logo Sign In

The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
I have created this topic to continue the topic which was brought up in the "Star Wars HD coming in November! All SIX movies!" thread. This is a place to discuss how the LOTR films compare to the books whether it be for good or for worse. Hope this debate can continue because it is an interesting one.


Author
Time
Post link
Tolkien was great in terms of the myth he produced, but his writing in and of itself is not that good. Jackson did a wonderful job of translating the story for the screen, making it more accessible to people who don't translate elvish for a living, and eliminated a lot of superfluous garbage, like Tom Bombadil. Also, the books had a tendency to drag, with the characters stopping to feast and sing songs every 25 pages or so on the way to try to stop the destruction of the world...it's like, let's get our priorities straight. Don't get me wrong, I do LOVE the books, but for me the movies are wonderful.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Hoo boy. This is going to be innnteresssting.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Tom Bombadil is superfluous garbage? Well I never....

The books are probably the greatest literary masterpiece of the 20th century; in fact, they are. They are beyond excellent, a level unabtainable by most authors. Some think it drags, with all the stopping for resting and songs, but that's what's so great about them. They have a sort of laid back feel, which for some reason makes me feel right at home when reading them.

The movie are the best films of the 21st century, without a doubt, and one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of all time. They omitt things, and change details, but they embody the very essence of Tolkien and what he wrote. Watching the bonus features on the DVD, you can tell every last person involved with the film had a passion for it, and that really comes across on screen. I really have no complaints about the films, because for once, they didn't dumb it down for american audiences, like with 99.9 percent of Hollywood adaptations. The ending of FOTR is so strong, so moving, that I was almost crying at the end of it, and is possibly my favorite film of all time. I remember when it first came out, and I saw it with my Dad on opening night, how magical it was.

So for me, the films and the books are about equal. They are different mediums, and let's face it. A straight adaptation would have been boring. They made all the right moves with the films, and now we have two great ways to experiance Lord of the Rings.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
I apologize. Garbage was a strong word. However, the chapter on Tom Bombadil does nothing to advance the plot, and the "purists" were practically suicidal that it wasn't included in the movie.

One of the other things that really torqued people off from the movies was when Frodo told Sam to "...go home" after Gollum convinced him that Sam was against them. I had people sittiing next to me saying, in loud whispers: "HE WOULD NEVER SAY THAT! HE WOULD NEVER SAY THAT!!" I was like Man, wave to me on the way down after you jump.

I can't and won't argue the commercial success of the LOTR books, however IMO commercial success is not necessarily the only gauge of literary merit (how well do Shakespeare's collected works sell these days?). To each his own but one of the most noticeable problems with the stories is the meandering plot that goes on and on and on. If you really want to torture yourself read The Silmarillion.

Tolkien's strength comes from his understanding of language and the way he used it to create back story and histories for the peoples of Middle-Earth. I found myself liking the histories in the appendices more than certain aspects of the main story.

Again, don't get me wrong, I did LOVE the books, but I'm not willing to pronounce them untouchable in terms of criticism because *gasp* they're written by Tolkien. I think that the changes Jackson made for the movies made sense in terms of editing and modern audiences.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage

To each his own but one of the most noticeable problems with the stories is the meandering plot that goes on and on and on. If you really want to torture yourself read The Silmarillion.


Nonsense, the plot hardly meandered. It was just extremely detailed. At worst the intricate planning on the part of Tolkien occasionally reached the point where it became emotionally dry, but that doesn't take away realism. Tolkien covered much more than just language. He covered terrain, weather, warfare, time and a whole host of other details meticulously. So sue him if he decided to write about every last bit. I like it myself. The logical cohesion of the world is what draws me to the books.

Otherwise, if I'm looking for a good, traditional story that moves me emotionally, that would be the Hobbit. That has been my favorite story of all time since I was in fourth grade. Absolutely wonderful story.


Off the top of my head, here are my least favorite aspects of the PJ movies (in a general order of magnitude:

Mythology Changes that didn't live up to the spirit of what Tolkien envisioned (like Elves at Helms Deep).
Elijah Wood being gay.
Elijah Wood squirming and yelping with his face filling the screen.
Too many close-up shots of the One Ring.
Horrible dialogue changes in many scenes.
The lack of Bombadil awesomeness.


And, off the top of my head, here are my favorite aspects of the PJ films (again, in a general order of magnitude):

The faithful and awesome visualizations (the Balrog made me have multiple orgasms in the space of a few minutes).
The music.
The attention to languages.
Sean Astin!
Ian McKellen.
Billy Boyd.
Ian Holm.
Sean Bean.
John Rys Davies.
Andy Serkis.
Cate Blanchett.
Dominic Monaghan.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
And, off the top of my head, here are my favorite aspects of the PJ films (again, in a general order of magnitude):

There are things that you like about Jackson's versions?

The lack of Bombadil awesomeness.

Him I can live without, and in any case it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he'd have to go for time. He scares me more than anything in Mordor .

Elijah Wood being gay.

Wood is gay?

Elijah Wood squirming and yelping with his face filling the screen.


Having your soul destroyed will do that.

Mythology Changes that didn't live up to the spirit of what Tolkien envisioned (like Elves at Helms Deep).


I will debate that with you, but I think along the same lines in terms of the Elves at Helm's Deep. I suppose how radical it is depends on what one thinks of the scene. I do think that it goes along with Tolkien's theme of the races uniting against evil, I'm just unsure why Jacksone wanted to do it.

the chapter on Tom Bombadil does nothing to advance the plot


Um, he saves their lives.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mike O

the chapter on Tom Bombadil does nothing to advance the plot


Um, he saves their lives.


True, but it could have been done without yet another stop on the way to save the world, at which point they stay with him and contemplate the beauty of their surroundings, etc etc etc.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
ok it's a little absurd to be talking on what is better... the books or the films... come on let's face it...

the films, as well made and as great as they are, are the shadow, the copy, the hollow part, whatever you want, compared to the books.
I'm not dissing the films in any way! It's the way I see the characters (for the most part) when I read the books now. (But that's probably because I saw the movie in 2001 before I read the books) The films are awesome... but I believe that because of that awesomeness is because of the books...
But the true form, the most epic of the two, is the original source. It's vast, it's big, no matter what you think, it's more epic than the films.

Sure the director and writers obviously had to slim the vast amounts of rich information the books contain to make the films, well, films. I understand the changes made for smooth-story and dramatic film-rule purposes, but many things could have been left intact and excecuted in a way that probably DOES break book-to-film rules but could be pulled off very dramatically and probably better.

For example, it would have been more of a risk, and if done properly, alot better, to have had the Shelob sequence (I really didn't like the lighting on that scene... blargh) be the actual climax of The Two Towers, and have the siege of the Deep be a middle-part of the story. Sure, that would be a hard nut to crack, but I feel that it would be able to have been pulled off, and to a much more accurate and greater effect dramatically. Leaving the 'tension/suspence' thing for ROTK's Siege of Gondor. I understand it would be a big risk and that they were trying to get Two Towers to be as 'whole' of a movie as possible.

If there were a 'Shelob Climax' then obviously the scene would be a bit different to the existing one in ROTK... including all the rest of the hobbit's journey from Faramir. Speaking of Faramir, his role would have to be squished back into his normal 'book form'... so there won't be an osgiliath scene, and Faramir would act as he does in the books.

also I think inserting the Elves into Helm's Deep is an unessecary addition. I understand as well that the filmmakers felt that we needed to be reminded of the elves and of their presence in the movies so they won't be forgotten for a long time, but we saw quite a few elves in 'The Two Towers' film already. Recall the Arwen subplot... Arwen's an elf, and Elrond's an elf, so is galadriel.... enough elves to be reminded of... Also, if using the 'Shelob scene climax' method, it would give more of a hopeless mood for the defenders of Helm's Deep with no elves coming to help out (Hey! That means Haldir stays alive!). Also, in the ROTK book, we do get help from, I think it was elves, and the swann knights of Dol Amroth before the siege takes place... instead of having elves in Helm's Deep.

Ok these were a few examples of what they could have left and re-structured and it would have also worked as well. Ok back to the topic....

I think the movies are good movie-versions of LOTR (could have left some things in), but the real version always beats the films, games, fanfics, etc, etc... that is the books!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Lord_Phillock/starwarssig.png

Author
Time
Post link
Some people may not like the books, and that is just fine. But to say they are not well written? That is a bunch of crap. You can't just say something is not well written because you don't like it or it isn't your cup of tea. I am not the biggest fan a Shakespeare, which is weird because I am big time into classic lit, but for some reason William does very little for me. But if I were to go about saying Macbeth is poorly written, who am I kidding. Just because you don't like Hemingway, doesn't mean Hemingway couldn't write. I am not a Tolkien worshipper who thinks the man could do no wrong, I guess for some reason LOTR fans get stereotypes this way. Oh yeah, that and that they can all read Elvish because they are super geeks who have nothing better to do. Which is unfortunate because there are some pretty big Shakespeare fanatics out there and for the most part they don't get picked on. When Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, he set out to write an epic, like Beowulf or the Iliad. Quite honestly, I am thrilled with his results. You say it is long and meandering? It is long, but it is very poetic. If you are into that kind of stuff you can get thrills reading it. I for one love the poetic tone of Tolkien. I find it fantastic. I can just pick of the book and open it to just about anywhere and start reading it out loud and the troubles of the day melt away for a bit. I find it quite relaxing. As I mentioned before, I am a big literature nerd, I get kicks out of things like this. One of the biggest problem with the book the Lord of the Rings today, is that nobody really reads anymore. They read Danielle Steel and John Gresham. Nothing against either writer, but their books are just fluff, movies in the form of books. The most literary most people get these days is Stephen King and to my standards he is still just fluff. By today's writing standards there are certain rules if you want to be published. One of these is keeping the plot straight forward and as simple as possible. Anything that is not needed to progress the story needs to tossed out. I find this very unfortunate, because in the past books have managed to be very deep, more than just a story. By today's standard Victor Hugo's work would have never seen the light of day, fortunately for us, in his day they paid you by the page. As a result, we have these beautiful thick works of Hugo's that seemingly go on forever, but if you can get into it, you just might love every word. Let's look at Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. I hope some of you hear have read it, I think it is still required high-school reading, if not are schools are worse off these days than I thought. The Old Man in the Sea is a very short book, and it is an even more simple story. If we go with the logic of cut out what is not needed, we have an old has been of a fisherman going out to fish, being drug for three days by a marlin, finally catching it strapping it to the side of his ship, being attacked by sharks who eat his catch, finally making it home a beaten and broken man, while his fellow fishermen see the skeleton of the fish he caught they are in awe and no longer consider him a has been. You could write the story out much, much shorter than it already is, many parts of the book may be considered by some to meander, but there is so much more that happens in the Old Man and the Sea than just all that. I think today's standards of writing are flawed, and are the result of us having very little other than the typical McNovel as some have come to call them (McDonald's = fast food, quick, simple. + Novel. ) They are all just books that add on mental calories with no real intellectual gain, which are the books you find at the top of the bestsellers list, not because they are complex and thought provoking, but because they are simple and quick easy reads.

I certainly enjoyed the movies when they came out, I own them all on DVD even. I felt some of the changes were a little off and didn't make sense. I felt the exclusion of the Tom Bombadil section was understandable. Though it was a clever section of the book, it was a long subplot and for an abridged film version it made sense to remove it and have the Hobbits obtain their swords from Strider instead. Other changes bothered me much more.

The biggest thing I have against the movies is that they brought the story of the Lord of the Rings to a much larger crowed. Now everybody thinks they know the story of LOTR, yet they would probably believe the Lord of the Rings of the title is referring to Frodo. Lord of the Rings used to be this great secret. This wonderful work of literature and we all knew the story. If you found another Lord of the Rings fan it was great. Now you find a Lord of the Rings fan, and there is a good chance they have never read the books, and might even go as far to say the books suck and that it is great it was made into a movie. Another thing about the movie is that now, anytime I recommend the book to a friend and they actually read it, they already know what happens, and in their mind Elijah Wood is Frodo.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
As a LOTR convert, I think it was wise to leave out the Tom Bombadil scene, because it was the part of the book that made me stop reading. You see, I started reading shortly before the FOTR movie was about to come out because I wanted to know what I was in for. I thought it was great, but then around the part of the meeting in Tom Bombadil's house, it just dragged so slowly that I just put the book down. Then I saw the movie and realized how foolish I was, because right after that was when the story really started to pick up. So once I got home, I ripped the book open again and devoured it in a matter of days.

Quick question of the story: Was Goldberry supposed to be a She-Ent? She seemed to fit Treebeard's description...

And C3PX has a good point about Elijah Wood. Frodo was supposed to be in his fifties when he began his journey, and they get a 19 year old to play him. Feh.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Tolkien is well written, he's just all over the place. "The world's about to end, I'll be back in 17 years", "We need to leave now" *feast* *poem* *poem* *song* Death and destruction *poem* *lyric*

I've no problem with backstory and history, so long as it's pertinent to character in the context of the story. For example, if Joe is the best forensic expert in the state, it doesn't help to say something like "...and it was because his mother made him eat Tuna on white when he was a kid". It just doesn't matter. So there ARE rules to be adhered to in literature, whether we want to obey them or not. If a writer wanders too much he/she leaves themselves open to some criticism regardless of who they are.

Tolkien drew a lot of inspiration from The Kalevala and many epics: true. Do they necessarily make for good reading just because they're "epic"? No.

The problem with literary criticism is that it is very subjective. There's no hard and fast set of rules that say this must happen, but there is I think concensus on certain fundamentals, ie: Introduction - Rising Action - Complication - Resolution - Denoument. It's fair to say that Tolkien followed this, it's just that the stuff in-between is what bothers me personally (on occasion).
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Tolkien is well written, he's just all over the place. "The world's about to end, I'll be back in 17 years", "We need to leave now" *feast* *poem* *poem* *song* Death and destruction *poem* *lyric*

I've no problem with backstory and history, so long as it's pertinent to character in the context of the story. For example, if Joe is the best forensic expert in the state, it doesn't help to say something like "...and it was because his mother made him eat Tuna on white when he was a kid". It just doesn't matter. So there ARE rules to be adhered to in literature, whether we want to obey them or not. If a writer wanders too much he/she leaves themselves open to some criticism regardless of who they are.

Tolkien drew a lot of inspiration from The Kalevala and many epics: true. Do they necessarily make for good reading just because they're "epic"? No.

The problem with literary criticism is that it is very subjective. There's no hard and fast set of rules that say this must happen, but there is I think concensus on certain fundamentals, ie: Introduction - Rising Action - Complication - Resolution - Denoument. It's fair to say that Tolkien followed this, it's just that the stuff in-between is what bothers me personally (on occasion).


The thing about Tolkien's writing method is that he was trying to convey the same storytelling devices used in old Northern European poems and stories which a lot of were lost though years of invasions.

If you've ever read Beowulf, you definitely see the similarities between how the two stories are written. In these old poems and tales, we were given tons of detail about their lives and songs that they sang and how wonderful - or awful - these characters were.

Of course, MODERN story telling is much more condensed and straight to the point. Writing teachers will always tell you to strip out all the superfluous material. Tolkien didn't want to write a modern story. He wanted to create an epic story based on the writings of old. While this obviously alienates a great deal of people, Jedisage, there are a lot of others who understand what Tolkien was doing.

The movies condense this into a more modern storytelling device, although even this starts to crack through the seams when ROTK ends. If you thought the movie had too many endings...just feel lucky they didn't include the whole scene where Sarumon and other men had taken over the Shire, and Merry and Pippen lead the Hobbits to fight them away, which then leads to Sarumon's death (He didn't die at the tower!).

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
Mavi - that is a perfect description of what I'm trying (albeit badly) to convey.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I will grant the excise of Tom Bombadil, but to change the ending of ANY story is a disgrace - - much less the ending of one of the world's literary masterpieces ... especially unthinkable if you have the urge to adapt it into a 10-hour film.

The Scouring of the Shire was not merely a rousing bit of action, it was the demonstration of the main characters' arcs ... their growth from simple, rural hobbits to world-wise, inner-strength-filled, uber-hobbits!

Considering that most audiences felt the movie's ending went on and on and on (the 12 endings of Return of the King is legend in parody) ... there was certainly room for this VITAL story point in the films.

I am all for not simply filming the book. Changes are good. But the basics of a famous story must not be changed. That is folly.

Many of Jackson's amendments to the way the tale unfolded were brilliant, and wise filmmaking, and excellent story adaptation. But there were some major klunkers. Removing the Scouring of the Shire is way up there among them. And, in my opinion, telling the post-Fellowship tale in cross-cutting, rather than in Tolkien's chronology-shifting, was a gross error. A story is not simply the contents of the plot points, but the manner in which the tale unfolds. Going for the lazy, audience-dumb-down, cross-cutting - - and sacrificing one of the story's most important suspense points in the process - - was a horrible mistake.

There were tons of small blehs, and tons of brilliant invention. I am shocked the films were shot simultaneously, though, because the adaptation was magnificient for The Fellowship of the Ring, kinda lame for The Two Towers, and atrocious for The Return of the King. It seems as if the films were shot sequentially, with the creative team losing steam as things went along.

In any case, as I posted in the other thread, Jackson admits he had no passion for 9-out-of-10 story points in The Return of the King, and it shows. Great as the movie trilogy was, that should have been his red flag to leave this project alone. Ultimately, I consider it a failure. One great movie out of three is simply not sufficient.


.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen


The Scouring of the Shire was not merely a rousing bit of action, it was the demonstration of the main characters' arcs ... their growth from simple, rural hobbits to world-wise, inner-strength-filled, uber-hobbits!

Isn't that what the entire rest of the trilogy was about, though? They didn't become uber-Hobbits only because of the Scouring. Sam's growth was well chronicled when dealing with Shelob and his subsequent battle with the Orcs at Cirith Ungul (sp?), and we know what Frodo and the others did, though I thought Jackson went a little too far by having them lead the charge at the Battle of the Black Gate (second only to Aragorn), though I admit I don't remember how that was in the book. I think there were two scenes at the end that perfectly illustrated the changes they'd undergone: When they all rode into the Shire on horseback, and when they were at the Green Dragon, sitting by themselves, nobody speaking, but each knowing how things had changed. Those scenes said it all

Considering that most audiences felt the movie's ending went on and on and on (the 12 endings of Return of the King is legend in parody) ... there was certainly room for this VITAL story point in the films.


While I still debate the vitality of the showing the Scouring, I don't feel the ending was superfluous at all considering that the Grey Havens and Sam's return to Bag End are chronicled in the book. Personally, I WISH they'd fleshed out the ending and the reunion at Minas Tirith more than they did.

I am all for not simply filming the book. Changes are good. But the basics of a famous story must not be changed. That is folly.


I agree that the fundamentals of the story must be left intact. The scouring could be lopped off and Frodo would still quest to destroy the ring, the ring would still be destroyed, but you could say the same for many film adaptations. Unnecessary stuff abounds.

In any case, as I posted in the other thread, Jackson admits he had no passion for 9-out-of-10 story points in The Return of the King, and it shows. Great as the movie trilogy was, that should have been his red flag to leave this project alone. Ultimately, I consider it a failure. One great movie out of three is simply not sufficient.


Again this is all very subjective. I love the adaption, and think ROTK was the best movie of the 3, followed by FOTR then TTT. An audio-visual medium can't be judged solely on the basis of how faithful it was to the inspirational text. The production values, character development, music, acting, sets, and effects were the best I've ever seen. It suffered in no way from excluding the Scouring. The people who take issue with it are (mostly) very close to the books. If you ask Joe Sixpack about it he'd say "Huh?", and then go on to talk about what a great experience it was. I was there for the all-day screening of the first two movies (extended editions) followed by the midnight showing of ROTK and loved every minute of it.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Far from faithfulness, I find Fellowship to be the best adaptation precisely for its changes .. hence "adaptation." Filming the book is not adaptation at all, and I would not find that appealing (see, e.g., the first two Harry Potter films vs. the third).

I'm aware the Grey Havens and such were in the book, and thus had a "rightful" place in the movie. But we are talking about adaptation here, and when most audiences feel the film had 12 endings and went on endlessly, then adaptation skills are duly called into question. There had to be a better "filmic" way of expressing all the stuff that went on after the Ring is destroyed. Very tough stuff to adapt, but the truth is ... the story did not end with the destruction of the Ring, but was merely 5/6's finished. That presents a valid adaptation problem, because the equivalent of the Death Star destruction is not nearly the of the story ... though it was the story's Maguffin.


Similarly, the chronology-shifting of the second two "books" make for much more difficult adaptation than the first. And I think Jackson plainly failed. His decision to present events in chron order, through cross-cutting, was a lazy and standardized choice that neglected the tale's true effect of chronology-shifting. It was not simply Tolkien's device of convenience ... it was the way in which the story must be told if you are telling the story of The Lord of the Rings. Much in the way that a remake of Memento told in forward order would not be telling the same story at all, erasing the chron-shifting of LotR negates many of Tolkien's most important story points.




Oh, and while I'm at it ... changing Faramir's character to a charlatan was up there in the big, big goofs.
Author
Time
Post link
There has never been a movie adaptation of a book that didn't receive irate criticism from fans of the book. But movies and books are different and have to satisfy different criteria. In most cases, remaining strictly faithful to a book would result in a worse movie. Poor adaptations are those which change stuff arbitrarily, just because the screenwriter or director or executive or star didn't like it the way it was - but even these can make good films, sometimes better than a faithful adaptation would have been. Good adaptations are those which try to remain faithful to the spirit of the book, while making changes that make the material work as a movie. The LOTR movies fall into the latter category, IMHO. There are some things I don't like about them, like most people. But they are about as good an adaptation as you could realistically hope to see.
Author
Time
Post link
I think the decision to cross-cut instead of chron-shift was very arbitrary. Made not for artistic sake, but rather (I suspect) to cater to the audience's perceived lack of concentration skills and lack of comprehension abilities. This is a lazy filmmaker's tactic used almost solely to prevent one story line from being on screen "too long" - cutting furiously between two or three threads so that your audience supposedly doesn't tire of any of them.

The Empire Strikes Back used this tactic, and I hated it. It set up such a stupid rythym in the middle third (imo) ... Dagogah to Vader to Falcon to Vader to Dagobah to Falcon to Vader. Bleh.


In contrast, cross-cutting a single segment in a movie that doesn't abuse the process can be brilliant. Case in Point - Star Wars, which used it to good effect cutting between Princess danger on the Death Star -and- Luke racing home to find Beru and Owen slaughtered. Raiders of the Lost Ark also used it wisely in the cross-cutting between Karen Allen's seductress-escape plans -and- Indy & Sallah finding the Arc. Minimal use to good effect, not entire swarths of movie constantly cross-cutting between story threads for hours (in the case of LotR).



William Friedkin made a remark about cutting so much out of his film version of The Exorcist, to the effect that he removed most of the lead-up about whether Regan had a mental disorder because audiences already knew she really was demonically possessed. Gak, that may be true ... but it's not telling the story. Everyone knew the Death Star would be destroyed, knew the Ring would be destroyed ... but you tell the stories anyway.

And so, when cross-cutting instead of chron-shifing eliminates the story element where most of the characters think Frodo has been captured and killed, and the audience is left in the dark about that to great suspense ... then cross-cutting is more than just lazy filmmaking - - it's story blundering.


I cannot know for certain, but it seems to me that Jackson's decision to cross-cut in chron order was to aid pacing, audience comprehension for dummies, and attention-deficit-disorder pandering ... but NOT for artistic merit. The red herring that Frodo has been killed is one of Tolkien's most important and dramatic story points ... I doubt very much it was cast away for artistic purposes.


.
Author
Time
Post link
My opinions on the subject are pretty much the same as JediSage's... The movies took everything awesome about the books (of which there was much) and cut out all the meandering.

I understand Tolkien was trying to write a myth, but I really don't need to know about the Hobbits taking a bath before crossing the Brandywine river and whatnot. And I understand it's okay to go into more detail in a book, and I'm not saying the books are bad, or that Tolkien got it 'wrong'... just that it is more dramatic to condense and show the most important details.

The elves at Helm's Deep, I think, were basically a way of evening the odds. The idea that 300 men, half of whom were too old or young to effectively weild a sword, could hold off ten thousand orcs strains suspension of disbelief. I'd rather Jackson make book purists irate than lose the audience on something more farfetched than inspiring. Helm's Deep is not Thermopolae, and the people of Rohan are not Spartans.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mike O

There are things that you like about Jackson's versions?

Of course! I thought they were great movies! I even loved many of the changes when they perfectly upheld the spirit of the books (which was often rare unfortunately).

THX stated that the movies captured the spirit of the books well, but I don’t believe that’s true. There were far too many additions that had absolutely nothing to do with the books to ever say that. Concepts that didn’t even exist in the slightest way until Jackson stuck them in. I can’t forgive that. He took up valuable time that could have been used for better content that was actually in the books.


Originally posted by: Mike O

The lack of Bombadil awesomeness.

Him I can live without, and in any case it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he'd have to go for time. He scares me more than anything in Mordor .

My mentioning of Bombadil was mostly a joke. I loved the section about him in the book. It was so surreal and hallucinational. But, I never believed that anyone, including myself, could ever fit that part of the story into a two hour movie that would already be trying to cram everything from the two largest of the six books in.


Originally posted by: Mike O

Elijah Wood being gay.

Wood is gay?


Wow, I’m having a Beavis & Butthead moment here.


Originally posted by: Mike O

Mythology Changes that didn't live up to the spirit of what Tolkien envisioned (like Elves at Helms Deep).


I will debate that with you, but I think along the same lines in terms of the Elves at Helm's Deep. I suppose how radical it is depends on what one thinks of the scene. I do think that it goes along with Tolkien's theme of the races uniting against evil, I'm just unsure why Jacksone wanted to do it.


He wanted to do it because he likes mindless action and because he had the elf actors on hand and wanted to give them more screen time.


Originally posted by: Nanner Split

Quick question of the story: Was Goldberry supposed to be a She-Ent? She seemed to fit Treebeard's description...


No, she was most likely a Maiar. The same type of being as Sauron, Gandalf, Bombadil, Shelob, and the balrogs. You can sort of think about Maiar as spiritually powerful beings in Tolkien’s universe. Demigods or angels.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

The elves at Helm's Deep, I think, were basically a way of evening the odds. The idea that 300 men, half of whom were too old or young to effectively weild a sword, could hold off ten thousand orcs strains suspension of disbelief. I'd rather Jackson make book purists irate than lose the audience on something more farfetched than inspiring. Helm's Deep is not Thermopolae, and the people of Rohan are not Spartans.


Good Lord. Where on earth does that stupid idea keep coming from?

Tolkien is not that stupid. According to the books, the men of Rohan went out to war with “more than a thousand” men (young and old) on horses. They meant to battle Isengard in the open and on horseback. It wasn’t until news arrived of a massive force that Gandalf told them to ride to Helm’s Deep. Then, later, scouts arrived that gave an accurate estimate of the enemy as being “many times as great” as what they left with. That would make the enemy army’s size between 6-9 thousand I would guess. Meanwhile, the people of the Westfold Vale (the valley below Helm’s Deep) had been preparing Helm’s Deep to withstand a Siege and enough fighting men were left behind to add another thousand to the defense (some who had seen “too many winters” or “too few”). Also, the Hornburg and its defending wall were somewhat larger in the book. So, total, that was well over 2,000 men defending at Helm’s Deep, according to the book.

If you want to tactically criticize something, do so with that scene that Jackson invented to depict the Orc’s attacking Osgiliath. Those noisy orc paddles were seriously able to successfully sneak past any of Faramir’s veteran rangers?! That was a totally unrealistic surprise attack (Jackson has a simple mind). Oh, and hiding behind a pillar is strategy? Uhg.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
[interweb mode]

Book-accurate movies of LOTR would have been: a) far less successful; b) worse. Criticizing a film adaptation because it's different from the book is senseless.

[/interweb mode]
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
My opinions on the subject are pretty much the same as JediSage's... The movies took everything awesome about the books (of which there was much) and cut out all the meandering.

I understand Tolkien was trying to write a myth, but I really don't need to know about the Hobbits taking a bath before crossing the Brandywine river and whatnot. And I understand it's okay to go into more detail in a book, and I'm not saying the books are bad, or that Tolkien got it 'wrong'... just that it is more dramatic to condense and show the most important details.

The elves at Helm's Deep, I think, were basically a way of evening the odds. The idea that 300 men, half of whom were too old or young to effectively weild a sword, could hold off ten thousand orcs strains suspension of disbelief. I'd rather Jackson make book purists irate than lose the audience on something more farfetched than inspiring. Helm's Deep is not Thermopolae, and the people of Rohan are not Spartans.


I think you're right about that. As much as I love the books, Jackson made all the neccesary cuts. The meandering works for the books, it adds a level of magic to them, but it wouldn't work in a film. Jackson did an almost perfect job in my opinion with the cutting. There are some things I think should have been in, such as the scouring of the shire. The hobbits set out to save the shire, and the story comes full circle at that point. Also, Tokien loved that part a lot, and it meant so much to him. I think it was excellent putting the Aragorn Arwen romance in, because that also meant a lot to Tokien and he couldn't fit it in the normal text.

But I was annoyed at all the people complaining thier asses off about Tom Bombadil. Get a freaking life already.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Many of Jackson's amendments to the way the tale unfolded were brilliant, and wise filmmaking, and excellent story adaptation. But there were some major klunkers.

Agreed. Separating them can be difficult, though.

His decision to present events in chron order, through cross-cutting, was a lazy and standardized choice that neglected the tale's true effect of chronology-shifting. It was not simply Tolkien's device of convenience ... it was the way in which the story must be told if you are telling the story of The Lord of the Rings. Much in the way that a remake of Memento told in forward order would not be telling the same story at all, erasing the chron-shifting of LotR negates many of Tolkien's most important story points.


Yes, but the pacing of a film is compleyely different from a book. I disagree with the way that many scenes were handled, but I think that the overall idea was simply find a way to pace things.

Oh, and while I'm at it ... changing Faramir's character to a charlatan was up there in the big, big goofs.


Mmm, yessss....but.....I also think that in doing so, it made Faramir's arc more dramatic because he overcame so many obstacles, his father and the Ring, most notably.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
He wanted to do it because he likes mindless action and because he had the elf actors on hand and wanted to give them more screen time.

I don't ever remember be so exhilarated by an action sequence. And I really, really doubt that that was the reason. I really, really, really, really doubt it. Not saying that I agree with the change. I just don't think that was why.

Concepts that didn’t even exist in the slightest way until Jackson stuck them in. I can’t forgive that.

Like?

Criticizing a film adaptation because it's different from the book is senseless.


True, but it is difficult to find that middle ground.

Jackson has a simple mind


Umm, I don't think that that is entirely true.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death