Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Gerbil]

Damn, too much quoting! Final section I promise

Is everything in the movie an improvement on Tolkien. Of course not. But while I can be accused of misleading readers here with my thread title, I have yet to have any of you clearly articulate why I am wrong.

Well, certainly in the most recent posts it's because the thread hasn't really been used to discuss it, just for good old fashioned flaming I am sure some valid points were made earlier in the thread though.

Tell me why Tolkien's Boromir is so much better than the character Sean Bean gave us?

Because here he's ludicrously inconsistent, too down to earth, and his actions weaken the ring's power immensely. Having him actually get his hands on the ring was utter stupidity.

Tell me how much better it was to have Frodo leave everyone without a word?

Because he was one of the few who truly understood what he was in for, and he did not want to bring his friends both within the power of the ring, and also to (from his point of view) certain death. Would any of them, knowing that the Ring was the one means of both winning and losing the battle for Middle Earth, have let Frodo knowingly head off into Mordor alone?

Share with us why the highlighting of Aragorn's insecurity and temptations was a bad thing.

Because he didn't have any in the books. Bear in mind he's about 60 years old or so at this point as well, past youthful doubts of his own abilities. He has spent his life building up for this moment, when he (and all the goodies) shall either triumph or be destroyed forever.

Tell us why Tom Bombadil was necessary to the story?

He's not, he's an aside, with a plot twist of huge importance later on in the story. Also, he's an enigma planted specifically by Tolkien for various reasons. Finally, he's a much-loved character that many of us miss. Personally, I'm glad he was left out simply because I can't see how they'd portray him as anything other than a bouncing twat. From Hobbiton to Bree the whole story is so compressed I doubt they could have wrangled in even the Downs and made sense. That their alternative provides no sense either is just a pain.

Finally, and if it's one thing that annoys me, it's Frodo and the damn ring. I reckon if you bumped into him on the streets he'd be like:

'Hi, I'm Frodo. Here, do you want this ring?'

He tries to give it away every available opportunity. Combine that with people refusing, and / or touching it and returning it, we have a ring that must smell terrible or something, everyone is so desperate to keep away from it.

Oh, and of course at the rate he's going, Frodo will have used up more lives than a cat by the end of it.

What you need to understand BB, is not that one is better than the other (since direct comparisons are almost impossible given the amount the story has changed under PJ's guidance), but that film requires a vastly different approach to book. Things get compressed, things get expanded, things just change completely.
PJ has given us some astounding visuals to accompany the book, and I reckon many of us will find it hard to read the book in future without seeing Elijah, or PJ's Moria etc. He's given us a great action / adventure film with some truly deep moments. Certainly by normal cinema fair, it's an epic.

Compared to the book though, the film is like a beautiful girl's slut sister. Easier to get into, but ultimately less satisfying

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Some of you purists may disagree, but in writing the screenplays to his movies, I think it's clear that PJ actually improved on The Master's great work.

PJ improved Tolkien’s work?, now that IS funny.

[Black Breathalizer]

Too much good Gerbil food to munch on all at once. But here's a start:

Originally posted by Gerbil
That sounds like you've copied and pasted directly from some other source. It also shows you don't understand the importance of Tom Bombadil in Middle Earth as a whole.

First, I have read the stories behind Tolkien's creation of Tom Bombadil. Ol' Tom was one of the last reminents of his children's story sequel to The Hobbit. Because of Tom's personal significance in the Tolkien family (His son's doll, complete with yellow boots), he chose to leave him in even though he decided his tale was going to be darker and more adult. If Tolkien had been a first-time author, any good publisher and/or editor would have told him the guy added zippo to the plot and needed to go.

Originally posted by Gerbil
Moria is indeed a fantastic sequence as a whole...The famous circus trick of orcs climbing the walls merely for the sake of 1 or 2 camera shots has to be one of the stupidest mistakes ever made on film. Makes a mockery of any scene involving orcs in battles in future. Gosh - helm's deep, there's a huge wall in the way. LADDERS! Except of course they should be able to simply climb over and around it etc. etc.

The orcs in Moria were awesome, especially the wall-climbing scenes. If you look at the TTT trailer closely, you'll see the orcs at Helm's deep are not Moria orcs and goblins but Saruman's Uru-Kai warrior orcs. I don't recall seeing any Uru-kai climbing up rocking walls.

[Gerbil]

First, I have read the stories behind Tolkien's creation of Tom Bombadil. Ol' Tom was one of the last reminents of his children's story sequel to The Hobbit. Because of Tom's personal significance in the Tolkien family (His son's doll, complete with yellow boots), he chose to leave him in even though he decided his tale was going to be darker and more adult. If Tolkien had been a first-time author, any good publisher and/or editor would have told him the guy added zippo to the plot and needed to go.

Not true at all, and hence why I was questioning whether you'd read that much about Tom. Tolkien makes it explicit that Tom is in for a very good reason. Having said that, I think I picked up the info from the book containing Tolkien's letters, so I don't suppose it's common knowledge. Can hardly blame you for not having read some of the more obscure Tolkien stuff, but that doesn't make you any less wrong all the same - I mean you can hardly argue with the big T himself, can you?

The orcs in Moria were awesome, especially the wall-climbing scenes. If you look at the TTT trailer closely, you'll see the orcs at Helm's deep are not Moria orcs and goblins but Saruman's Uru-Kai warrior orcs. I don't recall seeing any Uru-kai climbing up rocking walls.

Ah my mistake then. I misread the part of LotR where the type of orc dictated whether they could climb vertically and upside down or not. For the sake of 2 maybe 3 camera shots PJ has created a completely stupid idea that makes no sense and deliberately and obviously goes against anything Tolkien ever said about orcs. Remember - they are (strongly hinted to have been) corrupted elves. You don't see many Elves walking gaily straight up the trees of Lothlorien now do you? Admit it, it might have 'looked good' (purely down to taste) but it's a totally twat idea - totally PJ's invention, and totally out of place.

[markedel]

Regardless of Tom's external origins (Aragorn after all was originally Trotter the hobbit) he reminds us-and the hobbits that they are part of the unfolding drama and mythos that Tolkien spent over 50 years creating. He's not just "an accidental remnant" because Tolkien didn't go for accidental remants. He wrote the fall of Gondolin in 1916 in a trench and it never saw the light of day for over 65 years-and even then it was never put into a narrative. Tolkien's creation were linked to his life (beren and luthien being an excellent example) but to say it was just sentimentality doesn't seem to fit the meticulous way Tolkien dealt with content.

And Gerbil I agree about Aragorn-everything else I don't mind-it was necessary for the page to screen transformation. But why Aragorn (he's 90 by the way) former general of Gondor, servant of the King of Rohan, a man who tramped through Rhun and Harad-who walked through the Morgul vale, who was probably deeper in counsel with Gandalf (who I think is well done, with the exception of that travesty of a council, it displays how Gandalf has done a good job of making himself human) then almost anyone, is supposed to be doubtful about his path in life after a lifetime of hard labor is beyond me.

[LuthienTinuviel]

(except for Luthien Tinuviel's posts. She's hurt me deeply.)

i shoot to kill.




and thank you for finally explaining your self! your not half bad now that your calm!

[Cirdan]

Well, It about time. I've been waiting since this thread began for BB to post his opinions in some logical order so congratulations are in order. If you are comparing the two strictly on storyline, which is all they have in commo.n The idea that any visuals are "cool" is irrelevant unless you have not imagination and cannot picture scenes and people from text descriptions. Pretty colors do not mean improvement unless you are lazy.


On T.B.: His ommission was correct because of the need to compress times and spaces for the movie format. This isn't an improvement unless you like less story. His part is as interesting as any, and critical to the "safe havens" concept in the book that is absent in the movie. Again, less is not more.

On ferry: Stupid hobbits out-running a horse. So unbelievable it distracts the viewer.

On Rivendell: Another place that needed cutting, only for screenplay purposes. The changes were a bit pointless except to fullfill a need to make the cast more seem cute and cuddly.

On character changes: Aragorn is less magical, less "obscured nobility"; becoming more like Boromir. This is not an improvement. He is the representative of the Numenorean line, not a handy swordsman. Boromir is not more rounded unless you count a personality as a pointy thing. Frodo, on of the most beloved characters in literature improved and more well rounded? That is amusing. Maybe Tiny Tim should be taller and play a fidlle. All the charaters in the movie have less dimesions to them and are made more similar to each other. The idea that they are from different and distinct cultures is lost in the movie.

On Moria: A nice adaptation of a brilliant storyline. A few silly moments on the bridge at Khazad-dum don't detract much from an otherwise well portrayed sequence. So why wasn't the rest of the scenes done with this accuracy?

On The Breaking of the Fellowship: Better? N-O.

All of your other questions regarding book 1 are addressed in a previous post you have yet to address. When I complete re-reading book 2 while watching the movie several times I will post the response.

The bottom line is that all your examples have one common theme; namely that simpler versions of the story appeal to you. This is somewhat contradicted by your statements regarding the extended version (is more better or less?). Simplicity is woderful for piqueing the interest of young or newly initiated readers. Film versions of Great Expectations have not diminished the reading of the book. Great books always outlive the film versions, because the film media caters to simplicity and popular trends. Truely great books exceed the capacity of mivoes because the reader gets to use life experiences combined with imagination to create a "version" that suites their views, while the movie becomes trapped in the past. Even the beloved Wizard of Oz looks shopworn. I always laugh when I see the string on the lion's tale. I will also always laugh at Frodo outrunning the horse.

[Gerbil]

I will also always laugh at Frodo outrunning the horse.

What you need to remember here is that as size diminishes, you reach a certain point where things run faster. Look at tiny little terrier dogs - they can outrun a human and their legs are maybe 9 inches long! Similarly, a hobbit can run 100 metres in 5 seconds flat - they slowed this scene down because otherwise little Frodo's legs would have been an invisible blur!

Errrrm..... sorry. I'll get my coat.

PS Wow - 555 posts! Five sixths of the sign of the (mini) beast!

[olsonm]

Any healthy person could outrun a horse over a short distance and with a head start.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by olsonm
Any healthy person could outrun a horse over a short distance and with a head start.

Like what? Three feet? If you remember the film then you must remember that all the hobbits we at the feet of the riders horse when it reared. There was no head start. The distance they appeared to run was at least 50 yards and they had to jump a fence. No way a short peson could jump a fence faster than a horse.

I'm still laughing.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Like what? Three feet? If you remember the film then you must remember that all the hobbits we at the feet of the riders horse when it reared. There was no head start. The distance they appeared to run was at least 50 yards and they had to jump a fence. No way a short peson could jump a fence faster than a horse.

Frodo ran around the horse and it is clearly shown turning around and then starting to run. Headstart. Also, the terrain was unclear and it didn't appear that Frodo even jumped the fence. I couldn't tell if the horse jumped the fence. I do recall Frodo turning into the path and the horse following him, so he seems not to have taken a direct path to the ferry. I don't really care but I find this fun.

[Gerbil]

This is all assuming that the distance Frodo and Co are spotted is very close to the ford. The scene plays out to me as if Merry goes 'Righto - let's all toddle off to Buckleberry Ferry what-o', and 10 seconds later they are found by Mr Tanned. A few seconds of turning around to confuse the poor horse, and then a few feet away is a fence hiding the ferry. If you take this as the situation then what you see is possible (since yes, technically a human can outrun a horse over very short distances - it has 2 less legs to sort out).

Bit jammy that they were only spotted (in dense undergrowth) just next to the ferry. You might say this makes sense since the Blag Wider was 'guarding' the natural crossing point of the river, but if that was the case then why didnt the rider simply guard the ferry itself?

However you look at it, Frodo was a wee bit too lucky. Oh well, I suppose you can argue the same is true of the books (eg they set off from Hobbiton literally only just missing a Black rider).

Just one of those thing I suppose.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by olsonm
Frodo ran around the horse and it is clearly shown turning around and then starting to run. Headstart. Also, the terrain was unclear and it didn't appear that Frodo even jumped the fence. I couldn't tell if the horse jumped the fence. I do recall Frodo turning into the path and the horse following him, so he seems not to have taken a direct path to the ferry. I don't really care but I find this fun.

Well, my eight year old has had me watch the movie about three times a week since the DVD came out. The is a not even a split second in which the separation between Frodo and the horse is achieved through fleetness of foot. It is all camera shots. Click they are close, click they are far apart, click they horse is gaining, click Frodo is far away again. It's film editing and not speed that gets Frodo to the ferry on time.

Nice try though

[theworkhorse]

Most professional writers, English professors, and film critics would agree with my points. Like doctors, there is always room for professionals to disagree, hence second opinions.

Can you give any examples of the professionals listed above who agree with you? I am interested to see what they use as a basis. You kind of dodged my question: what is the non-subjective measure you use to qualify improvement? Can you more specific?

But pardon me if I find it odd that some self-professed Tolkien fans are dismissing the movie entirely.

But there are some here who have said the movie didn't do it for me at all--and you people know who you are.

So it is book fans who were not happy with the results of the movie that you have a problem with? Could a book fan not like the movie because of cinematic failing, and not be a 'purist'?

Is everything in the movie an improvement on Tolkien. Of course not. But while I can be accused of misleading readers here with my thread title, I have yet to have any of you clearly articulate why I am wrong. Tell me why Tolkien's Boromir is so much better than the character Sean Bean gave us? Tell me how much better it was to have Frodo leave everyone without a word? Share with us why the highlighting of Aragorn's insecurity and temptations was a bad thing. Tell us why Tom Bombadil was necessary to the story?

Can any answer to these questions not be considered subjective? I have seen several Mooters write opinions, and that is clearly not what you feel qualifies as a refutation. I began to write a responce to your eight point post, but realized all of my ideas were based on subjective ideas. What makes your ideas not subjective?

What does "well rounded" mean? I have heard it often used, but poorly defined. Also, what is "more human?"

Thanks for being patient with me. Ideas are wonderful things.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by theworkhorse
Can you give any examples of the professionals listed above who agree with you?

Do a literary study of Tolkien and you will find he had many critics. It always bothered me that these experts would pick on certain aspects of Tolkien's writing while ignoring the 'big picture' impact of the total work. But the fact remains that Jackson tried to address some of these weaknesses in his screenplays (i.e. Boromir's one dimensional characterization from the book) while capturing the mood and the themes of Tolkien's great work.

Some of you are now doing the same thing with PJ's movie that critics have loved to do to Tolkien's books. You obsess over silly non-issues like the running speed of a hobbit or harp about how utterly ridiculous it would be for an heir of Numenorian Kings to know where to locate Numenorian swords to give to the hobbits within the ruins of an old Numenorian fortress. It all illustrates one of my points: You are watching the film through book-colored eyes rather than enjoying it for the unique version of the story that is being told to you.

All I've said is that some of Jackson's decisions in bringing the story to the big screen are not only clever but actually enhanced the storyline. Yet many of you are having great difficulty in admitting even ONE of Jackson's changes to the storyline was effective. If we are going to have a debate, let's at least try to be intellectually honest here.

Originally posted by theworkhorse
What does "well rounded" mean? I have heard it often used, but poorly defined. Also, what is "more human?"

It is the opposite of a cardboard or one dimensional character. Examples would be most of the characters from fantasy movies pre-LOTR. Watch the movie, Willow, to see the ultimate in one-dimensional characters.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...You obsess over silly non-issues like the running speed of a hobbit or harp about how utterly ridiculous it would be for an heir of Numenorian Kings to know where to locate Numenorian swords to give to the hobbits within the ruins of an old Numenorian fortress. It all illustrates one of my points: You are watching the film through book-colored eyes rather than enjoying it for the unique version of the story that is being told to you.

All I've said is that some of Jackson's decisions in bringing the story to the big screen are not only clever but actually enhanced the storyline. Yet many of you are having great difficulty in admitting even ONE of Jackson's changes to the storyline was effective. If we are going to have a debate, let's at least try to be intellectually honest here.

Oh, too bad. And you were doing so well. Why did you fall back on petulant insults and derision? Far from obssessing since you brought up the silly chase scene as being "cool". I viewed it as I veiw any silly action movie stunt. It was on par with the bus jumping the gap in the highway in "Speed". Suspension of disbelief is critical in a dramatic production.

The change to Boromir clouds the true nature of his character and it's relation to his father. They are both part of the same theme of the desire for power and it's corrupting influence. It was not just the power of the ring that corrupted Boromir. The movie makes him just a nice guy that got too close to the ring. How does that better represent this concept?

The isn't a debate about changes made to the story that facilitate moving the story on to the screen. The consistent complaints have been with the unneccessary changes that water down the story. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say that there was any change to the story by PJ that I preferred over JRRT. Tolkien was writing his story for the sake of the story. He never felt he needed to juice it up to sell more copies. No, that would have been intellectual dishonesty.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Do a literary study of Tolkien and you will find he had many critics. It always bothered me that these experts would pick on certain aspects of Tolkien's writing while ignoring the 'big picture' impact of the total work. But the fact remains that Jackson tried to address some of these weaknesses in his screenplays (i.e. Boromir's one dimensional characterization from the book) while capturing the mood and the themes of Tolkien's great work.

So because some elitist critics in ivory towers casts aspersions on works that we unwashed huddled masses love. What does that mean compared to millions and millions of readers over decades of consistent popularity? heh, couldn't resist.

I can find critics who will tell you that no astronauts ever went to the moon. Gee, yeah I guess that is possible. Or just maybe they were trying to make a name for themselves. What were those names again? Oh, who cares.

[Blackheart]

Ugh.

You've convinced me, BB.

I now officially hate the movie.

I used to feel it had some redeeming value, but upon examination of the various meandering arguments, I can't say I liked it enough to go see the rest of them.

The same goes for the rest of this thread.

[Gerbil]

Most professional writers, English professors, and film critics would agree with my points. Like doctors, there is always room for professionals to disagree, hence second opinions.

I meant to pick up on this one myself since BB elsewhere also meaninglessly and without proof mentions 'others' and 'experts' who share his opinion, presumably to point out that he has the backing of truth.

Critics are hardly the most reliable of sources for commentary on something. Most are bitter and twisted failures at the subject they profess to critique To twist a saying slightly:

'Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics'.

Anyway, I can understand that you (BB) mentioned such things to show that you aren't in fact merely a 'read LotR once' kind of guy but have done more research into it, which is good. However, I would suggest you need to keep reading (and form your own opinions, not merely align yourself with the critics), because some of your 'knowledge' of Tolkien and his works are second-hand, and more often than not, wrong or innaccurate. I would say: Keep delving into his works! Not to prove us wrong, but because exploring it more is it's own reward

Ah well. I particularly enjoy the fact that many of those who love the film but prefer the book are prepared to leave it at that, and let you have your own opinion, yet you seem determined to prove us all wrong. The fact the thread has continued is simply due to there being many many more people who share our view than yours. I am sure in your own mind this only makes you more right

You are entitled to your view, we are entitled to ours. That some of us have clearly and definatively proved some of your points wrong, while you have refuted none of our claims (while scathingly pointing out us getting worked up over issues YOU raised initially) shows you will not accept you are wrong. More to the point, you won't even accept that differences of opinions may exist.

I am sure you will continue your 'martyr, misunderstood' stance that in your own mind proves you are right, but for most of us, you've simply not proved your case.

Having said that, I'd like you to note that we have not even disagreed with all your points explicitly (eg TB not in the film - it 'works'), merely that we aren't necessarily of the opinion it IMPROVES on anything.

PJ at best complements Tolkien perfectly. Which is how it should be - none of us ever really wanted to see a wildly different version from the book. It's not even about Tolkien's work being perfect (it is not), it's simply about someone taking a piece of work he professes to love like we all do, and changing it, OFTEN UNNECESSARILY, usually for the worse.

[Linarryl]

I do think PJ inproved Tolkien on some things, but I think the work of Tolkien is much better than PJ's.