted man" longs for friendship) and a stern, almost mythic personality who pursues the servants of the Enemy throughout Middle-earth waiting and hoping for the time when he might be able to claim his heritage - the kingship of the remaining kingdom founded by Elendil, his ancestor. Aragorn has fallen in love with the daughter of his foster father, Elrond, and has been betrothed to her for years but with the caveat that they could only marry when he is proclaimed king not only of the lost Arnor, but of Gondor as well.

When Aragorn (in his persona as Strider the Ranger) is forced to take over the obligation of leading the hobbits - and the Ring - to Rivendell, he shows no problem with the proximity of the Ring even though it was his ancestor - Isildur - who claimed the Ring after the defeat of Sauron. When, during the Council of Elrond, Frodo "offers" the Ring to him by acknowledging his claim through Isildur ("Then it belongs to you!"), Aragorn makes no claim to the Ring nor does he at any time say or do anything that might lead anyone to suspect that he desired the Ring or was personally afraid that he might succumb at some point by virtue of his ancestor's actions.

Now, consider how Jackson presented that same character: he begins well enough in Bree but he begins to denigrate the character when he has Aragorn permit Arwen to ride off into the night with the severely injured Ringbearer and into the clutches of the Nazgul with only token resistance. Tolkien's Aragorn would have done no such thing. From there on out, it is downhill all the way. In Rivendell we discover that Aragorn is terrified of a "weakness in his blood", has abandoned his heritage and denounced his birthright, "choosing exile" in Elrond's words. The only backbone he seems to have has to be sustained by his lady-love who is constantly reminding him of who is - and who he isn't. And how does he treat this rather love-sick maiden? Frankly, he tells her to "ship out" and go to the Undying Lands. Even by the end of TTT, Aragorn still has not accepted his birthright and as a result, the shards of Narsil are still back in Rivendell (unless, of course, Mr. Jackson had Arwen bring it with her when she appeared-didn't appear at the battle of Helm's Deep [see small glimpses of the lady during that battle which Jackson failed to edit out]).

And Aragorn is only one of several characters to suffer at Jackson's hands. Elrond became a spiteful, nasty, cynical fellow without warmth or charm. Saruman became a mere mouthpiece of Sauron, a puppet rather than the very complex fellow he actually was in the book. Merry and Pippin were reduced to comic relief, a pair of scapegraces who become involved in the quest accidentally instead of the staunch and brave friends who choose to accompany Frodo and Sam into danger and exile. Treebeard was dimmer than his forest - and, of course, the travesty of Faramir needs no recounting.

Another sure sign that Jackson either didn't understand or didn't care about Tolkien's vision was his rather unhappy habit of putting one charcter's words into another character's mouth. Elrond mouths Saruman, Faramir mouths Denethor and so forth. When you do this, the words may be the same, but the meaning is often diametric to the intention of the author.

As film, FOTR was good but TTT was considerably less good. But as Tolkien, neither film succeeded - and I strongly suspect that Mr. Jackson was not really desirous that they should.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1)You people are the ones attempting to "prove" Jackson had it all wrong using Tolkien's letters. 2)I'm saying the themes you've highlighted were also addressed by Jackson. What I get in response is "yes, but..." We're talking about a freakin' film adaptation and 3)I'm supposed to ignore the evidence of Jackson's efforts to illustrated the fading of the elves and their sadness because of some obscure reference about the "inherent nature of the elves" in a book on Tolkien's correspondence?!?!?!?!

4)I'll give your team one point for scholarly research and take away one point for lack of common sense. :)

1) Note: using Tolkien's letters. Do you see no difference between showing where Tolkien said something and disregarding his will? Or are they just an invalid source, because they don't line up with Jackson's canon?

2) And you give little to no basis for some, and others were not consistently portrayed.

3) Firstly, Jacksopn did attempt to illustrate the fading of the Elves. But he also portrayed them as powerful fighters on completely unfamiliar terrain, and invalidated The Last Alliance of Men and Elves. And also, since Tolkien wrote the book, why does his say matter so very little? You say that PJ does a perfect/near-perfect job of capturing Tolkien, yet discount the very sources which tell Tolkien's thoughts in the purest, most unadulterated form. This makes no sense at all, in my opinion.

4) Pffft, like anyone who doesn't Jackson is the true Christ got any points from you in the first place...:rolleyes:

Good post, Mrs. Maggott, and welcome to the Entmoot. :)

[Elf Girl]

GW, thank you. My opinion exactly, however I would like to try my debating hand myself. *loves to debate*

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
With all due respect to squinty, his analysis is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with book purists when it comes to discussing the films. With them, there is always an underlying sense of "if you unwashed movie-going baboons -- and Peter Jackson -- would learn to READ, then maybe you'd begin to understand Tolkien."
I don't recall saying or implying anything of the sort. We are talking about themes. You claim to be talking about themes, but if we bring one up, you resort to personal attacks.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
First and foremost, Jackson's films and Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us. The movies were developed to tell us an entertaining story about characters and themes that excite, move, and inspire us like the books did. I have nothing against people who enjoy the books so much that they become Tolkien scholars. But reading Tolkien's letters for "clues" as to whether Jackson captured their beloved author's vision misses the point entirely.
Tolkien's analysis of the Elves seems like the best evidence of what his "vision" was as we are going to get.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
For all the detailed analysis of Tolkien's personal correspondence and writings to acertain what he "really" intended to say in LOTR, Tolkien himself is on record as saying his story was simply "an attempt to tell a long tale." To me, recreating LOTR on film depends upon a screenplay that recreates the book's emotions by capturing its most compelling themes, not one that gets an "A" from Tolkien scholars for its expert scholarly research.
I think you misunderstand us. We are reading Tolkien's analysis, not analysing it ourselves.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This film series isn't about JRR Tolkien's brain -- it's about his heart.
That's the point you are supposed to be defending. We disagree.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You people are the ones attempting to "prove" Jackson had it all wrong using Tolkien's letters. I'm saying the themes you've highlighted were also addressed by Jackson. What I get in response is "yes, but..." We're talking about a freakin' film adaptation and I'm supposed to ignore the evidence of Jackson's efforts to illustrated the fading of the elves and their sadness because of some obscure reference about the "inherent nature of the elves" in a book on Tolkien's correspondence?!?!?!?!
I rather think what we've gotten is "yes, but...". We have given you many clear posts addressing this theme by theme, point by point.

Look, will you answer the themes we've put to you? Let's start with one. In my last post, I've heavily backed up our opinion on the fading of the Elves. For the benefit of us who you seem to think are idiots, will you kindly debate that post point by point?

[BeardofPants]

BB: For that matter, could you also have a look over some of the other themes I brought up? You did say that you were going to address them. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

For the sake of "argument/debate", let's look at the crux of Tolkien's underlying vision for LOTR: unlike the Silmarillion which was "told" from the vantage point of the elves, LOTR is centered on the worldview of hobbits which is why the climax of the story is not the destruction of the Ring or even Aragorn's coronation and wedding, but the "scouring of the Shire" when that race "comes of age" and overcomes the forces of evil within its own borders. This chapter is seminal to the book! It presents both the positive and the negative aspects of self-determination, the consequences of apathy and the definite angst of the lead character - Frodo - when it becomes necessary to once again take up arms to defeat evil. Of all the chapters in the book, SoS is illustrative of many of Tolkien's own moral struggles (as, say, between Frodo's pacifism and Merry's more realistic view that blood will probably have to be spilt before the Shire is free again).

In the films, despite the fact that four central characters are hobbits, it is obvious that Jackson has centered the story on the race of men. The "love story" of Aragorn and Arwen has been greatly enhanced from its place in the book as part of that change of focus. Of course, once men and not hobbits are the central theme, SoS becomes anti-climactic and Jackson finds no problem in editing it out of the film. Indeed, so dramatic is the change of focus, that in TTT, what I thought would be a very well developed thread - the Ents - was treated almost as a throwaway. Jackson even lost interest in his earlier "comic relief" - Merry and Pippin - since he had replaced them with Gimli! So the plot thread of the Ents was give exceeding short shrift even to the point of leaving out the huorns who actually won the battle of Helm's Deep. Instead, Jackson gives us an interminable cinematic video game with an ending that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And, of course, as I mentioned in my previous post, making Tolkien's hero Aragorn into a "modern" conflicted wuss (in my opinion) is merely another attempt to appeal to audiences in our current therapeutic culture. Mr. Jackson is obviously of the opinion that strong, heroic men are nothing more than cardboard cutouts without interest or depth and lacking in audience appeal. However, anyone who reads LOTR knows that Aragorn is certainly not any such "comic book" superhero without foibles or weaknesses. He is a "mythic hero" but his character loses nothing thereby. On the other hand, Jackson's Aragorn has rejected his obligation to his people stating that he didn't ask for it and he never wanted it. Frankly, in my opinion, he doesn't deserve it either!

[Elf Girl]

Excellent post, Mrs. Maggot! :) :) :)

[analyveth]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
For the sake of "argument/debate", let's look at the crux of Tolkien's underlying vision for LOTR: unlike the Silmarillion which was "told" from the vantage point of the elves, LOTR is centered on the worldview of hobbits which is why the climax of the story is not the destruction of the Ring or even Aragorn's coronation and wedding, but the "scouring of the Shire" when that race "comes of age" and overcomes the forces of evil within its own borders. This chapter is seminal to the book!

i agree to some extent, in that of course the scouring underlines that the shire is inextricably connected to everything else, a point hammered home throughout the books, the question of universal responsibility, but then if this is to be the case surely the destruction of the ring is the 'climax' of the story, if there is one at all.
but then again tolkien's message throughout has been that nothing is clear-cut; the very essence of evil confused as the danger of the ring comes from 'evil' being an interal, as opposed to external (and therefore far more easily resisted,) force. the fact is that tolkien himself shifted the protagonism slightly when he split up the fellowship and hence the stories, so the story of aragorn and backstory of the world of men in general comes greatly to the fore.

i see exactly what you're saying about aragorn's apparent 'change' in character, but the fact remains that there is no 'correct' interpretation, and that jackson and co bring with them - as do, it must be said, the filmgoing public - their own presuppositions to tolkien's work. we are inevitably influenced by the world and society in which we live and the 'mythic hero' to the letter just does not work in modern cinema. he is likely to leave a contemporary audience apathetic, or at least having to work a lot harder and rethink the manner in which they approach the work. not that this would be a bad thing, just completely unmarketable, which i think is the main problem with the movies, if indeed it is a problem.

the variation in construction of both is indeed why the books are books, and the films are films.
and i've spent far too much time on this! :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by analyveth
i agree to some extent, in that of course the scouring underlines that the shire is inextricably connected to everything else, a point hammered home throughout the books, the question of universal responsibility, but then if this is to be the case surely the destruction of the ring is the 'climax' of the story, if there is one at all.
but then again tolkien's message throughout has been that nothing is clear-cut; the very essence of evil confused as the danger of the ring comes from 'evil' being an interal, as opposed to external (and therefore far more easily resisted,) force. the fact is that tolkien himself shifted the protagonism slightly when he split up the fellowship and hence the stories, so the story of aragorn and backstory of the world of men in general comes greatly to the fore.

i see exactly what you're saying about aragorn's apparent 'change' in character, but the fact remains that there is no 'correct' interpretation, and that jackson and co bring with them - as do, it must be said, the filmgoing public - their own presuppositions to tolkien's work. we are inevitably influenced by the world and society in which we live and the 'mythic hero' to the letter just does not work in modern cinema. he is likely to leave a contemporary audience apathetic, or at least having to work a lot harder and rethink the manner in which they approach the work. not that this would be a bad thing, just completely unmarketable, which i think is the main problem with the movies, if indeed it is a problem.

the variation in construction of both is indeed why the books are books, and the films are films.
and i've spent far too much time on this! :D
But the simple fact is that the climax of the story is not the destruction of the Ring, nor is it Aragorn's crowning and wedding. These are climaxes to certain portions of the story. But in the end, the hobbits return first to Bree and then the Shire - and interestingly enough, Gandalf does not go with them to the end. In fact, he tells them that all they have gone through has been a period of preparation so that they will be able to handle all of the dangers in the Shire by themselves and without his assistance. And, of course, they do just that.

This final "maturation process" of the hobbits is the actual climax of the story. The Ring was not any part of them except that two of them possessed it for a short period in its history. The reunion of the two kingdoms and the revelation of the "hidden king" was also no part of them; four of them were part of these great events, but as a race, these things were alien to them. However, the tyranny of Saruman and his ruffians were a definite part of them and in fact was to a certain extent initiated by one of their own - Lotho Sackville-Baggins.

Finally, I am very tired indeed of the constant argument that book is book and film is film and that somehow this excuses Mr. Jackson's egregious deviations and revisions. Yes, the two media are different, but that does not mean that a film of a book cannot remain faithful to the author's vision as presented in the book. Editing necessary for time considerations (such as the removal of the Old Forest, Bombadil, Barrow Downs plot ploy) was quite acceptable as was the effort to limit the number of characters for the sake of clarity. However, there was no reason whatsoever to fundamentally change the characters, nor did it help time constraints for Mr. Jackson to add plot ploys such as the warg riders, Aragorn's "death" and the side trip to Osgiliath. In fact, so much was added to TTT (including the interminable battle of Helm's Deep which took less than 10 pages in the original story) that a great deal of the book had to be left for the third film: Shelob, the overthrow of Saruman, the capture of the palantir to name three.

One cannot help but wonder how this "exchange" of Jackson's plot inventions for Tolkien's original plot is going to "help" the third film especially given how much will have to be covered therein. I don't think it can all be "made up" by editing SoS although Mr. Jackson doubtless will try.

[Elfhelm]

Just weighing in one one point. I think Sam, not Aragorn, is the hero of the story. Aragorn doesn't carry Frodo up Mt. Doom. The return of the king is a sub-plot, in my opinion. (And don't say Tolkien title the books because he didn't.)

I also happen to think that Sean Astin is doing a great job as Samwise. And I especially think the Scouring is fundamental to the story. Four boys leave in fear, four men come home and kick butt.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Just weighing in one one point. I think Sam, not Aragorn, is the hero of the story. Aragorn doesn't carry Frodo up Mt. Doom. The return of the king is a sub-plot, in my opinion. (And don't say Tolkien title the books because he didn't.)

I also happen to think that Sean Astin is doing a great job as Samwise. And I especially think the Scouring is fundamental to the story. Four boys leave in fear, four men come home and kick butt.
In his letters, Tolkien names Frodo as the main protagonist and hero, but he admits that Samwise represents the type of military aide-de-camp he found in the foxholes of WWI. These were "lower born" individuals whose personal integrity, courage and loyalty made them, as Tolkien put it, "better than any of us" (meaning those of "higher" birth). Sam is certainly a hero, but Frodo is the hero. In fact, Aragorn recognizes this since he has Frodo bring his crown and Gandalf place it upon his head at the ceremony, thus recognizing the fact that his kingship was the result of the labor of many and not just himself.

Unfortunately, I guess Jackson did not believe that film audiences would accept the central figures being hobbits and so he changed the focus of the film to men with Aragorn and Arwen in the primary positions within the new hierarchy of the story. It makes a difference in the real meaning of the tale even though it doesn't appear to affect the flow of the plot overmuch. Still, it's a shame that Jackson refused to trust his source and felt the need to "retell" the story himself - and in a far inferior manner to my way of thinking! :rolleyes:

[Elfhelm]

I don't think writers always know their own works. I don't think Tolkien has the final say, any more than any writer does, on the interpretation of his work. I object to the very idea. If we readers aren't allowed to read the stories with our own active minds, then that just makes us automatons. Tolkien knew a lot about language, and he knew simple hero stories like Beowulf. That doesn't qualify him to be the one to have the last word about which character is the hero or which scenes should be deleted when making a movie.

Drama has different requirements than fiction. All ideas must be expressed through action as well as dialogue.

But we do agree about the Scouring. I don't think there is a true dramatic resolution without the Scouring.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I don't think writers always know their own works. I don't think Tolkien has the final say, any more than any writer does, on the interpretation of his work. I object to the very idea. If we readers aren't allowed to read the stories with our own active minds, then that just makes us automatons. Tolkien knew a lot about language, and he knew simple hero stories like Beowulf. That doesn't qualify him to be the one to have the last word about which character is the hero or which scenes should be deleted when making a movie.

Drama has different requirements than fiction. All ideas must be expressed through action as well as dialogue.

But we do agree about the Scouring. I don't think there is a true dramatic resolution without the Scouring.
If by "last word" you mean how best to translate his work into film, then you are right. A writer knows how to present his ideas on paper, but sometimes he might not be able to see how best to bring his ideas to the screen. But the effort should always be - especially in a work such as LOTR - to bring the author's vision to the screen. If I wanted to see Peter Jackson's "vision" of LOTR, I would have no problem with whatever he did. However, I - and I suspect most everyone else including Jackson's financial backers - wanted to see Tolkien's LOTR on screen. Not only did Jackson fail to do that, but he made it quite clear from many print and electronic interviews, that he thought that he could "tell the story" better than Tolkien! Frankly, from what I have seen of both films, I strongly disagree.

Oh, and by the way, Tolkien was no slouch when it came to efforts to film LOTR. His "Letters" has a considerable correspondence about an early animated effort which illustrates quite clearly that the good Professor was hardly a dolt when it came to cinematic matters - and he was quite vocal in his disapproval of that particular director's "vision" of the story! I have no doubt were he alive today, Mr. Jackson would also have been sent away with a 'flea in his ear' for his "interpretation" of the work!

[Elfhelm]

Yes, his comments to other filmmakers have been posted and discussed a lot in this context. To me those comments just show that he didn't understand drama. Consider that he didn't even consider drama literature! And he had harsh words about Shakespeare. I mean, Aristotle said drama is one of the three forms of poetry. Tolkien didn't even consider it literature. Why should I side with a guy whose work sold massive amounts over a 50 year period instead of a guy whose works withstood many attempts to destroy it over 2500 years?

I recently tried to make an operatic libretto of the Beren and Luthien chapter from Silmarillion. The task was impossible! Drama has requirements of action. You can't have people disguised as vampires and big bad wolf characters... impossible to do on stage.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Yes, his comments to other filmmakers have been posted and discussed a lot in this context. To me those comments just show that he didn't understand drama. Consider that he didn't even consider drama literature! And he had harsh words about Shakespeare. I mean, Aristotle said drama is one of the three forms of poetry. Tolkien didn't even consider it literature. Why should I side with a guy whose work sold massive amounts over a 50 year period instead of a guy whose works withstood many attempts to destroy it over 2500 years?

I recently tried to make an operatic libretto of the Beren and Luthien chapter from Silmarillion. The task was nearly impossible! Drama has requirements of action...
Tolkien did not care for plays (although I think he liked musicals). That is a personal preference. Many people don't care for sports (I am one although I used to root for the old New York Giants in my youth). None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the matter. The fact that Tolkien did not like Shakespeare or disagreed with Aristotle does not give carte blanche to Jackson to screw up LOTR! I went to see the films because I liked the book. I am not big on Shakespeare myself and probably wouldn't go to see a play or a film based upon his work. Are they great? Absolutely. Do I like them? Not really. Do I like Tolkien? Yes, although I found Silmarillion depressing - which is probably apostasy itself.

As I said, if I wanted to see Peter Jackson's "version" of LOTR, I would have no problem with whatever he did. I did not! I wanted Tolkien's work presented on film as faithfully as possible given the difference in the medium. Am I disappointed? You bet I am. And if I am anywhere near as disappointed with ROTK as I was with TTT, I shall gift my daughter my EE version of FOTR and count the whole thing as a colossal waste of my time and my money!

[Elfhelm]

Tolkien's work presented on film as faithfully as possible

Well, that's never going to happen.

I was disappointed in TTT, too. I was one of the people who laughed when Sam said "By right's Mr. Frodo, we shouldn't oughta be here." in Osgiliath. I wish I could edit that scene out completely. And I wonder if they could have found a better Faramir. It just irks me that they turned the most noble man of Gondor into a scruffy sweathog who beats up little hobbits.

[Elf Girl]

I think Tolkien had at least some idea of what works onscreen and what doesn't. He didn't just mindlessly insist on being accurate. He suggested that Zimmerman cut Helms Deep to give the Ents more time, if it was necessary!

[Wayfarer]

Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us.

Not according to The Man Himself.

[Elfhelm]

I guess what I really object to is the "appeal to authority" fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) in which a poster need not support any statement if he can just claim someone else has authority and it can never be challenged. What would we talk about if we always had to defer to a single source? So I personally reject the notion that some cast in stone orthodoxy of Tolkien-adoration must supercede all directorial discretion.

[Elf Girl]

Excuse me? I would think that Tolkien would know what he designed the books for!

[Elfhelm]

Well, yeah, sometimes the appeal to authority is OK, if the authority is the right authority.

But I still object. It's boring to always obey the Master. Can't we have our own opinions? He certainly didn't design them for people to beat each other over the heads with them.

[Elf Girl]

If the Master is definitive on an issue, we should obey him on that issue. There were plenty of issues left in mystery!

[BeardofPants]

Well, I think both of you are right. Tolkien is clearly well-versed in his own themes because he wrote them, BUT a writer is often too close to the source to necessarily see all that it could mean. So, I think that a lot of what Tolkien said can be reinterpreted by readers, and scriptwriters. Remember, a lot of what Tolkien wrote later on in life contradicted what he wrote earlier on. You only have to read letters to see that even Tolkien is not clear on some themes in his writing. So I think, that SOME themes are clearly unquestionable, and others that are less clear are certainly open to interpretation.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Well, that's never going to happen.

I was disappointed in TTT, too. I was one of the people who laughed when Sam said "By right's Mr. Frodo, we shouldn't oughta be here." in Osgiliath. I wish I could edit that scene out completely. And I wonder if they could have found a better Faramir. It just irks me that they turned the most noble man of Gondor into a scruffy sweathog who beats up little hobbits.
One cannot necessarily say that it's "never going to happen". One can say that it did not happen this time. But there are so many wonderful technological advances out there. I thoroughly enjoyed Shreck, Ice Age and Monster, Inc. I can't imagine why someone like that couldn't do the film properly in the kind of animation that is so realistic (especially Ice Age) as to be quite acceptable to me as a means of presenting LOTR. And since Jackson has been "permitted" to do it in three films, these film makers could be allowed the same format so as to present the story as it should be presented. I can only hope that Jackson's "blockbusters" doesn't discourage any further attempt in this vein.

I certainly cannot imagine another "live action" attempt at the story after these films - but I can hold out hope for a high-tech animated version.

[Black Breathalizer]

I apologize for getting so exasperated with you people sometimes, but I never cease to be amazed at the literal-interpretation levels around here. :)

The problem is you Purists operate with some pretty kooky (and completely FALSE) assumptions often referred to, by us normal Tolkien fans, as "The Book Purist's Faulty Five." ;) :)

They include:

1. Themes from a book to a film should be translated to the audience in exactly the same way.

2. The value of character arcs in creating emotionally-moving films are not worth changing characters from a book in any way, shape or form.

3. Any deviation from the source material means the screenwriter has failed to capture the vision of the author's work.

4. The character development and expositional time constraints of a film should never deter a director from a literal scene-by-scene interpretation of the author's vision for the story. (Who says 5 hour theatrical releases are commercial suicide?) :)

5. A screenwriter/director should never use their own judgement as to how aspects of a story should be interpreted for film. The final authority should always be the author's own words as determined from personal letters, notes, and doodles.

[BeardofPants]

And I'll ask again: Could you please address some of the points that I've brought up in my previous posts. To whit: you've only addressed the theme of the fading of the elves.

[Elf Girl]

I second that, and you have only evaded our points even about the fading.

[WhackoJacko]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
literal-interpretation levels around here. :)



the purists can say the same thing of Jackson lol

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
literal-interpretation levels around here. :)

They include:

4. The character development and expositional time constraints of a film should never deter a director from a literal scene-by-scene interpretation of the author's vision for the story. (Who says 5 hour theatrical releases are commercial suicide?) :)

5. A screenwriter/director should never use their own judgement as to how aspects of a story should be interpreted for film. The final authority should always be the author's own words as determined from personal letters, notes, and doodles.

whatsoever judgement jackson used seems to have left him flat on his face. At the end of the day, TTT was a major flop. financially, the movie did great but so did American pie to warrant a sequel.

The editing in the TTT was pathetic to be kind, the script aweful, and the literal translation makes the movie unrecognizable.

in the end, i was left with the notion that jackson tried to rip ideas from a bunch of movies and tried the 'mosaic"/tapestry approach to filim making ...

and what a hollow experience it was

[Mrs. Maggott]

Really, when it's all said and done, you are left with one of two things: either you have John Ronald Reuel Tolkien's masterpiece (the greatest book of the 20th century according to many literary polls) The Lord of The Rings translated onto the motion picture screen - or you don't! In the case of these films, the only conclusion that can be rationally reached is that you don't!

I am reminded of that old-time disclaimer on radio and television to the effect that "any similarity" between what one had heard or seen and reality, was "purely coincidental". Yes, Jackson has used the names of places and characters. Yes, he has used the major plot ploys. Yes, he has been most careful and adept at getting his "visuals" in order (scenery, sets, costumes, special effects etc.) but he has failed - egregiously so - in translating and I suspect even understanding what LOTR was all about except on the most superficial and least meaningful level. Hence he has had no qualms about making changes to both character and plot that often make a mockery of the true meaning of the story.

And again, as a principle example of his total lack of understanding of the work, I will cite his frequent "exchange" of dialogue in the book from the mouth of one character to the mouth of another. Yes, the words are the same, but you have them being spoken by the wrong character and under entirely different circumstances. Often the result of this cinematic sleight of hand is diametric to the original meaning for that very reason.

Peter Jackson would have made a fine "second in command" to a director who was committed to bringing Tolkien to the screen. He should have been allowed to take care of all the visual aspects as previously noted. He could even have been in charge of casting since the actors are unquestionably good - but he should not have been let within a mile of the story or with putting the whole thing together as film.

For those who like these films, I wish you many hours of enjoyment viewing them. After all, "like" and "dislike" are by their very nature subjective. For those of us who have found them less successful or even a failure, we also should be permitted to hold our opinions which are no less "correct". In the end, it is very much like a belief in God: for those who like the films, no defense of them is necessary; for those who do not, none is possible.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The power of friendship:
The conversion of Pippin and Merry into two giddly little midgets (read: comic), and the loss of the Conspiracy means that their role in the fellowship makes no sense. My feeling is that Jackson has made more sense out of Pippin and Merry's role in the Fellowship that Tolkien did. First though, I would agree with you that the books (naturally) can do a better job than the films in establishing the characters and their relationships with one another. While I would have preferred the Conspiracy, I totally understand why Jackson had to eliminate it from a screenplay that was already going to run more than three hours long. But while the cornfield encounter was a little too contrived, PJ made up for it by showing the audience the that the two hobbits stayed with Frodo and Sam out of friendship and concern for their welfare when the black riders appeared on the scene. Their reunion in Rivendell was also a clear indication of the affection that Pippin and Merry felt towards Frodo and vise versa.

While Merry and Pippin were used for comic relief in FOTR (by the way, Tolkien used Pippin for comic relief too), they "grew up" in TTT as they began to realize the gravity of Middle-Earth's situation. Merry and Pippin's character arcs will come to a fully-developed and audience satisfying ending in ROTK.

In the book version of the breaking of the Fellowship, Merry and Pippin were "hangers-on" who had absolutely nothing to contribute to Frodo's quest other than to further divide the Fellowship by taking Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas off of Frodo's trail to save them from Saruman's uruk-hai. In the movie, Merry & Pippin had the opportunity to show they were willing to sacrifice themselves in order to keep Frodo's quest alive. This selfless act legitimized Merry & Pippin's roles in the Fellowship. Despite their size and stature, the audience (unlike readers) left the theatre believing that these two hobbits helped save the day and kept Frodo from being spotted and captured.

Obviously, no movie character is going to be realized a fully on film as in a book, but I believe Jackson has done Pippin and Merry quite proud -- and some of their best moments are yet to come.

[Mrs. Maggott]

It certainly wouldn't have taken Jackson a great deal of film to establish a close friendship among the four hobbits and he certainly should have established Sam's "relationship" with Frodo (his gardener) rather than simply have him "appear" under Frodo's window in the middle of the night (which suggests an altogether different "relationship"!). In the EE of FOTR, this point is made, albeit without much stress, which is a shame. Why Sam should be calling Frodo "Master" when that relationship is never established, merely adds to the confusion in the film and frankly, goes to show that Jackson was far less concerned about establishing the characters and their interaction than he was in simply establishing opportunities for "action" itself (sword fights etc.).

Also, Merry and Pippin could still have "come upon" F&S leaving the Shire, but with the establishment of a friendship among the four, their decision to join in the flight would have made much more sense. As it is, it is extremely contrived and not terribly credible, especially given the menace of the Riders. The way Jackson portrayed the two to that point in the film, the most probable thing would have been for them to "scram" once the river had been crossed!

Finally, I fail to see why it is "okay" to expend precious film time on endless battle sequences (see the extension of the battle in Moria, the introduction of the warg riders in Rohan, and the interminable nonsense of Helm's Deep) but building the characters and their relationships to one another - thus permitting the whole story to make sense, is somehow a "waste". To my mind, if you don't know who the characters are, you aren't going to give a fig about them and if you don't care about them, then how can you possibly care about their story? Mr. Jackson would have been better occupied crafting his plot and characters than looking for every opportunity to add yet another cut-and-slash sequence! That stuff gets really old after a while. Obviously the Director has yet to learn that "less" is often "more".

[Elf Girl]

EDIT: Supposed to be before Mrs. Maggot's post.

Thank you, Black Breathalizer!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
My feeling is that Jackson has made more sense out of Pippin and Merry's role in the Fellowship that Tolkien did. First though, I would agree with you that the books (naturally) can do a better job than the films in establishing the characters and their relationships with one another.
Going for "Jackson is better then Tolkien" again, eh?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
While I would have preferred the Conspiracy, I totally understand why Jackson had to eliminate it from a screenplay that was already going to run more than three hours long.
Now just a second! I thought you said Jackson handled them better than Tolkien. That's a contradiction.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But while the cornfield encounter was a little too contrived...
Very good! He thinks something Jackson did is contrived! (I agree.)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
PJ made up for it by showing the audience the that the two hobbits stayed with Frodo and Sam out of friendship and concern for their welfare when the black riders appeared on the scene. Their reunion in Rivendell was also a clear indication of the affection that Pippin and Merry felt towards Frodo and vise versa.
I don't think that "makes up" for the cornfield, since it was also in the books, and the contrived-ness of the cornfield wasn't. However I will concede that Jackson brought across "Stupid hobbit and his slightly more intelligent sidekick have crude affection for hero and his sidekick" very well.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
While Merry and Pippin were used for comic relief in FOTR (by the way, Tolkien used Pippin for comic relief too), they "grew up" in TTT as they began to realize the gravity of Middle-Earth's situation. Merry and Pippin's character arcs will come to a fully-developed and audience satisfying ending in ROTK.
I found the sudden seriousness very out of character. It was too sudden. And Pippin was still stupid: "We've got the shire", while Merry was educating the stupid one: "There won't be a shire".

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In the book version of the breaking of the Fellowship, Merry and Pippin were "hangers-on" who had absolutely nothing to contribute to Frodo's quest other than to further divide the Fellowship by taking Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas off of Frodo's trail to save them from Saruman's uruk-hai. In the movie, Merry & Pippin had the opportunity to show they were willing to sacrifice themselves in order to keep Frodo's quest alive. This selfless act legitimized Merry & Pippin's roles in the Fellowship. Despite their size and stature, the audience (unlike readers) left the theatre believing that these two hobbits helped save the day and kept Frodo from being spotted and captured.
Exactly. In the book, they need to actually see battles, see that countries will fall and armies will die, before they understand how serious the matter is. In the movie, they magically become more adult as soon as they pop out of Lorien.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Obviously, no movie character is going to be realized a fully on film as in a book...
You're contradicting yourself again. I thought Merry and Pippen were better in the movie than in Tolkien?

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I apologize for getting so exasperated with you people sometimes, but I never cease to be amazed at the literal-interpretation levels around here. :)

The problem is you Purists operate with some pretty kooky (and completely FALSE) assumptions often referred to, by us normal Tolkien fans, as "The Book Purist's Faulty Five." ;) :)



A few corrections, if you don't mind.

Firstly, by re-stating people's arguments in your own words and arguing against your own restatements, you dance away from actual discourse into debating witticisms. the common term for that fallacy is "straw man".

Secondly, the term "literal interpretation" does not refer to verbatim renderings from one medium to another. It refers to the interpretation of a metaphor or simile as a thing-in-itself. For instance, if I say "the movie is like a pie with a crust that you see from the outside but when you cut it open the tasty insides are revealed" and you respond "you can't eat a movie", that is a literal interpretation. Nobody is proposing that anyone film a "literal interpretation" of LotR. But since the connotation of the phrase is negative, I'm sure you will keep on using it.

Thirdly, the use of the perjorative "purist" is yet another fallacy called "attacking the person". The Soviets and the Maoists made similar ad hominum statements against their artists.

It's really a pity that logical fallacies are more successful than arguing the actual points, but I guess that's the way of the world.

By the way, Merry and Pippin have a vital role in the books. And Pippin is supposed to show his bravery by running off from the Orcs to drop his brooch. But I guess it would have taken time away from yet another orc decapitation.

[Elf Girl]

*applause*

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Why Sam should be calling Frodo "Master" when that relationship is never established, merely adds to the confusion in the film...Correction: Sam has NEVER called Frodo "Master" in the films. Never ever.

Originally posted by Elf Girl
In the book, they need to actually see battles, see that countries will fall and armies will die, before they understand how serious the matter is. In the movie, they magically become more adult as soon as they pop out of Lorien.Correction: Merry and Pippin's "reality check" came when they looked into Boromir's eyes as he knelt dying in front of them with arrows sticking out of him. It was a legitimate turning point for both of them.

Please don't view my corrections as a sign that I've become...gasp...a nit-picker!!! I don't want to go down the path to the Dark-Purist-Side!!! :eek: :)

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Correction: Merry and Pippin's "reality check" came when they looked into Boromir's eyes as he knelt dying in front of them with arrows sticking out of him. It was a legitimate turning point for both of them.
A legitimate one, maybe, but it is only your opinion that makes it "the one". That moment is not mentioned in the books.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Please don't view my corrections as a sign that I've become...gasp...a nit-picker!!! I don't want to go down the path to the Dark-Purist-Side!!! :eek: :)
Attacking the person again.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Correction: Merry and Pippin's "reality check" came when they looked into Boromir's eyes as he knelt dying in front of them with arrows sticking out of him. It was a legitimate turning point for both of them.

Please don't view my corrections as a sign that I've become...gasp...a nit-picker!!! I don't want to go down the path to the Dark-Purist-Side!!! :eek: :)
M&P never "look into Boromir's eyes"; they have already been caught by Saruman's orcs while Boromir still lives and are long gone by the time Aragorn shows up to keep "Lurtz" (another of Jackson's needless inventions) from finishing off Denethor's elder son. Certainly, that scenario goes a long way toward maturing the two young hobbits - as it did in the book as well!

I would have to look again at the EE of FOTR to see if you are correct in the former, but he certainly does call him "Mister" Frodo, which is hardly the sort of thing that one does with a contemporary. Since Frodo is not 50 years old (as he was in the book) but is in fact about Sam's age, why should Sam call him "Mister", even if he never called him "Master"? Remember, neither Merry or Pippin call Frodo "Mister", so that means that Sam has a very different relationship with Frodo. Oh, and by the way, you do not address Sam's being under the window in the middle of the night! If you are going to address one point, it would be wise to address them all! Frankly, there is no real establishment of these inter-relationships in the films which seriously affects the story - and not for the better.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It certainly wouldn't have taken Jackson a great deal of film to establish a close friendship among the four hobbits and he certainly should have established Sam's "relationship" with Frodo (his gardener) rather than simply have him "appear" under Frodo's window in the middle of the night (which suggests an altogether different "relationship"!). In the EE of FOTR, this point is made, albeit without much stress, which is a shame. Why Sam should be calling Frodo "Master" when that relationship is never established, merely adds to the confusion in the film and frankly, goes to show that Jackson was far less concerned about establishing the characters and their interaction than he was in simply establishing opportunities for "action" itself (sword fights etc.).


I agree with you on these points completely. But I disagree with your statement that "you either have LotR translated or you don't." There can be a mediocre in-between area. (How about Rankin-Bass Return of the King?) I think that he did translate it -- his translation of it is mediocre (others would say poor), but it is still LotR. I found the movie enjoyable, and I agree with your subsequent (or previous; I'm getting lost in all these posts!)statement that liking or not is a matter of opinion, and need not be defended either way.

Elfhelm: I completely agree with you re: Tolkien being the ultimate authority to which all arguments must bow. As BoP said, he was perhaps too close to LotR to see it completely as the reader could see it. I believe that in regards to a work of art, the artist is forced to give up some of his authority on it to the viewer of the work, because to me, a large aspect of art is interpretation. Tolkien may have wanted it to be all about "facts," but as he created it, it simply could not be thus, as soon as it was published.

Re: general comment regarding differences between film and literature: Jackson found it necessary to exaggerate some (or many) characters and events to convey certain points and ideas to his viewers. This accounts for some of the Merry and Pippin stuff (as well as other stuff), although it could be rightly argued that he took it too far (no pun intended -- TOOK it too far:p ).

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
M&P never "look into Boromir's eyes"; they have already been caught by Saruman's orcs while Boromir still lives.Wrong, Mrs. Maggot. There is a very moving moment when Boromir has been struck by Lurtz's arrows where we see Pippin and Merry's shocked faces as they stare at him before whipping out their swords and having a go at the orcs themselves (and subsequently getting captured.)

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I would have to look again at the EE of FOTR to see if you are correct in the former, but he certainly does call him "Mister" Frodo, which is hardly the sort of thing that one does with a contemporary.Exactly. This is the way PJ communicated the fact that Sam didn't have the same social stature as Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Oh, and by the way, you do not address Sam's being under the window in the middle of the night! If you are going to address one point, it would be wise to address them all! Frankly, there is no real establishment of these inter-relationships in the films which seriously affects the story - and not for the better.We see Frodo and Sam walking down the road together before Frodo enters Bag End. So the audience knows that Sam is "in the neighborhood." It doesn't take a major logic leap for the audience to understand after the fact that Sam had looked up at Bag End as he proceeded on home and saw Gandalf's shadow or something that caused him to be concerned. Other than it was night time versus day time, Sam's actions were the same in the book and in the films.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Wrong, Mrs. Maggot. There is a very moving moment when Boromir has been struck by Lurtz's arrows where we see Pippin and Merry's shocked faces as they stare at him before whipping out their swords and having a go at the orcs themselves (and subsequently getting captured.)

Exactly. This is the way PJ communicated the fact that Sam didn't have the same social stature as Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

We see Frodo and Sam walking down the road together before Frodo enters Bag End. So the audience knows that Sam is "in the neighborhood." It doesn't take a major logic leap for the audience to understand after the fact that Sam had looked up at Bag End as he proceeded on home and saw Gandalf's shadow or something that caused him to be concerned. Other than it was night time versus day time, Sam's actions were the same in the book and in the films.
To begin with, that's not the same as "looking into his dying eyes" as you put it - since it is you who are insisting upon "accuracy". Of course it was a seminal moment. Indeed, getting grabbed by orcs and taken into captivity and the threat of suffering and death was an equally "maturing" event!

As far as Sam's "social station": most Americans are not culturally attuned to differences in "social station". However, a servant could be understood as someone who might refer to his employer as "Mister". Yet, this relationship is hardly established either in the party scene between Frodo and Sam or in the scene where the two are returning from the inn. And, if Sam had seen something untoward at Bag End (always assuming that after a night of imbibing in the inn he would have noticed much of anything), given his rather straightforward personality, he would doubtless have come straight in the front door and not wandered about in the shrubbery! He would hardly have been much help to Frodo - had he needed any - crawling around outside!

Finally with regard to something "in between" LOTR and notLOTR: I do not believe you can hold up either Bakshi or Rankin-Bass as criteria. Neither of them - however sincerely and earnestly their creators tried to produce LOTR - can be considered a success. On the other hand, I do not believe that either was attempting to do anything more than present a story; no attempt was made (other than editing and combining various elements for time) to produce in depth, the work's vision as we were assured would be the case with Jackson's endeavor. However, when all was said and done, Jackson deviated more from the actual story than either of the earlier works. It rather reminds me of Frodo and Aragorn's conversation about servants of the enemy who "look fair and feel foul".

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
To begin with, that's not the same as "looking into his dying eyes" as you put it - since it is you who are insisting upon "accuracy". um...let's see now...Pippin and Merry stare at Boromir...Boromir looks up at them. Boromir is dying. They can see he is dying. What's inaccurate about what I said?!?!?!?

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As far as Sam's "social station": most Americans are not culturally attuned to differences in "social station". However, a servant could be understood as someone who might refer to his employer as "Mister". Yet, this relationship is hardly established either in the party scene between Frodo and Sam or in the scene where the two are returning from the inn. And, if Sam had seen something untoward at Bag End (always assuming that after a night of imbibing in the inn he would have noticed much of anything), given his rather straightforward personality, he would doubtless have come straight in the front door and not wandered about in the shrubbery! He would hardly have been much help to Frodo - had he needed any - crawling around outside!It's a valid point that PJ could have established Sam's relationship to Frodo more clearly in FOTR. In fact, after my first viewing of the film, it was my number one criticism. But upon repeated viewings, I realized that Sam's "Mister Frodo"s communicated a great deal about his social standing (yes, even to American audiences) without complicating issues for a modern-day audience by emphasizing his servitude.

Regarding Sam sneaking up to the window to eavesdrop rather than going in the front door--I do seem to recall Professor Tolkien writing something about that subject. :)

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Neither of them [Bakshi or Rankin-Bass] - however sincerely and earnestly their creators tried to produce LOTR - can be considered a success. On the other hand . . . Jackson deviated more from the actual story than either of the earlier works.Hmmm...considering the critical acclaim and commercial success of the Jackson films, looks to me that ol' PJ knew what he was doing. :) :) :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

[i]
Hmmm...considering the critical acclaim and commercial success of the Jackson films, looks to me that ol' PJ knew what he was doing. :) :) :) [/B]

Critical acclaim does not make what Jackson produced Tolkien's LOTR, merely a fairly well made (so far and with the second film less successfully made than the first) sword-and-sorcery action film. That's a whole lot different than bringing the greatest book of the 20th century to the screen - which Jackson did NOT do.

And, frankly, what passes for "success" in today's culture is certainly no guarantee of either quality or worth. :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Critical acclaim does not make what Jackson produced Tolkien's LOTR, merely a fairly well made (so far and with the second film less successfully made than the first) sword-and-sorcery action film.

Just want to point out that it really can't be called of the "sword-and-sorcery" genre; from my understanding, there is little similarity between Jackson's movies and the criteria for Sword and Sorcery.

Re: Authority of the Author: This whole thing is, quite frankly, rather ridiculous, IMO. I mean, if the author says something about his own work, and someone else says, "You don't know anything, you're wrong"; I must be stupid, because this does not seem right to me.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
And, frankly, what passes for "success" in today's culture is certainly no guarantee of either quality or worth.But in a debate over such a subjective subject as "Did Jackson capture Tolkien's vision?", critical and commercial success should be worth something. I think there were quite a few Tolkien fans in the theatres. Did they see the movie over and over again and bought the DVD because they misunderstood Tolkien? I think you all have some valid points. But when you use the occasional film flaw to deny the obvious homage Jackson has paid to Tolkien's great work throughout both films, I can't help but question what's really going on here.

[Melko Belcha]

Ok this is kind of weird but here is the way I see it.

Lets say you have a pot of soup (type dosn't matter). If you made another pot but only used a little bit of this ingredient, alot more of another ingredient, and completely take out other ingredients, what are you left with? Not the same soup as in the first pot.

The ingredents that make LotR great, for me atleast, are the characters, dialoge, character interaction, the history that led up to the story, and I could go on and on. But to change, re-arrange, or omit any of the ingredients is to change the story. The story of LotR is not just about the destruction of the Ring, or the Domination of Man, it is every little detail in the story from the Prologue to the Appendix.

Aother thing that really makes me laugh about the movies is that PJ actually put corn in. He had no idea that what Tolkien called corn in the books is actually wheat. But again PJ must know what Tolkien meant more then Tolkien did himself.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I apologize for getting so exasperated with you people sometimes, but I never cease to be amazed at the literal-interpretation levels around here. :)

The problem is you Purists operate with some pretty kooky (and completely FALSE) assumptions often referred to, by us normal Tolkien fans, as "The Book Purist's Faulty Five." ;) :)

And he calls us condescending? :rolleyes: If only I had a penny for every time BB said something like "if you don't see that Jackson not only perfectly captures but also completely exceeds in quality Tolkien , then you obviously don't understand anything about what Tolkien is REALLY about*"...



Note: This is a dramatization.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But when you use the occasional film flaw to deny the obvious homage Jackson has paid to Tolkien's great work throughout both films, I can't help but question what's really going on here.

How can it be homage, when you have stated that PJ has improved upon Tolkien? Since when is the tribute better than that which it is rendered to?


P. S. Ocassional. Hah. :rolleyes:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Re: Authority of the Author: This whole thing is, quite frankly, rather ridiculous, IMO. I mean, if the author says something about his own work, and someone else says, "You don't know anything, you're wrong"; I must be stupid, because this does not seem right to me.

Yes, but I fear that is what Jackson himself said in some electronic and print interviews. He was of the definite opinion that he could tell the story better than Tolkien - and I don't simply mean that he could "translate" it into film better since, of course, that would be expected given that Tolkien was not a screenwriter. What he actually meant was that he knew best how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien himself. And if that ain't hubris, I don't know what is!

If you read the Shippey books, you will see just how much craftsmanship went into LOTR. To simply "change" things in order to give the audience an extra 10 minutes of cyberwarfare is mindless to say the least. Tolkien's story required a great deal of care in translating it to film. There were plenty of opportunities for drama, comedy, action etc. without the need to bring in extraneous plot threads and pointless nonsense. Indeed, there was so much in the story, I cannot think of one "purist" who did not understand the necessity of cutting out the Old Forest-Bombadil-Barrowdowns thread for the sake of time and plot clarity.

So I disagree strongly with all the harangue about the fact that we demanded a word-for-word translation of the book to the screen in order to be satisfied - because it isn't true. We did, however, demand a certain faithfulness to Tolkien's vision and the essential meaning of the tale, both of which were totally ignored by Mr. Jackson and his screenwriters.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But in a debate over such a subjective subject as "Did Jackson capture Tolkien's vision?", critical and commercial success should be worth something. I think there were quite a few Tolkien fans in the theatres. Did they see the movie over and over again and bought the DVD because they misunderstood Tolkien? I think you all have some valid points. But when you use the occasional film flaw to deny the obvious homage Jackson has paid to Tolkien's great work throughout both films, I can't help but question what's really going on here.
I, too, know of many "Tolkien fans" who "love" the films. I also know many who did not. Of those who did, these same people often voiced severe criticism of the films (especially TTT) upon their release, but later after viewing them several times and especially the EE of FOTR, were more satisfied at least with the films as films. However, many people who say that they love the films, reluctantly admit that they are not "Tolkien"- but they love them "anyway". Frankly, I too "liked" the first film (especially the EE version) because it was well made and well scripted. Was it Tolkien? Definitely not! But at least it was an enjoyable film. On the other hand, the second film was painful. It was choppy, badly edited and scripted and full of nonsense. I saw it once and will not buy the DVD until I see ROTK. If that is anything like TTT, I will simply give my daughter my DVD of FOTR and consider the whole thing a loss. :rolleyes: :mad:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Yes, but I fear that is what Jackson himself said in some electronic and print interviews. He was of the definite opinion that he could tell the story better than Tolkien - and I don't simply mean that he could "translate" it into film better since, of course, that would be expected given that Tolkien was not a screenwriter. What he actually meant was that he knew best how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien himself. And if that ain't hubris, I don't know what is!

-snip-

Indeed, there was so much in the story, I cannot think of one "purist" who did not understand the necessity of cutting out the Old Forest-Bombadil-Barrowdowns thread for the sake of time and plot clarity.


Actually, I was referring to the discussion here. I remember reading in an interview with Jackson where he said (don't remember exact words, but was rather like this: ) "What we've done is we've taken all of the good/important parts, and we've actually enhanced and improved upon them".

Understand, but that doesn't mean I gotta like it. :(

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I, too, know of many "Tolkien fans" who "love" the films. I also know many who did not. Of those who did, these same people often voiced severe criticism of the films (especially TTT) upon their release, but later after viewing them several times and especially the EE of FOTR, were more satisfied at least with the films as films. However, many people who say that they love the films, reluctantly admit that they are not "Tolkien"- but they love them "anyway". Frankly, I too "liked" the first film (especially the EE version) because it was well made and well scripted. Was it Tolkien? Definitely not! But at least it was an enjoyable film. On the other hand, the second film was painful. It was choppy, badly edited and scripted and full of nonsense. I saw it once and will not buy the DVD until I see ROTK. If that is anything like TTT, I will simply give my daughter my DVD of FOTR and consider the whole thing a loss. :rolleyes: :mad:

I liked both of them as films (especially the first, especially the Extended Edition), but feel they failed as adaptations. I'm what I call a "Separatist Purist", which is someone who think the movies were poor adaptations, but is able to enjoy them as a separate work.

I take it that your daughter likes the movies more than you do?

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm not too sure. I know she liked the first one but interestingly enough, when she saw the EE at our house, she kept saying, "Why did he leave that out! It doesn't make sense otherwise!" all through the film! We haven't spoken much about TTT, however and I don't know if she has purchased the DVD or is waiting for the EE of that. She of course, is looking forward to ROTK with less trepidation than I, but then, she's still young and optimistic!

Her husband, on the other hand, loves the films. But then, he's never read the book! :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Is the DVD out yet? :confused: Thought it was in June...

Yep, that certainly makes sense. I know a few who have never read the book, but loved the movies. One of them has started reading the book (in a half-hearted way...but then again, I think he's a bit half-hearted when it comes to reading in general), and the other says he will after RotK comes out.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Overcoming racial prejudice, and casting aside ancient history:
The mangling of Gimli and Legolas' friendship is to me, one of the most disappointing things that PJ bungled. There is no sense of reparation between these two characters in Fellowship: such that there is a definate absense of the burgening of a new friendship. What we do get is a rather comfusing competition between them at Helm's Deep over how many kills they managed to get, which I guess is the culmination of their friendship. PJ also failed to really bring across how bitter the hatred was between these two races.The EE-FOTR gave us some wonderful scenes between Gimli and Galadriel and Gimli and Legolas. Also, the focus of TTT was on the friendship between a man, elf, and a dwarf. More specifically, we saw how Legolas came to Gimli's defense against Eomer. Lastly, you are comparing THREE books against TWO films. I have a strong suspicion that the Gimli-Legolas relationship will be expanded upon in the EE-TTT and in ROTK.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
We also have Elrond being openly scornful against 'man-kind', which is ludicrous given that he is half-elven!I interpreted Elrond's comments as being candid, not scornful. Many posters here have talked about how he "scolded" Gandalf. I've watched their scenes together many many times and I've yet to see it.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The Istari, and the theme of wisdom:
I ask, would Tolkien's Gandalf have managed to attract the scorn of a mere elf (Elrond)? Would he have resorted to Sumo Wrestling with Saruman? Would he have stupidly told Saruman where the ring was? In Tolkien's world, the role of the Istari is clear: they are emissaries sent directly from the Undying Lands to work against Sauron (by guiding the free peoples of Middle Earth.) Their wisdom, and and their knowledge are imcomparable with the other races in middle earth. And yet: we have Elrond openly scorning against Gandalf. How can Gandalf even hope to rouse the peoples of Middle Earth against Sauron, when he can't even get Elrond to trust him?!We are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. I thought Jackson's/McKellan's Gandalf was wonderful and captured the essence of Tolkien's character. Many posters last year talked of the film Gandalf's "weaknesses." But the reality was that some people here were confusing the wisdom and leadership of Gandalf the White in books II and III with the Gandalf the Grey of the Hobbit and FOTR. Regarding the wizard duel, how do you suppose Gandalf the Grey got to the top of Orthanc in Tolkien's book. It wasn't described but do you think it would have been in character for him to go willingly?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants:
The breaking of the fellowship:
Perhaps one of the more important themes of the book was reduced to mere battles, blood, and gore. ... Frodo's consideration for the other members of the fellowship is lost because they already know about his departure, and aid him in it! And Aragorn's loyalty to Frodo is cut, with him instead chosing to let him go alone.This is one of those times when you've got to avoid the temptation to freak out about the changes from the book. If you can step away from your literal thinking about the breaking of the fellowship and think about what this version is communicating, you will see the beautiful way that Jackson has used it to ENHANCE Tolkien's own themes of selfless friendship and the importance of different races coming together for the good of all.

In the book, the focus of the breaking of the fellowship is exclusively on Frodo screwing himself up to leave the others and make a go of it alone. In the film, the early arrival of the uruk-hai allowed the entire fellowship to work as a team to keep the quest of the ringbearer alive. Talk about a powerful illustration of key themes! Speaking for myself and the audience members I've seen, people were very moved by the way every member of the team (except Boromir) helps the Ringbearer--and even Boromir redeems himself by coming to the aid of Merry & Pippin in the end.

So do these "deviations" weaken Frodo's character? Absolutely not! As far as anyone in the fellowship knew (with the exception of Aragorn), they would be joining Frodo again as soon as they got rid of the orcs. But Frodo screwed himself up and decided to go it alone. It was the most moving moment in the films thus far. True bravery isn't the absence of fear, it's proceeding when you're scared to death. The audience identified with Frodo at that moment and he instantly became the emotional "everyman" for the films that Tolkien created for the books. This was one of THE key underpinnings of the books. If Jackson doesn't create Tolkien's everyman (as the animated versions clearly failed to do), the series doesn't succeed on the most fundamental level.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...If you can step away from your literal thinking...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Black Breathalizer]

What do you think it means?

Literal
Adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
Date: 14th century
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM <a literal translation>

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What do you think it means?

Literal
Adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
Date: 14th century
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM <a literal translation>

Of course, this simplistic definition lacks the extended use the word has when combined with the word "thinking". As a phrase, "literal thinking" is one of three types of thinking. The other two are "inferential thinking" and "evaluative thinking". Nobody here is using literal thinking in place of evaluative thinking. And to take it a step further, your implication that we are confined by our inability to think evaluatively is just another attempt to weaken our arguments with unrelated charges.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that you mistakenly misused the phrase and what you meant was something else which we can't know because we only have the words you typed.

[Wayfarer]

So I disagree strongly with all the harangue about the fact that we demanded a word-for-word translation of the book to the screen in order to be satisfied - because it isn't true. We did, however, demand a certain faithfulness to Tolkien's vision and the essential meaning of the tale, both of which were totally ignored by Mr. Jackson and his screenwriters.

Quite so!

Literal...
b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression.
c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth>
d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>


Aren't these all reasonable things to expect when a Book is made into a film?
Isn't it not only reasonable, but essential that a film adhere to the 'primary meaning'- which is, as you say, the 'vision' or 'theme'? After all, you've been trying to argue that jackson /did/ portray tolkein's vision- which is part of a literal interpretation.
Isn't it common sense that jackson shouldn't have embellished and exaggerated the way he did? Pretty-elf and anal-retentive-elf and still-not-king and short-funny-person bear little to no resemblance to the characters in LOTR because of his exaggeration.
Isn't it a 'duh' issue that the facts or psuedofacts are what's important when retelling a 'historical' story?

It still seems to me that a literal interpretation is far superior to the watered down, half baked, pathetic snivelling excuse for a tolkien film that you're trying to pass of as 'vision'.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Of course, this simplistic definition lacks the extended use the word has when combined with the word "thinking". As a phrase, "literal thinking" is one of three types of thinking. The other two are "inferential thinking" and "evaluative thinking". Nobody here is using literal thinking in place of evaluative thinking. And to take it a step further, your implication that we are confined by our inability to think evaluatively is just another attempt to weaken our arguments with unrelated charges.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that you mistakenly misused the phrase and what you meant was something else which we can't know because we only have the words you typed. You've given me a headache trying to figure out what the heck you just said, Elfhelm. :)

What I think is that some people get so freaked out about the fact that PJ didn't always follow Tolkien's roadmap and chose -- gasp! -- a different route on occasion that they fail to notice he ended up at the same destination as the author intended.

I still contend that the book purist arguements expressed here are more about the means than they are about the message.

[Elfhelm]

I think it is entirely a matter of opinion. It is their opinion that he did not arrive at the same end and yours that he did. But the end does not justify the means. There are too many splatter scenes. Sure, the means of splatter scenes produces the end of monetary profit and massive popularity, but is that popularity for the Lord of the Rings as a story or for splatter scenes as an entertainment? It is my opinion that a movie of the story can be successful and not need to cater to the bloodthirst of the masses.

Sorry to detract from your cogent points about the breaking of the fellowship, but then if you hadn't begun with the first two statements -- that we are merely freaking out about any changes and that we are trapped in literal-mindedness -- there would have been no need to defend against those attacks.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm sorry, but the film screwed up the "theme" of the quest very badly in the Parth Galen sequence. In the book, Aragorn had already decided that he, Sam and Gimli would accompany Frodo to Mordor, knowing as he did that the Bearer would chose to go to the Fire since there really was no other choice if the Ring was to be destroyed. Aragorn's eventual choice to "follow the orcs" was made after [1] Boromir's attempt to seize the Ring which pushed Frodo into his decision to go alone to Mordor and [2] the attack by the orcs, the capture of the two young hobbits and the death of Boromir. Only when the Bearer has already gone (not when he's thinking about going) and the two hobbits had been captured, did Aragorn choose to attempt a rescue of Merry and Pippin - and one reason for his choice was the fear that the hobbits would "spill the beans" about the quest once in the hands of Saruman, thus destroying any hope of success.

Jackson insistence on the theme of Aragorn's "possible" seduction by the Ring (and Aragorn's personal fear of succumbing thereto) is illustrated by Frodo asking the man who had been with him since Bree and had had every opportunity to take the Ring, "Can you protect me from yourself?" Silly, silly! Aragorn never would have permitted Frodo to go alone if that choice had been open to him which is why Tolkien wrote it so that the decision was made when the situation was already in place. This eliminated the need for Aragorn to send Frodo off alone - which Tolkien would not have done because it would have been totally unreasonable and out of character for the man. Therefore the only way Tolkien could have the Rohan/Treebeard etc. thread was to have Aragorn's decision take place under the circumstances he created.

Jackson's "creation" on the other hand, made a mockery of Aragorn's knowledge of the importance of the quest in order to maintain his original "weakness in the blood" theme with its accompanying "self-imposed exile" nonsense that had been introduced in Rivendell. Since Jackson began from a false premise and was proceeding from that same false premise, naturally all that followed was equally false - and nonsensical no matter how "good" it looked up there on the "silver screen". It was a cinematic example of that old computer truism: garbage in - garbage out.

[Melko Belcha]

Also in the book Frodo goes into the woods to think about how he can go on alone because he dosen't want to bring anybody into the danger that he took upon himself to do. In the movie Frodo just leaves the camp for a nice walk in the woods, and out of 8 people only Boromir noticed, and then he goes off on his own because Aragorn tells him to when the Uruk-hai show up. To me it totally killed Frodo as a character, yes he didn't want to take Sam in the film, but in the book he wanted to take nobody into danger with him, he took the burden on himself, and again in the movie he had to be saved, or pushed by one of the stong or wise. I guess PJ's Elrond might say, 'Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are helping them all along the way.'

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I'm sorry, but the film screwed up the "theme" of the quest very badly in the Parth Galen sequence. In the book, Aragorn had already decided that he, Sam and Gimli would accompany Frodo to Mordor, knowing as he did that the Bearer would chose to go to the Fire since there really was no other choice if the Ring was to be destroyed. Aragorn's eventual choice to "follow the orcs" was made after [1] Boromir's attempt to seize the Ring which pushed Frodo into his decision to go alone to Mordor and [2] the attack by the orcs, the capture of the two young hobbits and the death of Boromir. Only when the Bearer has already gone (not when he's thinking about going) and the two hobbits had been captured, did Aragorn choose to attempt a rescue of Merry and Pippin - and one reason for his choice was the fear that the hobbits would "spill the beans" about the quest once in the hands of Saruman, thus destroying any hope of success.Please tell me how the film version treats Aragorn THAT much different? The only difference is that Aragorn catches a glimpse of Frodo and Sam on the other side of the river in the film and doesn't in the book. Do you REALLY think Aragorn the great hunter would have had difficulty tracking Frodo and Sam down?!?!? Of course not. He chose to rescue Merry & Pippin for the exact same reasons in the film as he did in the book.

Having Frodo challenge Aragorn immediately following his confrontation with Boromir was very logical. He had just been threatened by a man who had become tempted by the ring. Why wouldn't Frodo believe that the ring (which was gaining power as it moved ever closer to Mordor) wouldn't influence Aragorn as well? Aragorn's resistance to the lure of the ring was a wonderfully dramatic moment and a excellent way to communicate that Aragorn WAS different from Isildur. As Arwen said to him, "you will confront the darkness and you will defeat it" (or something similar.) At the end of the FOTR, we are treated to character-defining moments for Frodo, Sam, AND Aragorn.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Please tell me how the film version treats Aragorn THAT much different? The only difference is that Aragorn catches a glimpse of Frodo and Sam on the other side of the river in the film and doesn't in the book. Do you REALLY think Aragorn the great hunter would have had difficulty tracking Frodo and Sam down?!?!? Of course not. He chose to rescue Merry & Pippin for the exact same reasons in the film as he did in the book.

Having Frodo challenge Aragorn immediately following his confrontation with Boromir was very logical. He had just been threatened by a man who had become tempted by the ring. Why wouldn't Frodo believe that the ring (which was gaining power as it moved ever closer to Mordor) wouldn't influence Aragorn as well? Aragorn's resistance to the lure of the ring was a wonderfully dramatic moment and a excellent way to communicate that Aragorn WAS different from Isildur. As Arwen said to him, "you will confront the darkness and you will defeat it" (or something similar.) At the end of the FOTR, we are treated to character-defining moments for Frodo, Sam, AND Aragorn.
Aragorn would never have permitted Frodo to leave alone even with Sam. However, in the book, Frodo was gone and a goodly amount of time had passed before the three companions had finished sending Boromir to his rest. Yes, Aragorn could have tracked him on the other side of the river, but the mere fact that things fell out as they did led him to consider that, as he said, "the fate of the Bearer is no longer in my hands". That is a fatalistic statement which apparently indicated that Aragorn believed that fate had something else in mind for both Frodo and himself than he had planned originally.

After Gandalf's "death", Aragorn believed he had to take the Wizard's place and go to the Fire with the Bearer. However, once the events at Parth Galen had taken place, he apparently believed - for whatever reason (and it had nothing to do with any nonsense about fearing the lure of the Ring!) - that Frodo was fated to proceed without him. Remember, originally Aragorn was going with Boromir to Minas Tirith! He was never committed to going to Mordor. It was Gandalf who was to be the one to shepherd the Bearer to the Fire. But after Moria, all that changed and the leadership of the quest was thrust upon Aragorn so that as the group waited in Parth Galen for Frodo to return, he had already chosen himself and Gimli - as well as Sam - to go with the Bearer. Aragorn had no fear of the Ring. He was unmoved by any temptations it might have seen fit to dandle before him. He resisted it in Bree; he resisted it in the Wild and he outright refused Frodo's rather tentative offer ("It belongs to you...") in Rivendell. He didn't need Arwen's assurance of his ability to overcome simply because he had nothing to "overcome". All of that was Jackson's invention which served not to increase the drama, but decrease the character.

This is a completely different scenario than Jackson presented even though the end result was the same. For Aragorn to have sent Frodo off alone (even with Sam) - and remember, this is before the capture of the hobbits, the death of Boromir and, in fact, even before the arrival of the orcs! - is nothing short of dereliction of duty. As far as Aragorn bestowing his "blessing" upon Frodo, big deal! What possible proof had Aragorn of Frodo succeeding, especially as the hobbit had a tendency to be skewered by trolls and faint at the presence of any passing Nazgul! To simply wish him "godspeed" and send him on his way, would probably be a one-way ticket to another Dark Age! Indeed, even in the book (where Frodo was not nearly so weak as he was in the film), Aragorn's choice not to follow the Bearer is questionable. Gandalf absolves him from any blame for his choice later in the story, but though it makes a fine plot thread, as a practical matter it is open to criticism.

[Black Breathalizer]

It seems to me, Mrs Maggot, that if you are going to be critical of film Aragorn's decision not to follow Frodo at Parth Galen, then you'd better be prepared to dump on Tolkien as well.

You cannot say it was okay for book Aragorn to decide to go after Merry and Pippin yet complain when film Aragorn does the same thing. The circumstances are certainly not different enough for you to make a convincing case that one was valid while the other was not.

If anything, the events of the film make Aragorn's decision MORE understandable than the one book Aragorn made. In the film Aragorn is told exactly what Boromir did so he knows (rather than guesses) that the lure of the ring is becoming stronger. He also knows (rather than guesses) that Frodo has made the decision to go alone and has Sam with him. For all the book Aragorn knew, Frodo could have been captured by some of the orcs and taken away in one of the boats. Doubtful, yes. But if you are going to criticise film Aragorn's "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" line, then shouldn't book Aragorn have made sure that his guesses about Frodo's actions were correct BEFORE deciding to track down Merry and Pippin's captors???

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It seems to me, Mrs Maggot, that if you are going to be critical of film Aragorn's decision not to follow Frodo at Parth Galen, then you'd better be prepared to dump on Tolkien as well.

You cannot say it was okay for book Aragorn to decide to go after Merry and Pippin yet complain when film Aragorn does the same thing. The circumstances are certainly not different enough for you to make a convincing case that one was valid while the other was not.

If anything, the events of the film make Aragorn's decision MORE understandable than the one book Aragorn made. In the film Aragorn is told exactly what Boromir did so he knows (rather than guesses) that the lure of the ring is becoming stronger. He also knows (rather than guesses) that Frodo has made the decision to go alone and has Sam with him. For all the book Aragorn knew, Frodo could have been captured by some of the orcs and taken away in one of the boats. Doubtful, yes. But if you are going to criticise film Aragorn's "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" line, then shouldn't book Aragorn have made sure that his guesses about Frodo's actions were correct BEFORE deciding to track down Merry and Pippin's captors???
I have already said that Aragorn's decision not to follow Frodo is open to criticism. However, at least in the book it became a matter of whether or not to follow the Bearer who had already left (unblessed) in consideration of the problem of the captured hobbits. In the film, it was a matter of bestowing a blessing upon the Bearer to depart unaided without the consideration of the problem of the captured hobbits. If you cannot see the difference between the two, it is no wonder you have no problem with these films!

[Lizra]

Mrs M, Why do you think Tolkien would have never had Aragorn let Frodo go alone (though it was never alone, always Sam was there)?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Lizra
Mrs M, Why do you think Tolkien would have never had Aragorn let Frodo go alone (though it was never alone, always Sam was there)?
Well, let's look at the situation: there really was only one thing that was important and that was the destruction of the Ring. Even Gandalf later admits that all of the business in Rohan and even Minas Tirith was incidental to the one truly important thing, the destruction of the Ring. Even if the forces of the West had been able to win every battle (which they did) until the last (before the Black Gates), none of that would have made any difference if Sauron had been able to retrieve the Ring. With the Ring, his power was such that Gandalf could see no end to his reign (unless the Valar were to intervene as they did with Morgoth). However, were the Ring destroyed, the greater part of his power would be destroyed with it and he would be reduced to an impotent malevolent spirit, banished like his former Master into the Void.

Now, let us look at the Bearer, Frodo Baggins: as far as character goes, the Ring could not have had a better Bearer. However, as far as skill at arms and experience in battle or even in avoiding battle are concerned, I doubt there were too many less qualified people in Middle-earth (at least who weren't hobbits!). Obviously, Frodo needed assistance in the quest or he would have set out from Rivendell alone or with Gandalf as his only companion. One might imagine that had Aragorn been the Bearer, doubtless he and Gandalf would have set forth together not wishing to be burdened by less hardy and experienced companions! Given the situation, can anyone seriously believe that having arrived at the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn would have simply given Frodo his "blessing" to proceed alone? And let's face it, even with Sam for company, Frodo was essentially alone. Sam was no more experienced in the necessary battle and tracking skills than was Frodo! To say that he wasn't alone because he was 'with Sam' may be literally true, but Sam could not provide what was necessary to get to the Fire - at least as Aragorn would have been able to judge the matter at the time. Of course, we later see that the two (with Gollum's dubious assistance) were in fact able to reach the Fire, but given the facts as they existed at the time of the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn could not conceivably have known that nor would he have "trusted to luck" and still been true to his obligation to the quest. Therefore, to maintain any semblance of credibility, Aragorn could not be seen sending Frodo off alone (even with Sam) to Mordor. The only way Tolkien could "split" the plot threads was to set up the circumstances as he did.

So, here we are at Parth Galen. Gandalf is "dead". Boromir is really dead. Sam is with Frodo off to Mordor and the two younger hobbits are captured and gone off to Saruman. Only the three remain: Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn. Originally, Aragorn had decided to accompany Frodo and Sam, taking Gimli with them on their journey to the Mountain. We may assume that this was a conclusion reached by a man who knew what was required for that all important journey. For the rest of the Fellowship, Aragorn had decided that Legolas and the two hobbits would accompany Boromir to Minas Tirith. However, all of that is now beside the point. As noted, things have changed and Aragorn now must decide whether to follow Frodo - his first choice - or attempt to wrest Merry and Pippin from their captors to deny Saruman information about the quest that the two would doubtless be forced to reveal. It is under these circumstances (rather than the film's much less urgent circumstances) that Aragorn chooses the latter course.

However, Tolkien does give us a subtle "excuse" if you will, for the man's decision. Aragorn obviously exhibits some degree of prescience. Remember, he warns Gandalf that he alone is in danger if they Company enters Moria. We are not told how he came by that knowledge, but he is correct in his warning. Also, with the palantir, Aragorn indicates that he "judged" that the stone had come into his hands to be used. Again, he makes no mention of how he arrived at that particular conclusion, especially given the fact that he knew (from Pippin's unfortunate experience) what would happen if he attempted to do so. It is with this knowledge of Aragorn's apparent "foresight" that his comment about the fate of the Bearer no longer being "in my hands" makes infinitely more sense. Somehow, he has been enlightened in this matter although he does continue to express doubt about his leadership abilities and bemoans that they remaining two have given the choice "to a poor chooser".

In the end, his decision proves correct, but as I said, it is still open to some considerable criticism seeing the enormity of his decision to permit Frodo to wander off in search of a way to reach the Fire.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In the film, it was a matter of bestowing a blessing upon the Bearer to depart unaided without the consideration of the problem of the captured hobbits.Where was Aragorn's blessing? The scene between Frodo and Aragorn on Parth Galen is open to different interpretations. You cannot say with 100% certainty that film Aragorn agreed and supported Frodo's decision to go alone. All we know for sure is that he understood, because of Boromir's actions and his own temptation, the growing danger to Frodo from within.

When Frodo said, "look after the others, especially Sam, he will not understand," there was no time for Aragorn's reply. It is very likely that Aragorn would not have agreed with Frodo's decision to go by himself. But before Aragorn could react, the orcs arrived on the scene. Once the orc battle was over, Film Aragorn was presented with the SAME circumstances and issues in deciding his next course of action that Book Aragorn faced.

[Lizra]

Hmmm, I can see Aragorn letting Frodo go alone....It was the smart (wise, "kingly" ;) ) thing to do. Especially if "inspired intuition" is involved. The other Fellowship members diverting "the Eye" is a good plan! I like the way the movie gave Aragorn the chance to refuse the temptation to use the ring....rising above Isilder and Boromir. I always wonder (in the context of the film) does Aragorn deflect desire for the ring because of "intelligence" (what the ring is, and what it does to people) or does respect and fondness for Frodo come into the "wise, kingly decision.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Where was Aragorn's blessing? The scene between Frodo and Aragorn on Parth Galen is open to different interpretations. You cannot say with 100% certainty that film Aragorn agreed and supported Frodo's decision to go alone. All we know for sure is that he understood, because of Boromir's actions and his own temptation, the growing danger to Frodo from within.

When Frodo said, "look after the others, especially Sam, he will not understand," there was no time for Aragorn's reply. It is very likely that Aragorn would not have agreed with Frodo's decision to go by himself. But before Aragorn could react, the orcs arrived on the scene. Once the orc battle was over, Film Aragorn was presented with the SAME circumstances and issues in deciding his next course of action that Book Aragorn faced.
But it certainly was with his blessing and with the obvious understanding that Frodo intended going alone to Mordor. Aragorn closes Frodo's hand over the Ring and tells him that he would have gone with him to Mordor. Now, what can that possibly mean except that he is not now going with him? As for the "blessing" part, the mere fact that he says what he says and does what he does indicates his acceptance of Frodo's intention to go alone. That is what conveys his "blessing" upon the Bearer's choice.

As far as the decision to follow the orcs rather than the Bearer, it is Legolas who points out Frodo and Sam on the other side of the lake and then realizes that Aragorn is not going to pursue them, a decision the man had already made under Amon Hen with Frodo. This is, in fact, nothing like the book with the exception of the fact that the two scenarios lead to the same conclusion. How they arrive at that conclusion could not be more different. And frankly, to my mind, only the book's scenario has any credibility whatsoever given the circumstances of the plot at that point in the story.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
But it certainly was with his blessing and with the obvious understanding that Frodo intended going alone to Mordor. Aragorn closes Frodo's hand over the Ring and tells him that he would have gone with him to Mordor. Now, what can that possibly mean except that he is not now going with him? As for the "blessing" part, the mere fact that he says what he says and does what he does indicates his acceptance of Frodo's intention to go alone. That is what conveys his "blessing" upon the Bearer's choice.I agree with you that Aragorn's comment meant that he understood the Ringbearer would be going on without him. We feel for Aragorn because it is clear in his comment that every fiber of his being is dedicated to helping Frodo on his quest. But we also understand that it took every bit of his willpower to resist the lure of the ring Frodo offered him.

It is true that the corrupting power of the ring is emphasized more in the films, but rightly so I might add. It helps the audience to understand: 1) why Frodo is screwing himself up to go alone; and 2) why a brave, noble, and wise man like Aragorn would understand and respect why he felt that way.

While I agree with you that Aragorn is resigned to the fact that he will part ways with the ringbearer, I don't agree that it necessarily means that he would have supported Frodo's decision to go alone. He understood the growing danger from within the Fellowship but he also understood that hobbits can resist the ring's lure easier than men, elves, and dwarves. He also understood Gandalf's council which was that a few had as much chance as many. The mission was about stealth, not fighting ability.

It is also true we don't have Aragorn's "what am I to do?" internal debate in the film, but the fact is that the character was presented with the same issues and came to the same conclusions. This debate has been yet another shining example of a book purist getting caught up in specifics (Aragorn didn't do this, didn't do that) and losing sight of the fact that the ultimate messages of the film version of the breaking of the fellowship WERE THE SAME AS THE BOOK--and very powerfully delivered.

[Elfhelm]

It was always Aragorn's intention to go with Frodo. He told Frodo it is time to decide. Frodo wanted a little more time alone to think about it.

I agree with the MM that if Aragorn had encountered Frodo in the context shown in the movie, he would have insisted on going along to Mount Doom. He would NOT have sent a lone hobbit into Mordor. That's not Aragorn. Everything about Aragorn is about protecting the weak and taking his lead from Gandalf.

Aragorn decision of which pair of hobbits to follow, when forced to choose, was to help the ones in real peril. Not because they could give up the game to Saruman, but because they were weak and he has a code of chivalry.

Likewise, Legolas and Gimli would not have abandoned Aragorn in the preposterous over-the-cliff-to-dream-of-my-girlfriend scene. That's not Tolkien's idea of friendship.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
It was always Aragorn's intention to go with Frodo. He told Frodo it is time to decide. Frodo wanted a little more time alone to think about it . . . I agree with the MM that if Aragorn had encountered Frodo in the context shown in the movie, he would have insisted on going along to Mount Doom. He would NOT have sent a lone hobbit into Mordor. That's not Aragorn. Everything about Aragorn is about protecting the weak and taking his lead from Gandalf.
If you are correct, then Book Aragorn would have tracked down Frodo and Sam after the burial of Boromir. It would have taken little time for this seasoned ranger to find them. So the issue of whether they were spotted across the river or long gone is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to criticise Film Aragorn's decision, you have to criticise Tolkien own approach as well.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hmmm, I can see Aragorn letting Frodo go alone....It was the smart (wise, "kingly" ;) ) thing to do. Especially if "inspired intuition" is involved. The other Fellowship members diverting "the Eye" is a good plan! I like the way the movie gave Aragorn the chance to refuse the temptation to use the ring....rising above Isilder and Boromir. I always wonder (in the context of the film) does Aragorn deflect desire for the ring because of "intelligence" (what the ring is, and what it does to people) or does respect and fondness for Frodo come into the "wise, kingly decision.
It seems "wise" and "kingly" only in retrospect. Frodo was almost helpless in the wild. Even his months of "experience" on the trail had not turned him into a battle hardened veteran. As it was, the two hobbits almost perished in the Emyn Muil and probably would have had not they managed to snare Gollum who led them through the obstacle.

And remember, it is well to note that Aragorn was more than aware the Gollum continued to follow the Fellowship. Letting Frodo and Sam go alone into the Wild also meant leaving them to the tender mercies of a being who had done murder (Aragorn already had experience himself with Gollum, so he knew the murderous nature of the creature) and lusted for the Ring. Even had they been able to avoid or resist Gollum, the creature could easily have brought orcs down upon the Bearer as a means of stopping him.

No, I'm afraid on the whole Aragorn's decision to permit the Ring Bearer to go alone without guidance to Mordor was not a "wise" one, even in the book. That it worked to the good, of course, proved that it was the correct decision, but that is only through the virtue of 20/20 hindsight!

[Elfhelm]

Ye ol' read only half the post syndrome.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
No, I'm afraid on the whole Aragorn's decision to permit the Ring Bearer to go alone without guidance to Mordor was not a "wise" one, even in the book. That it worked to the good, of course, proved that it was the correct decision, but that is only through the virtue of 20/20 hindsight!We agree on this point. But I would add that Tolkien -- and Jackson -- came to the same realization. Which brings up another theme of the books and the films: religion: the sense that there is a greater power or fate that controls our destiny. An example was Gandalf's line to Frodo, "there are other forces in this world besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. Therefore, you also were MEANT to have it--and that is an encouraging thought." While others may question Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen, both Tolkien and Jackson imply that the fates have a way of intervening, thus "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" and "even the wisest cannot see all ends."

[Elfhelm]

I'm only repeating myself because it was ignored. Sorry.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Aragorn's decision of which pair of hobbits to follow, when forced to choose, was to help the ones in real peril. Not because they could give up the game to Saruman, but because they were weak and he has a code of chivalry.

"Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions."

For Aragorn the "church" is Gandalf.

"Thou shalt defend the Church."

Again, this would be Gandalf, with whom he collaborated in the defense of the North all the years leading up to the War of the Rings.

"Thou shalt repect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them."

See the Rangers thread over in Books. But especially, this is why he would not have sent a hobbit alone into the hands of The Enemy.

"Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born."

And isn't that exactly why he is so perplexed about whether he can serve it properly as King, and why we all want him to return?

"Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy."

of course not

"Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy."

The Infidel in this case is Orcs.

"Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God."

Here is Aragorn's flaw and one driving force behind the whole story.

"Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word."

That's Aragorn! And Faramir, too!

"Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone."

Which we'll see in scenes to come, hopefully.

"Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil."

of course

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It seems "wise" and "kingly" only in retrospect. Frodo was almost helpless in the wild. Even his months of "experience" on the trail had not turned him into a battle hardened veteran. As it was, the two hobbits almost perished in the Emyn Muil and probably would have had not they managed to snare Gollum who led them through the obstacle.

And remember, it is well to note that Aragorn was more than aware the Gollum continued to follow the Fellowship. Letting Frodo and Sam go alone into the Wild also meant leaving them to the tender mercies of a being who had done murder (Aragorn already had experience himself with Gollum, so he knew the murderous nature of the creature) and lusted for the Ring. Even had they been able to avoid or resist Gollum, the creature could easily have brought orcs down upon the Bearer as a means of stopping him.

No, I'm afraid on the whole Aragorn's decision to permit the Ring Bearer to go alone without guidance to Mordor was not a "wise" one, even in the book. That it worked to the good, of course, proved that it was the correct decision, but that is only through the virtue of 20/20 hindsight!

Thanks for the reply, but I still see it differently. :)

[Elfhelm]

Aragorn did not permit Frodo to go alone. He acted on his principles until they brought him to an impass, then made a difficult decision.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Aragorn did not permit Frodo to go alone. He acted on his principles until they brought him to an impass, then made a difficult decision.
If you are speaking about the situation as it is presented in the book, you are quite correct. However, if you are speaking of the film, it is quite apparent that Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo's leaving alone when he tells him that he "would have" gone with him to Mordor - to the end - to protect him. That's when Frodo asks if he could protect him "against yourself", an obvious reference to Jackson's fallacious plot ploy about Aragorn's neurotic concern with his "weak blood"....such nonsense!

Anyway, whatever one thinks about Aragorn's choice in the book, the sequence of events is quite different from that which occurs in the film. Of course, in the film, Jackson's Aragorn remains true to the form into which the Director has cast him: he wimps out again!:rolleyes:

[Elfhelm]

Exactly! And you know why? Because a man who makes millions catering to the bloodthirst of the public has no concept of chivalry.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
If you are speaking about the situation as it is presented in the book, you are quite correct. However, if you are speaking of the film, it is quite apparent that Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo's leaving alone when he tells him that he "would have" gone with him to Mordor - to the end - to protect him. That's when Frodo asks if he could protect him "against yourself", an obvious reference to Jackson's fallacious plot ploy about Aragorn's neurotic concern with his "weak blood"....such nonsense!The only difference is that Jackson gave the audience a scene between Frodo and Aragorn as a way to bring closure to their partnership. But to use Mrs. Maggot's terminology, Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" too. You can sit and argue all day about the how Boromir's death, the orc attack, and Merry & Pippin's capture changed everything. The reality is that the quest was always THE number one concern of all. So if Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo by choosing to follow Merry & Pippin, what's the REAL difference between the two versions?

You can give me excuses like "oh, it was Aragorn's chivalry," "But Merry & Pippin would have spilled the beans," "The danger to Merry & Pippin was more immediate," and on and on, but if all agree that everything pales in comparison to the quest of the Ringbearer, then there is NO difference.

[Elfhelm]

You always think the end justifies the means, and that's the whole difference.

[Wayfarer]

The real difference is that the film involves completely different characters, behaving in a completely different way, under markedly different circumstances.