Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Jackson couldn't have gotten it any "wronger". He has Aragorn knowingly and willingly permitting Frodo to go off alone.

I would have never guessed it, Mrs. Maggot, but it has become clear that you have a deep-seated PREJUDICE against halflings!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I'm teasing but think about it. If you take your previous post and replace Frodo with Aragorn and Aragorn with...let's say Gandalf, do you feel the same way? If Aragorn was the Ringbearer and men were able to resist the ring's evil easier than hobbits, dwarves, and elves, would you have expressed the same level of protest if Gandalf gave Aragorn "his blessing" to go on alone?

I can hear some of you say, "yes, but Aragorn is a warrior...he knows the landscape...he's better able to protect himself" and on and on and on. Well, it was made clear in the Council of Elrond that the ring wouldn't be destroyed by force but by stealth. Hobbits are smaller and, as Tolkien described, are able to hide from the big people when they don't want to be seen.

In my humble opinion, Tolkien played upon our natural reaction to the small and the meek when he had the breaking of the fellowship play out the way it did. So did Jackson.

[Elfhelm]

I can see it...

Aragorn: Gandalf, I know you are my mentor and friend and you can light wargs on fire, but I am going to do this without you.

Gandalf: (sniffling) I would have followed you to the very fires of Mt. Doom!

Aragorn: (getting uppity) It's MY quest, not yours. You're always trying to steal my thunder. When do I get to do something, eh? You never listen to me, you're always looking off in the distance... Are you paying attention now even?

Gandalf: (looking surprised) eh? I was seeing the future. You were supposed to take the paths... oh never mind! Begone. You don't need me anymore. (Storms off in a huff!)

[Wayfarer]

Indeed.

It's a fair bet to say that Gandalf helped Aragorn /at least/ as much as Aragorn helped Frodo- I would speculate that he did much more than Aragorn ever did.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you take your previous post and replace Frodo with Aragorn and Aragorn with...let's say Gandalf, do you feel the same way? If Aragorn was the Ringbearer and men were able to resist the ring's evil easier than hobbits, dwarves, and elves, would you have expressed the same level of protest if Gandalf gave Aragorn "his blessing" to go on alone?

Yes. Why should I not?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Well, it was made clear in the Council of Elrond that the ring wouldn't be destroyed by force but by stealth. Hobbits are smaller and, as Tolkien described, are able to hide from the big people when they don't want to be seen.

So you're saying that Aragorn said to himself: "Hmm... I think I want to go after Merry and Pippin. Well, you know, Frodo's a hobbit, so even though he has barely basic training with weapons, he can hide himself, even from Sauron and the Nine, which can't see, so will rely on other things, such as the pull of the Ring. So I won't worry- he can handle it!"

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In my humble opinion, Tolkien played upon our natural reaction to the small and the meek when he had the breaking of the fellowship play out the way it did. So did Jackson.

It certainly is your humble opinion. I had no such reaction when I read LotR for the first time. I understood Aragorn's and Frodo's decisions completely.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
It certainly is your humble opinion. I had no such reaction when I read LotR for the first time. I understood Aragorn's and Frodo's decisions completely.

I'm glad you understood the decisions of the book. My point is that you book purists can't can't turn around and say the movie's decisions make no sense when they are based on the same basic circumstances and motivations. You can't have it both ways.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm glad you understood the decisions of the book. My point is that you book purists can't can't turn around and say the movie's decisions make no sense when they are based on the same basic circumstances and motivations. You can't have it both ways.

We are saying that the movie's decisions were not based on the same circumstances. In the book, Aragorn cannot tell whether Frodo was one of the hobbits captured by the Uruk-hai. In a dilemma, he chooses to go after the Uruk-hai. In the movie, he knows that Frodo is going off the home of the Dark Lord alone, (he doesn't know about Sam) and yet he still chooses to go after the Uruk-hai. He obviously doesn't think the Ringbearers quest is central, as you seem to think everyone does, based on your posts.

[WhackoJacko]

you are getting beaten into submission by the whole forum, why do u bother ??

lets face it, TTT was total crap, bad editing , bad logic, bad scripting, bad lighting.....everything was just bad

what the purists are saying is that Jackson made bad logical decisions and the movie is made incoherent in the process

[Elf Girl]

Come now, as a movie it wasn't that bad. Difficult because of so many characters to focus on, but fair.

And I think BB is showing heroic resolve, debating all of us at once. Even if he does ignore two-thirds of what we say.

[WhackoJacko]

what what what??

in the Book Aragorn was aware that Frodo left Boromir and whent off alone

[Wayfarer]

There is no heroism in blindly persisting in your errors. This is the path that Morgoth, Sauron, and Saruman trod, and it led to their downfall.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by WhackoJacko
what what what??

in the Book Aragorn was aware that Frodo left Boromir and whent off alone

That's not true.

'Which way did they go? Was Frodo there?' said Aragorn.
But Boromir did not speak again.
. . . 'Where are the Ring and the Bearer? How shall I find them and save the Quest from disaster?'

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Come now, as a movie it wasn't that bad. Difficult because of so many characters to focus on, but fair.

And I think BB is showing heroic resolve, debating all of us at once. Even if he does ignore half of what we say.

Is it only half? Seriously, I do agree. I didn't think they were such bad movies (specially FOTR), and I certainly agree about his resolve and determination. Although it can get a bit annoying...

[Elf Girl]

Yes. If everyone would just agree with us, then everything would be fine.

BB, I would very much like to see you answer the rest of my post, and not just the part about reactions to descisions.

You're right GW- it's more like two-thirds. Will edit.

[Mrs. Maggott]

As far as films go, TTT was in fact, not good. It was very choppy, very badly edited and even without considering it with respect to the story, at times quite senseless (most of the battle of Helm's Deep and especially the end of it). FOTR, on the other hand, as film was fairly good. At least it made sense which TTT frequently did not.

However, considering the entirety of Jackson's endeavors - yes, even including ROTK which no one has seen so far - he begins in error, and therefore the simple fact is that he must continue in error and eventually end in error. His change of the focus of the story from hobbits to men, coupled with his "reinvention" of Tolkien's characters and plot along the way must seriously affect the outcome of his efforts.

There is no need to go into all the changes here, but suffice it to say that his "creation" of an Aragorn who shuns his birthright, fears his heritage and requires a "warrior elfmaiden" backbone must have a huge impact upon the meaning of the story even if the character participates in the plot pretty much as he did in the book. And, of course, a sterling example of my point is the difference between Aragorn's interaction with Frodo at Parth Galen vis a vie film and book. Yes, they appear on the surface to be similar and certainly the end result is the same (Frodo going off alone while Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli pursue Merry and Pippin) but the entire meaning of these actions and those who perform them have been changed - and not for the better.

Whatever one thinks about these films, the simple fact is that the teller of this tale is Peter Jackson, not Professor Tolkien - and as Shakespear would say, "aye, there's the rub!"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Yes. If everyone would just agree with us, then everything would be fine.

That's even necessary. From what I've seen, a number of 'Mooters feel that it was a fine if not perfect adaptation (Lizra, Dunedain, etc.), but I don't have any problem whatsoever with that. What gets annoying is the way BB acts.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
And I think BB is showing heroic resolve, debating all of us at once. Even if he does ignore two-thirds of what we say.

Sometimes I do think to myself, "BB, you can't do this. They're all wrong. By rights you shouldn’t even be here."

But I am.

It’s like in the great LOTR movie board debates, Elf Girl. The ones that really mattered. Full of Purist complaints and narrow-minded thinking they were. And sometimes the enlightened few didn’t want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world end up loving both Tolkien's books and Jackson's movies when there is so many downright stupid things being said about the films?

But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this Purist shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come in December with The Return of the King. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.

Those are the debates that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too young to understand why. But I think, Elf Girl, I do understand. I know now. The enlightened few in those debates had lots of chances of going away in frustration only they didn’t. Because they were holding on to something.

What were they holding on to, you may ask?

That this is a very special film trilogy-- and its worth fighting for.


PS: I'm not ignoring anything - but there's only one of me and so many Purist minds here that need straightening out.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Thank you for a perfect example of what I was talking about, BB. "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong." THAT is exactly is what is so goldurned annoying.

They're all wrong. By rights you shouldn’t even be here."

Why, because you don't want to breathe the same air as us idiots who don't worship Jackson?

But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this Purist shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come in December with The Return of the King. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.

Ah, so now we're demonic. Lucky us.

Full of Purist complaints and narrow-minded thinking they were

Um...how is "Everyone else is wrong, because I couldn't possibly be" not narrow-minded?

[Lizra]

I was thinking about what a narrow minded, selfish, hedonist I am. All I really care about is "my LoTR vision" (personal experience, interpretation). Of course I am DEEPLY indebted to the awesome brilliance of Professor Tolkien, for creating this work, but it's my opinion and experience that I care about and respond to, when I read the books and see the movies.

I am very happy with FoTR movie, despite the various "changes" from the book. No problem, it still worked very well, (for me) LOVE IT! TTT I'm not as thrilled about, (I don't think so yet at least ) but it wasn't my favorite "read" either. I need to own the extended edition TTT DVD before I really can decide. I will say the Faramir thing doesn't bother me too much, I never "cottoned" up to him the way most people seem to. (I wonder why! ) I love the "change" in movie Boromir! Sean Bean gave me a "newish" character to love, whether it was written that way or not (I think it's "or not" ) I am grooving! Too bad movie Faramir wasn't as satisfying. I hope TTT extended DVD shows more acting depth on actor Faramir's part. Sean Bean is delicious! Ahhh!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
There is no need to go into all the changes here, but suffice it to say that (Jackson's) "creation" of an Aragorn who shuns his birthright, fears his heritage and requires a "warrior elfmaiden" backbone must have a huge impact upon the meaning of the story even if the character participates in the plot pretty much as he did in the book. Whatever one thinks about these films, the simple fact is that the teller of this tale is Peter Jackson, not Professor Tolkien - and as Shakespear would say, "aye, there's the rub!"

Of course it's Peter Jackson telling the tale. And he's not rewriting the novels, he's making three films based on Tolkien's story. Believe it or not, I honestly know where some of you are coming from. But you're not being fair to Peter Jackson and the art of film making when you demand a literal interpretation of Tolkien's books and preferences in these films.

Let's use Mrs. Maggott's Aragorn comments above as an illustration. Aragorn has always been one of my favorite characters from the books. But let's be honest and candid here. If Jackson had taken the literal approach to the character that some of you book purists have demanded, he wouldn't connect with the audience. Translated to film, I could see Tolkien's Aragorn coming across as aloof, stern, and most importantly, he wouldn't feel "real." From the very beginning, Peter Jackson demanded that the films have a strong sense of realism to them. This was just one of many "How best do you honor the overall work when various aspects are at odds?" questions the Jackson team had to figure out when translating the story to film.

Aragorn doesn't shun his birthright in the films, but he has self-doubts about his heritage and his ability to lead. He is counciled by the woman he loves, the elf daughter of Elrond who has lived for centuries. How is that so wrong? I had serious doubts about Viggo and whether PJ would "do right" by Aragorn before FOTR came out. But Jackson has captured the essence of the character. Is he more humanized than Tolkien's Aragorn? Yes. But I would rather have a more humanized Aragorn who felt real than an attempt to carbon-copy the books that falls flat on its face. Am I the only one who remembers Ralph Bakshi's Aragorn?!?!?!?

These types of issues though go back to the primary point in this thread: People are haggling over specifics and not stepping back and appreciating how well it all comes together and captures the heart and soul of the books.

[Wayfarer]

You know what amuses me? This is what amuses me:

Black Breathalizer really has no good reason to argue about this. Period.

You see, nobody's ever argued against his liking the films. As they say, there's no accounting for taste.

But BB has arrogantly, foolishly, and unforgivably insisted that Jackson is better than Tolkien, that Jackson has improved Tolkien, and so on and so forth. This is ridiculous- the films still fail on a number of levels, and to press the point gives the strong impression that one is imbued with hubris.