10-10-2002, 08:00 AM | #181 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
All stories are invented, BeardofPants. In ancient times, the stories were changed at the whim of the storyteller without the author's approval. Today, rights have to be given or sold. Once Tolkien sold the movie rights, he opened the story up for reinterpretation. From now on, for better or worse (depending upon your point of view), there will always be different versions of the story.
I'm still waiting for you people to defend your favorite version of the Breaking of the Fellowship. What makes Tolkien's approach to this sequence work better? |
10-10-2002, 10:00 AM | #182 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
Frodo did know about the corrupting power of the ring. Jackson did not invent that, he merely chose it as one of the themes to put forward, at the expense of numerous other sub themes. I think that's the main difference here. I prefer the depth of the story. The simplified, bowlderized, comic flatness that is Jackson's Plot, isn't. It's all that he could fit into the media, and he had to make choices. I personally think he chose badly on several occasions. I htink he chose especially badly, when he decided to introduce new elements, such as that hussy Liv Taylor and her freaky oriental sword. As for your questions about why Frodo would leave out of concern for his friends, and the fact that he was just a little lost hobbit, well that just isn't true. But you don't, CAN'T, get that from the movie, because of the Flatness, the shallowness, the lack of depth, in the plot. At the point where Frodo seperated from the others, he had grown, quite a bit. (Sam also) But it was the subtle sort of growth, that you just can't portray in a movie. Why leave Aragorn? We'll who's going to take care of the others? Merry and Pippin and Sam, and perhaps to a degree Legolas and Gimli and Boromir? (Because at this point he doesn't know about the Uruk attack, and he never finds out in the book) He can't take Aragorn, because then he'd have to take every one else. He even wants to leave Sam behind. And Frankly, I doubt Frodo at that time had much concern about the ring corrupting Sam. It was more concern about the dangers of the journey, not the dangers of the ring. Jackson's omissions make it seem as if the journey was of little concern to Frodo. But at that period, he considered the physical journey as the chief danger. Borimor's attempt to wrest the ring was the "nudge" he needed, to force him into action. But all that is lost in the movie, and it ceases to be a learning and growth experience for Frodo, and instead becomes just a flight from everything. Quote:
Jackson increased the power of the ring to corrupt, basically changing a major element of the story, that will have consequences further down the story. It wasn't an element that was missing in the story, and it wasn't an emphisis, it was all that was left after he had to gut everything else for brevity and convenience. As for Aragorn's combat skills, that is also a misportrayal from the movies. Frodo didn't value Aragorn for his combat prowess. at least not primarily. He valued him for his kindness and his wisdom, and his leadership during difficult times. But of course, no one who just watched the movie could understand that, because poor Aragorn is pretty much reduced to a beggared king's descendant in the wilderness, who for some odd reason refuses the kingship, as if it was his for the asking. Instead of something prophesied for thousands of years, and the heir to a dual heritage of nobility that surpassed the majority of men in Middle Earth, he is reduced to... a flat, characture. A troubled strongman, the stock hollywood tortured goodguy. damn- are there new message limits? or am I just wasting good verbage on infertile soil? Continued:
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
||
10-10-2002, 10:03 AM | #183 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
COntinued:
Quote:
Jackson's bravado comes at the cost of Frodo's compassion for others. I doubt very much that Frodo would have left, knowing that his kinsman were captive to the Uruk. He would have even possibly used the ring to efect a rescue, emulating his uncle. He was quite prepared to discuss thematter with the others if he had to, as it says in the book. He tried to sneak off exactly BECAUSE, he didn't want to have that discussion, with the inevitable hurt feelings and arguements. I do not see Jackson's version as an enhancement at all. It is instead a leavening. It rips out wholesale subtle nuances of the plot that allow the charaters in the book to be real people, in a way that a movie, admittedly, cannot show. It might have been a necessary evil, but it is in no way, shape, fashion, or form, an enhancement. No more than streamlining a salad by taking out those troublesome croutons is an enhancement. Unless of course you don't like croutons. I think you just must be one of those people incapable of enjoying croutons, and as such, I feel a small amount of pity for you.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
|
10-10-2002, 10:54 AM | #184 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
An excellent analysis. BH. I would agree with all except the conclusion the some things were left out because they can't
be done in the theatrical format. Shakespeare, O'Neill, and Pinter have all proven that even the most subtle of emotions can be portrayed using no more than simple costumes and excellent dialog. What they also proved is that it requires a bit of genius. A truely gifted screenwriter can use dialog to bring out the subtext of a story. This is were the cynical approach of a hollywood style production can spoil a good (and great) story. Certainly dialog was added but we see that it was only added to enhance the marketing of the film. The change in the ending was not intended to do anything to enhance Frodo. It was clearly meant to feature Aragorn. Merry and Pippin playing tag with the Uruk-Hai? Only a blithering idiot would play at that. Oh, I forgot, Pippin has been re-cast as the buffoon. He was probably drunk at the time.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
10-10-2002, 02:26 PM | #185 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Hmm. I think actually, that in this particular case, that there is so much going on, that it really can't ALL be portrayed by dramatic medium.
Not to mention that there is a severe limitation on portraying introspection in drama. UNLESS you resort to the now disfavored art of soliloquy. The most recent effective (and entertaining) use of this I have seen is in Feris Beuller's Day Off. However, I can't see a technique like this working very well in a dramatic portrayal of the lord of the rings, unless it was handled very carefully. Saruman's parts are an example of an effective METHOD of soliloquy, unfortunately it just highlights the muddling of his role in the film, instead of getting to the nature of his real foolishness, dithering in the middle and commiting to neither side completely, which ends up destroying him. In the movie, you'd think he was just another happy employee of Mordor inc.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... Last edited by Blackheart : 10-10-2002 at 02:27 PM. |
10-10-2002, 02:51 PM | #186 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
The first person or second person narrative ala The Wonder Years seems to have supplanted the soliliquy, for better or worse, because of the ease of dubbing the narrative into video format. Much of the backround history in the preface of the movie is handled theis way, using Galadriel's voice-over. This would have been unwieldy over a number of characters. Fashion in technique should be driven by art and not the other way around.
The tales from the Silmarillion were told via third person narrative in the Lost Tales and I liked the way it worked as it lended an other worldly feel to the stories. This would make a better basis for telling the other tales and still maintaining a central thread. Yes, except for the acting of Christopher Lee showing an internal emptiness when Saruman states that no one can resist the power of Mordor (meaning himself), I got the same impression; that he just loved being evil.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
10-10-2002, 04:24 PM | #187 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
|
10-10-2002, 08:17 PM | #188 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
...and of course, the totaly fallacious argument of comparing Tolkien's "approach" to a storyline event HE created.
When you create, you don't approach. You create. To examine a writer's "approach" to his own story defies logic, but then again, logic is not one of your strong points, at least as it pertains to arguing an asserted position. Interpreters "approach" source material and can be judged in their worth by folks who know the language they are attempting to translate. Tolkien crafted a Gettysburg Address, and Jackson reinterpreted it into a 30-minute sitcom telescript. Jackson's "approach" is completely lacking in depth, a shallow shadow of the original. You may rail all you want about we who have read the books, ye initiate of limited scope and myopic imagination, but I am starting to understand the equation: Lord of the Rings Movie = Ignorant Fans.
__________________
"...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. |
10-10-2002, 09:55 PM | #189 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: May 2001
Location: myob
Posts: 587
|
I disagree. What makes ignorant fans is, "I heard from a friend, who has a friend, who has a friend that read the books that there's an elf at the bottom of Moria who heals Gandalf and sends him back. Weird." Yes thats a true quote I overheard in my English class. I personally believe that the movie will bring in new fans, though now some of them will have been introduced in new ways to the story, and hopefully will take the time to read the book. I myself often like to read a book and see its movie.
__________________
Boo! |
|
10-11-2002, 10:21 AM | #190 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
The discussion here always seems to shift into a movie versus book debate. There is no question that any great book will be better than its film adaptation. This holds true for Tolkien's LOTR as well. I'm simply saying that in the process of adapting the JRR's great work for the big screen, he found ways to improve upon the storyline. Does it have the weight and depth of the books? Of course not. But discounting Jackson's work as a "shallow shadow" of the books is just as ridiculous.
Quote:
Pippin was cast and played very well. If there were a few more comic moments for Pippin and Merry than in the book, they still rang true to their characters. Before you judge them too harshly, let's see how Jackson develops their characters in the next two movies. |
|
10-11-2002, 01:16 PM | #191 |
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
Excuse me...
But if B improves on A, is it not nescessary that B be better than A? To say that the books are better than the movie, yet the movie is an improvement over the books, is a contradiction. As much as you (and we) wish it were otherwise, the movie was shallow. Practically all references to the greater world and the epic past were reduced to a two minute byte that blatently ripped off robert jordan. Emotional impact? What emotional impact? There was none. Zip. Zero. I'm admittedly a callous, cynical bastard, but frodo's decision to leave wasn't dramatic or emotional at all. Borimir's final scenes, on the other hand, were done almost perfectly,and they were very close to what was in the book. Highlighting aragorn? Self doubts? Where does that come from? In reality aragorn's doubts were completely different-he wasn't sure he could lead them corretly, he worried about making a wrong choice. Never once in the books did the prospect of him succumbing to the ring come up. Aragorn's growth? What? the guy was !90! For crying out loud! He barely grew throughout the entire war. He simply assumed the responsibility he had been preparing for all his life. As for pippen, the problem is not that he was overly comic (indeed, he was comic in the books as well) but that the comedy was made at the expense of the meat of his character. He was a admittedly silly and immature-but he was loyal and true, and he willingly went into a danger he didn't understand. The movie doesn't let that across.
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
10-11-2002, 03:35 PM | #192 | ||
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why wait to judge what is already available? Will he re-release the FotR with the new and improved Pippen?
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
||
10-12-2002, 12:19 AM | #193 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 463
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blackheart
[B] Jackson's bravado comes at the cost of Frodo's compassion for others. I doubt very much that Frodo would have left, knowing that his kinsman were captive to the Uruk. He would have even possibly used the ring to efect a rescue, emulating his uncle. __________________________________________________- I cannot agree. It seemed clear to me that Frodo was heartbroken at having to leave, but knowing that if he were captured with the ring, that the whole of ME would fall under Sauron's sway, he had no choice. Staying to help his friends would have been selfish, when he had the fate of all ME to consider. That's why he looked so distraught when Merry and Pippin were urging him to come with them, and he couldn't. He knew, unlike Bilbo, that it had become too dangerous to use the ring, so rescuing his friends with it was out of the question. |
10-12-2002, 05:55 AM | #194 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
It is clear that the reason some of you are downright nasty and vicious in your movie comments is because you fear the movie trilogy's impact--for good reason. For the majority of people, the definitive version of the Wizard of Oz is the 1939 movie not the books created by L. Frank Baum. Whether we like it or not, the same will hold true for LOTR. As a lover of the books, I will be encouraged by the fact that this classic movie trilogy will lure many fans of the movies to Tolkien's great work over the coming decades. But it will also mean that future generations of LOTR fans will view the source material very differently from those of us who were introduced to Middle Earth through the books. So when you hear a LOTR fan say "the books are great but I sure wish Boromir had been portrayed more like the movie," or "I was disappointed that the book's version of the breaking of the fellowship wasn't like more the film," don't say I didn't warn you. Rather than continue to bash PJ's films, take comfort in the fact that these new fans will find a richness and a depth in the books that will enhance their appreciation of the story they came to love through the movies. |
|
10-12-2002, 06:31 AM | #195 | ||
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
Quote:
FOTR can not be compared to the Wizard of Oz. In the one sense because the adaption of the Wizard of Oz to film deviated somewhat away from the original material in the book: the two are nothing alike, and in many ways, are completely different works. The movie version added so much more depth to the material, whereas PJ actually took away alot of detail in FOTR. And in another sense, the Wizard of Oz was just a better production: better scoring, better casting, better screenplay. No mention of dwarf tossing necessary. Didn't take you long to pull out that dreaded "P" word now did it? Where's the follow-up skit berrating my sordid tastes?
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
||
10-12-2002, 08:49 AM | #196 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-12-2002, 09:06 AM | #197 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
I certainly agree with BoP. The Jackson movies will NEVER be seen as the "definitive" Tolkien.
The more BB tries to insult us who actually READ the books, he demonstrates time and again that he has had only passing acquaintance with them. I'd bet you a dollar to a donut hole that he hasn't even cracked a spine on Two Towers or Return of the King, and furthermore, probably can't tell you who Morgoth was or even give a coherent synopsis of the events from the meeting of Beren and Luthien to the issuing forth of the Valar. And yet, this initiate, with only glancing knowledge of the books we all know and love so well, has the unmitigated audacity to try to preach to the rest of us that Jackson actually took Tolkien's works and improved them. "Never presume to teach your grandmother to suck eggs." has a corollary: "Never presume to preach to a Tolkien lover that Jackson's films did anything to improve the original books." I read The Lord of the Rings twenty-six times ALL the way through, Black Breathalizer, and just how many times have YOU read the three books all the way through? Hmmmmm????? Part of the vehement opposition you are receiving, BB, is based upon the fact that all of us can see right through the facade: *You have no in-depth understanding of the books and therefore your attempts to slander Tolkien by ascribing greater writing skills to Pippa Boyens and Peter Jackson ring hollow and shrill; *Your facile adherence to the visual medium indicates a true inability to read text and formulate your OWN mental images without the assistance of a tired and overused device, the silver screen; *Your continued assertions that mass public acceptance of something is an indication of quality (by your reasoning, some rap puke taking a GOOD song and "sampling" it in his obscenity-laced tripe actually IMPROVES the original song); and *Your proclamation that an imitation of a masterwork actually supercedes the original typifies the common mental laziness so rampant in today's society (tangental to the immediately proceeding reason). Fact is, Tolkien himself would have HATED this movie. If you ever picked up his Letters (which you would find dull since it has no pictures and uses really hard words), you would see that ANY alteration of his story, which, by the way, took nearly a lifetime to write, was taken as a deep and enduring insult to his achievement. If you read his Letters, you might ALSO find a resounding refutation of your hastily-abandoned query regarding who actually owns the story. BB, the Toppled Goddess of Ma'at has a point, as do Cirdan and Blackheart: You just don't know what you're talking about, young 'un. Get the books. READ the books. At that point, you MIGHT actually have something intelligent to say about Tolkien. ----So, BoP, how exactly do we arrange the reseating of the Goddess?
__________________
"...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. Last edited by bropous : 10-12-2002 at 09:19 AM. |
10-12-2002, 09:37 AM | #198 |
EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED
DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,176
|
ADDITIONAL:
I will add the caveat to above comments that I still loved the Jackson film, was immensely entertained by it, and am looking forward to the next two with great anticipation. Theoden's solioquy alone has me slavering for mid-December. It is a definite fact that Jackson did not completely butcher the book in his film like that bozo Dino DeLaurentis absolutely massacred Frank Herbert's "Dune." As I have said elsewhere, the REAL positive benefit of the Jackson films is the effect of triggering increased interest in reading the Lord of the Rings. That has definitely been the effect of the first film, and I am glad that millions of new readers are being introduced to Tolkien's intricate tapestry. Those who see the films and are not induced to pick up the books and read them all the way through are at least exposed to some of the core messages in the books, know the major framework of the story and are familiar with at least a bit of the characters and their motivations. In this, Jackson did just fine, but I think a director from New Zealand might have more respect for an audience's intelligence than would some hotshot Hollywood hack. The best films are those which leave you thinking about 'em the next day, next month, even years down the road. Ever see "The Red Tent" or "Careful, He Might Hear You" or "Barry Lyndon" or " Picnic at Hanging Rock"? Though these may not have been box office bonanzas, they certainly are films which were not reduced to a facile, seventh-grade perception level. I think Jackson could have trusted the audience just a little more to pick up on some of the nuances from the books. One of the wonderful things about Kubrick's films is that he would drop TONS of allusions and side-references and "private jokes" into a film and its settings, and still was able to get some good box office returns. Unnecessary changes which actually detract from the story do not improve a masterwork. Peter, if you ever see this thread: Keep the Scouring of the Shire in, and all is forgiven!!!!!
__________________
"...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160. |
10-12-2002, 09:39 AM | #199 | ||
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
The Matrix The Terminator The Star Wars Series Braveheart How many? Too many to count. How many awards did it actually win, since your so fond of that measure? Quote:
I have a simple measure for the test of time aspect. Where does PJ stand in his field of endeavor and where does JRRT stand? JRRT is recognized as being at the top; PJ, not so much.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
||
10-12-2002, 10:25 AM | #200 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
Quote:
gulp...gee, who is that Morgoth guy? uh, the Nicromancer's old boss? uh, the restless brat in the backseat yelling "are we there yet?" to Illuvatar? um...No wait, I think its a nickname given to a jewel-lovin' cleptomanic angel by a hot-shot, full-of-himself elf lord named Feanor. sigh, oookay, I dunno. You got me on that one. Beren and Luthien? Oh! Oh! Oh! I know this one!!! Oh man, now THEIR STORY would make another awesome "generic action adventure" flick after PJ finishes the LOTR. Whoo-hooo. New Line needs to obtain the rights to the Silmarillion, dudes. Neither "XenArwen" or Eowyn can hold a candle to what that Luthien warrior babe did. I hope my sorry performance on your Tolkien IQ test won't deem me unworthy to share thread space with such scholarly dudes as yourselves. I have appreciated the opportunity to witness firsthand the incredible wealth of knowledge and understanding of Tolkien's great work that some of you "purists" have shown here. It's been quite illuminating. |
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Research paper on Tolkien | The Telcontarion | Writer's Workshop | 10 | 12-16-2007 12:04 PM |
Whats on your Bookshelf? | hectorberlioz | General Literature | 135 | 02-12-2007 07:26 PM |
The Jackson haters A to Z | Curufinwe | Lord of the Rings Movies | 4 | 01-25-2004 03:44 AM |
Follow on from Gandalf v. HP...Tolkien v. Peter Jackson! | Elf.Freak | Entertainment Forum | 3 | 01-22-2003 02:22 PM |
a little orientation needed | DrFledermaus | The Silmarillion | 9 | 02-12-2001 05:48 AM |