Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Elf Girl]

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

[Wayfarer]

Tolkien's books were designed to entertain us.

Not according to The Man Himself.

[Elfhelm]

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

[Elf Girl]

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

[Elfhelm]

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

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

[Elf Girl]

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

[BeardofPants]

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

[Mrs. Maggott]

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

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

One cannot necessarily say that it's "never going to happen". One can say that it did not happen this time. But there are so many wonderful technological advances out there. I thoroughly enjoyed Shreck, Ice Age and Monster, Inc. I can't imagine why someone like that couldn't do the film properly in the kind of animation that is so realistic (especially Ice Age) as to be quite acceptable to me as a means of presenting LOTR. And since Jackson has been "permitted" to do it in three films, these film makers could be allowed the same format so as to present the story as it should be presented. I can only hope that Jackson's "blockbusters" doesn't discourage any further attempt in this vein.

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

[Black Breathalizer]

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

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

They include:

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

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

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

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

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

[BeardofPants]

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

[Elf Girl]

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

[WhackoJacko]

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

the purists can say the same thing of Jackson lol

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

They include:

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

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

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

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

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

and what a hollow experience it was

[Mrs. Maggott]

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

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

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

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

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

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
The power of friendship:
The conversion of Pippin and Merry into two giddly little midgets (read: comic), and the loss of the Conspiracy means that their role in the fellowship makes no sense.

My feeling is that Jackson has made more sense out of Pippin and Merry's role in the Fellowship that Tolkien did. First though, I would agree with you that the books (naturally) can do a better job than the films in establishing the characters and their relationships with one another. While I would have preferred the Conspiracy, I totally understand why Jackson had to eliminate it from a screenplay that was already going to run more than three hours long. But while the cornfield encounter was a little too contrived, PJ made up for it by showing the audience the that the two hobbits stayed with Frodo and Sam out of friendship and concern for their welfare when the black riders appeared on the scene. Their reunion in Rivendell was also a clear indication of the affection that Pippin and Merry felt towards Frodo and vise versa.

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

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

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

[Mrs. Maggott]

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

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

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

[Elf Girl]

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

Thank you, Black Breathalizer!

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

Going for "Jackson is better then Tolkien" again, eh?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
While I would have preferred the Conspiracy, I totally understand why Jackson had to eliminate it from a screenplay that was already going to run more than three hours long.

Now just a second! I thought you said Jackson handled them better than Tolkien. That's a contradiction.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But while the cornfield encounter was a little too contrived...

Very good! He thinks something Jackson did is contrived! (I agree.)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
PJ made up for it by showing the audience the that the two hobbits stayed with Frodo and Sam out of friendship and concern for their welfare when the black riders appeared on the scene. Their reunion in Rivendell was also a clear indication of the affection that Pippin and Merry felt towards Frodo and vise versa.

I don't think that "makes up" for the cornfield, since it was also in the books, and the contrived-ness of the cornfield wasn't. However I will concede that Jackson brought across "Stupid hobbit and his slightly more intelligent sidekick have crude affection for hero and his sidekick" very well.

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

I found the sudden seriousness very out of character. It was too sudden. And Pippin was still stupid: "We've got the shire", while Merry was educating the stupid one: "There won't be a shire".

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

Exactly. In the book, they need to actually see battles, see that countries will fall and armies will die, before they understand how serious the matter is. In the movie, they magically become more adult as soon as they pop out of Lorien.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Obviously, no movie character is going to be realized a fully on film as in a book...

You're contradicting yourself again. I thought Merry and Pippen were better in the movie than in Tolkien?

[Elfhelm]

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

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

A few corrections, if you don't mind.

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

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

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

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

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

[Elf Girl]

*applause*

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Why Sam should be calling Frodo "Master" when that relationship is never established, merely adds to the confusion in the film...

Correction: Sam has NEVER called Frodo "Master" in the films. Never ever.

Originally posted by Elf Girl
In the book, they need to actually see battles, see that countries will fall and armies will die, before they understand how serious the matter is. In the movie, they magically become more adult as soon as they pop out of Lorien.

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

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

[Elf Girl]

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

A legitimate one, maybe, but it is only your opinion that makes it "the one". That moment is not mentioned in the books.

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

Attacking the person again.