What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Gordis]

That would have been a good idea - to make a TV series. Does anything preclude Tolkien Trust to sell the rights to the TV series to someone other than Jackson and K?

I think BBC could have made an awesome series out of LOTR...

[BeardofPants]

Depends on who they attached to it.

Russell T. Davies.

[Grey_Wolf]

Well - bearing in mind the thoroughness of BBC productions - see The Impressionists, all the different crime series, comedy shows etc, I think we need not feel overly anxious about the Trilogy being treated with anything but respect.

[Grey_Wolf]

My conclusion to all the changes in the story is that PJ desperately wanted to make the trilogy his story - there are after all 10 million people who has read LOTR. This was PJ's vision.

The omitting and changing of the personalities of the characters and LOTR in itself can then be explained as simply this:

This is my project, so dont whine about what I have done - live with it!

[Galin]

Originally Posted by ringbearer

(...) Some changes had to be done because of the medium...(A picture is worth a 1000 words). I have loved LOTR for over 35 years and the movies are enjoyable to me for what they are. Mainly, a way to re-live the story in a little over 9 hours. Some things HAD to be added AND taken out for continuity for the casual fan.

Fair enough in general, but what had to be added and taken out is a matter of debate when one gets down to what Jackson actually did.

Also the films had to sell...I think a perfect adaptation would have fallen on it's face...

Well, that depends upon what you mean by perfect adaptation. A good or even great adaptation can include cuts and changes due to the mediums being different. But that's where the discussion begins, I think.

'There is insufficient rigor in film criticism in distinguishing between changes that actually are necessary because of the differences in the media, changes that are not necessary but are made to fit the director's or screenwriter's preferences (usually dignified as 'expressing a vision'), and changes that are made purely out of guesswork or superstition about what will sell to movie audiences. The screenwriter William Goldman's first Law of filmmaking is 'Nobody knows anything' David Bratman, Tolkien On Film

Earniel wrote: You get to see the scourging in Galadriel's mirror, neatly explaining this will happen in they fail, so if they succeed, Jackson doesn't have to add another 30 minutes of movie.

I'll just add that Jackson might have considered crafting a film that included the Scouring. Not that you claimed so, but there's no real reason, of course, that the Scouring of the Shire must 'fit on the end' of Jackson's movie as it now is, in order to be included, and so his decision to cut it arguably involves his vision for all three films before any filming started.

Grey Wolf posted: My conclusion to all the changes in the story is that PJ desperately wanted to make the trilogy his story - there are after all 10 million people who has read LOTR. This was PJ's vision. The omitting and changing of the personalities of the characters and LOTR in itself can then be explained as simply this: This is my project, so dont whine about what I have done - live with it!

I think people can be expected to object to (what they might see as) the distortion and cheapening of a beloved book. The film's credits say 'Based on the book by JRR Tolkien' and Jackson obviously didn't write the story, so was it his intent to be faithful to his source? and in what measure?

[Coffeehouse]

Tolkien fan Michael Martinez writing in 2001:
"It has been said that Peter Jackson treats the camera as another person in each scene. This is his way of drawing the audience into the story. He uses changing angles, reverse-action whatchamadiggits, and sweeping panoramic shots that scope out the countryside, focusing in on the action as it heats up. If anyone is afraid that the movie departs from Tolkien's book, they may rest assured that it does. If anyone is hoping that the movie brings Middle-earth to life, they may rest assured that it does. Is it Tolkien's Middle-earth? Of course not. It's Peter Jackson's Middle-earth. But it's a beautiful image and one well worth absorbing at least once or twice."

[Galin]

It might be a given that the film is going to be Peter Jackson's Middle-earth, and I respect the right of artists to do their own thing, but I don't think that's reason enough to expect Tolkien fans not to criticize the films in the arena of faithfulness.

'Artistic vision is personal interpretation. Either Jackson and his crew were devotees of the original text and setting, and did their best to keep true to the text and spirit of Tolkien, or they were determined to put their interpretation on the text, to make the movies uniquely theirs. You can't have it both ways. (...)

To defend Jackson by saying his films aren't Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is not an answer to criticism, but a throwing up of the argument in mute agreement (...) As his defenders say, any director will necessarily pursue his own vision. So what is his own vision? The answer turned out to be something incompatible with Tolkien's vision, and the solution would have been a director whose own vision was more compatible with Tolkien's. David Bratman, Tolkien on Film

I know already that not everyone agrees with David's last statement at least, but the statement 'it's Jackson's vision' (or similar) throws open very wide doors to my mind.

[Coffeehouse]

Let's be honest. Some readers of Tolkien's works simply wouldn't like any cinematic adaptation whatsoever. The reason? Because no cinematic adaptation can realistically ever convey the breadth, depth and complexity of Tolkien's literary work. It's then meaningless to set any movie up against such a standard because it will be by default well below par compared to the actual literary work. I can only say to people who insist on comparing them this way: why bother?

So what we get is a discussion about how faithful, given an unpassable obstacle of a direct literary-to-movie translation, the cinematic adaption is to the literary work. The quote presented here claims that either the director and his crew remain loyal to the original text and its spirit or the director and crew insert their own interpretation, giving the literary work a snub.
The claim itself isn't false, but it leaves out an important third way of doing it. What Peter Jackson and his crew have done is try to stay faithful to Tolkien's Middle Earth conception and the central themes that they thought Tolkien had highlighted, but having and needing also if you may to take artistic liberty to actually produce a coherent, cinematically-pleasing motion picture. What they haven't done is make the movie something of an adaption beyond the recognizable. As an avid Tolkien reader it's breathtakingly clear just how much of the storyline they managed to get into something of 9 hours of final footage. And with the musical and visual effects that becomes quite amazing really.

In that respect I think they did a very good job. The Lord of the Rings motion picture conveys the story, the setting, the characters, the central battles and most of the central themes of the literary work. Yes they leave out certain characters, certain events and a shipload of dialogue, but as a cinematic adaption I think it's as close to what you can achieve in a movie with a realistic timespan of 3 hours or less per movie.

Finally, it's quite obvious that Peter Jackson is a genuine Tolkien fan having used so considerable amount of input from Tolkien experts, Tolkien artists and last but not least the whole range of Tolkien fans. Having watched about 3 documentaries about the making of the movies I can tell you there is was no other person on that set that seemed to reminded himself and everyone else more that they were making the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and not some distantly related new tale where artistic liberty was endless.

In the end, insisting that the movie is not faithful enough becomes a matter of taste, but it doesn't bear down on what seems to be a genuinely good-hearted attempt by Jackson nor the fact that the three movies together are the single-most watched motion picture in human history, creating a subsequent avalanche of interest in the books. It is the reason why Tolkien forums across the web have flourished

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I suspect based on what we can tell of the dynamics of the writing team via interviews and extras on the EE discs that PJ simply couldn't say "no" to either of the other two women on the committee even had he wanted to.

[Curufin]

Re: Helm's Deep.

This is probably the change that bothers me the MOST in the whole movie. Helm's Deep was the battle where men start to take the reins from the elves and begin to be able to defend themselves. It's a poignant reminder of the beginning of the ascendency of man and the downfall of the elves that PJ obviously missed.

[ringbearer]

No one who has loved any novel as much as most of us "mooters" do has ever liked a film version as much as the novel. (maybe one exception would be "To Kill a Mockingbird")
In my opinion, the films cannot be compared to the books at all. Some changes had to be done because of the medium...(A picture is worth a 1000 words).
I have loved LOTR for over 35 years and the movies are enjoyable to me for what they are. Mainly, a way to re-live the story in a little over 9 hours.
Some things HAD to be added AND taken out for continuity for the casual fan.
Also the films had to sell...I think a perfect adaptation would have fallen on it's face...
With all that stated, I do wish more time would have been spent on the aftermath, after the ring perished. Especialy Aragorn's healing of Faramir, Eowin amd Merry. AND the celebration in the Field of Cormallen(SP?) Along with the courtship of Eowin and Faramir.
Sam still cries to much in book and films!

[Harkov]

"Copy the book into the film is impossible, keeping to thebook spirit is very hard" is not an argument that will convince me of PJ being successful. That's a fact that when turning a book to a film you can't just copy, you are forced to make changes to adapt to the medium. But if each time someone finds faults to say the film didn't keep loyal to the film, saying it's very hard it's not a valid defense. The only defense is analyzing why the alleged difference was needed, not harmful or not enough to invalidate the film as a good adaptation.

Because if we were to conform to "it's very hard" as the answer, then we would have to accept if instead of what he did, PJ had taken Don Quixote and changed the names to those of LOTR, making Quixote Gandalf, Sancho Panza Frodo and Dulcinea be Arwen (though he could have had the guts of making Dulcinea be Faramir).

For example, I hate the way he dealt with Saruman in the extended version, to the point that I almost prefer the theatrical forgetfulness of it, which I hate, too. But I can accept it as something of an aftermath that, while fun and meaningful, is not essential to the world and the tale Tolkien tells us about.

But when you have a book that as one of the core tells you about the corruption that power brings to the point that even the strongest can fall to it, turning Denethor from a noble great man into a demented power hungry man from the beginning, Boromir a man who is victim to the thirst for power from the start and Faramir one who doesn't have to fight against the corruption of wishing the ring's power, making it so that those who fall were corrupted from the start and that the one who overcomes it not even sweating it, pretty much ruins it. The final fall from Frodo doesn't count; and while Galadriel has that trance, she's not as much about to fall to it as playing with the idea of walking the verge, teasing with going evil, more than being pulled by the ring and finally resisting it it's more like willing and knowingly letting her thirst be expressed openly to then refuse it, more a taunt to the ring that a real test of her heart.

Overall I don't rate PJ's work badly, though. Though as director he's crappy. I almost didn't resist watching ROTR when I saw it in DVD extended. As soon you take him out from a battle he can only make scenes one way, which has three flavours but are the same:

- Two actors facing away from the camera. The farther one speaks and then dramatic word he turns to face the camera.

- Two actors facing the camera. The closer one speaks and then dramatic word he turns to face the other.

- Two actors face each other, one to the camera and one away. Dramatic line, the closer turns to face the camera.

Again and again and again and again and again and again. I'd not be surprised if the actors drained the stocks of biodramine in NZ.

If the Hobbit is made I'm glad PJ won't make it. Also I predict a lot of fans yelling SW prequels syndrome.

[Attalus]

My main problem was depicting Sauron as a disembodied eye when PJ could have done some cool things with him.

[Harkov]

Well, I don't have a problem with that... until he decides to express the way Frodo feels his gaze by using a more than obvious spotlight. Gah, that was a hideous moment. So much money spent and then go and use the cheapest idea there is. Even nothing but Frodo shinking to hide would have worked. But not a spotlight that makes you even picture a guy behind Sauron's eye turning him around to see.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I hadn't noticed that much among all the other problems but I agree, EricD.

[Earniel]

I have to say I don't remember noticing the Gondoreans not making any kill at the siege. But I remember that the charge, from which only a wounded Faramir returns, was just so totally rediculous and without any tactical or military purpose. I have to say it looked nicely dramatic when the cavalry walked through the city and people were throwing flowers before the horses' feet, but it was so pointless and did not at all give a favourable impression of Gondor's military mind.

I suppose one could -perhaps easily- explain this characteristation with the theme Jackson seemed to wish to introduce: that Gondor was just in total shambles with such a loon like movie-Denethor in command, and that they really, deperately needed someone like Aragorn to clean the mess up and lift Gondor back up to a higher level op competence. Personally I prefer the far more balanced view Tolkien envisioned, it's more interesting.

[PorterW]

I am very surprised that no one yet has mentioned the portrayal of Gimli in the films. The character Gimli was utterly butchered by the script writers. Gimli, one of the fairest speaking, intelligent characters in the books was turned into, sorry for being blunt, a complete moron. Sorry PJ, Tolkien would have scorned you for your treatment of Gimli the dwarf.

[Morwen]

The only thing I disliked in the movies was the changing of Faramir's character. He was awesome because he wasn't tempted by the ring - he was ultimately stronger than his brother because of that.

[basti]

He was a bit too much of a comic relief character.. But that's movies.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Wally

Although the LOTR trilogy was pretty good, it was far from perfect and much of it strayed terribly from Tolkien, such as the Elves at Helm's Deep.

IMHO, what really kept the series from being a disaster was the strength of Tolkien's work, a work so powerful that even those two dopey women, Fran and Philippa, couldn't screw it up too badly. In contrast, compare LOTR to PJ's next effort, King Kong, to get a better feel for just how totally incompetent those two screenwriters were (and are).

The question should have been 'What All Was Right with PJ's LOTR. It would be a shorter list. Having recently read through the books again, it really showed how much PJ Boyens & Co glossed over, especially in RotK. I have the EE of all three movies, and have considered casting them into the firey pit from which they came, but will keep tthem for the sole reason that had these movies not been made when they were, I would not have met my dear wife on a Tolkien forum discussing the movies and RP'ng at the time. The pinnacle of these movies for me was 'Trilogy Tuesday' when the EE of FotR & TT were shown in the theatre, and at midnight, RotK. premiered. What did he get right? Well, The Shire.