Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

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?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
It makes more sense - and adds a greater sense of realism to the story - to believe that Frodo's actions were based on his concerns over the influence of the ring. Let's face facts here. Frodo is a little hobbit who doesn't even know the way to Mordor. He's already been saved numerous times by his non-hobbit colleagues. Why suddenly decide he's going on without them NOW? In both the book and the movie, Frodo knew Aragorn would choose to stay with him to the end regardless of his desires to go to Minas Tirith. Why leave Aragorn when he's about to need him the most? As the ringbearer, Frodo had to consider what was best for his mission, first and foremost.

I'm not defending Tolkiens version, I'm just telling you how you're wrong.

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.

So Jackson's increased emphasis on the corrupting power of the ring on the Fellowship was an inspired way to illustrate that Frodo really had no choice if he wanted the mission to succeed. Although he would likely need the combat skills of Aragorn and the others, he knew he had to go on alone.

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm just telling you you're wrong.

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:

[Blackheart]

COntinued:

Contrary to Blackheart's view, I see Frodo's decision to depart alone in the movie as the others fought the Uruk-kai as the ultimate act of bravery. It was DESPITE his heartfelt friendships, DESPITE his self-doubt and DESPITE his fear that Frodo chose to walk away from his dear friends and go on alone. PJ MAGNIFIED this selfless act...and enhanced this part of the story IMHO.

Bravery? Well perhaps it was, in some odd fashion, but it was an introduced element that further diminished Frodo's character. All that other stuff was ALREADY in the book. He was scared enough about leaving on his own already, but determined. That was the common, everyday, sort of bravery that Tolkien, as a WWI vet, was likely personally familiar with.

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.

[Cirdan]

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.

[Blackheart]

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.

[Cirdan]

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.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...for better or worse (depending upon your point of view), there will always be different versions of the story.

But there is always THE or A source story to which all these versions can be traced to. And in most of those cases, the stories had TIME to evolve, and the original author had time to fade into obscurity. We still know who did the source material and who did the adaptions. And I still stand by what I said: Tolkien created it, Peter adapted it. So it is NOT a case of one version versus another: It is a case of the SOURCE material versus an adaption. Furthermore, it is one medium versus another. You can't compare the two, or they will both come up lacking. Film is always going to have advantages over the book, and the book is always going to have advantages over the film. It's like comparing chalk and bloody cheese!

[bropous]

...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.

[webwizard333]

Lord of the Rings Movie = Ignorant Fans.

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.

[Black Breathalizer]

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.

Originally posted by Cirdan
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.

I disagree with your assessment of Frodo. Jackson's changes were designed to maximize the emotional impact of Frodo's decision to continue the quest on his own. Jackson has said so himself in interviews on the subject. I will agree that Jackson was also interested highlighting Aragorn. We see the future king overcome his self-doubts about the ring and resist the it's lure when Frodo pointedly asks him if he would destroy it. Was it different from the book? Yes. But it effectively communicated the growth in Aragorn for the medium Jackson was using.

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.

[Wayfarer]

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.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
[B]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.[b]

If you actually read other people's posts you would see that I compared the two storylines strictly on merit. You have nothing in response except to say "that's ridiculous". We'll bring it on, ridicule with something. You just keep repeating the same premise over and over.

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.

Riiiight... He's just not at all the same. Do you remember who it was that made the scene at the inn? Did he really steal fireworks and light them INSIDE OF A TENT? Did he really almost fall face first into manure? So, Frodo is Moe, Pippen is Curly, and Merry is Larry. I guess Sam will have to be Shemp.

Why wait to judge what is already available? Will he re-release the FotR with the new and improved Pippen?

[Entlover]

[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.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Tolkien created it, Peter adapted it. So it is NOT a case of one version versus another: It is a case of the SOURCE material versus an adaption.

Whether you Tolkien Purists like it or not, the moment that Jackson's movie struck a cord with a worldwide audience, the source books forever became "another version" of the story. You can rumble all you want about it being a case of source material versus a movie adaption but it won't matter for a new generation of LOTR lovers who are being introduced to the story through Peter Jackson's eyes.

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.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Whether you Tolkien Purists like it or not, the moment that Jackson's movie struck a cord with a worldwide audience, the source books forever became "another version" of the story.

This isn't a case of which came first: the chicken or the egg. Tolkien can not ever be "another version" because he devised the thing first. It is THE definitive version; the source material. Unlike ancient mythology, this can be traced back to one source, and it is a known one.

BB:
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.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and state that I don't think that LOTR movie triology is going to stand the test of time. In any given sense, the fellowship movie is a generic action and slash film; much of what made middle earth so unique in Tolkien's work was not translated to the film medium. If you've seen one action/fantasy flick, you've seen 'em all. This one just happened to have extremely short people in it.

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?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I don't think that LOTR movie trilogy is going to stand the test of time. In any given sense, the fellowship movie is a generic action and slash film.

I'll concede your point after you tell me how many other generic action and slash movies have received worldwide critical acclaim, been nominated for 13 Academy Awards, and grossed over 850 million dollars at the box office?

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Didn't take you long to pull out that dreaded "P" word now did it?

If the word "purist" has now become a bad word, it's only because of the condescending, "" attitudes people are reading from the reactionaries posting here.

[bropous]

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?

[bropous]

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!!!!!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'll concede your point after you tell me how many other generic action and slash movies have received worldwide critical acclaim, been nominated for 13 Academy Awards, and grossed over 850 million dollars at the box office?

Gladiator
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?

If the word "purist" has now become a bad word, it's only because of the condescending, "" attitudes people are
reading from the reactionaries posting here.

I've only seen one revisionist posting here. Where are all the unwashes masses of yours. Have they forsaken you?

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.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by bropous
I certainly agree with BoP. The Jackson movies will NEVER be seen as the "definitive" Tolkien.

Wake up and smell the coffee, bropous. Jackson's FOTR is ALREADY seen as the definitive Tolkien for many people around the globe. It is not your definitive version, but that doesn't mean that other people's views and opinions should be trashed just because they haven't read the books like you have.

Originally posted by bropous
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.

OMIGOD! A test!!!

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.