Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Melko Belcha]

Somewhere on the EE of FotR PJ says that the original script had many more changes to the story then the finished film ended up having, but he had to keep going back to the original material to make things work. Basically he couldn't change as much as he originaly planned and wanted to change. I would love to see the original script with all the changes, he probably had the Shire located inside the Rammas Echor, or maybe the explanation of why Fangorn Forest is to the North-east when heading west from the Anduin.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I remember wondering what it was like originally, when I heard EW talking about that...

[Ruinel]

This is a hot thread, so if I missed anyone's point sorry. It was a lot to read. Anyway, on to it, then....

All the arguing is basically pointless. The book and the movie are two different things. There is really no way possible to put every detail of a book into a movie. The book is always better than the movie. I can not think of one single book made into a movie that was better as a movie, not one. In a movie, things have to change in order for the movie to best represent the essence of the book. There is no way that every aspect and ever scene can be carried out on screen. No way!
Yes, character changes are made in order for the basic plot to stay true. So, Book Aragorn is slightly different than Movie Aragorn... woopie. But Viggo M. did a great job. I have the EE FotR and yes, I watched all of the Appendicies (stop looking at me like that), and I recall that Viggo M. was not originally casted for this part. It was a younger actor... which would have been a dissaster!!! So, at the last minute Viggo was put in. I feel that PJ tried his best to keep it all true. But it was a near impossible job. I think he did a good job, nonetheless.

[Wayfarer]

*ahem*

PJ certainly did not try his best to keep the story true to tolkien'

Had he been attempting such a thing, there would not have been such ridiculous instances as the ford scene or Aragorn's "death". There would not have been pod orcs, Faramir would have been a decent guy, and Frodo would have been smart enough not to go trying to give the ring to a Nazgul.

Period.

[Mrs. Maggott]

For heaven's sake, let us put to rest the tiresome allegation that Jackson's works "had to be" what they were because of the "difference" between films and books. A great many books have become films in the past and far more successfully than LOTR (the H.P. books are fine examples of a Director attempting to present the author's story and not his own!). But getting back to LOTR: certainly changes were required in the translation from the printed page to the silver screen. Absolutely no "purist" believed that LOTR (especially given its complexities) would make it to film untouched. But there is a difference between the editing and rewriting which had to be done to make the story "work" as film and all of Jackson's pointless peregrinations with Tolkien's characters and plot.

So much of what was done was done simply because in his hubris, Jackson thought that he could tell "the story" better. His efforts in that direction merely went to prove that he didn't understand the story except at the most superficial level - hobbit finds magic ring, hobbit gives magic ring to beloved nephew, good wizard discovers ring is evil....and so forth. Looking at LOTR in such a childish way might tempt one to "fix" things so that they "work better" - and that is basically what Jackson did. Given his own admitted ignorance of the book, he would have been better leaving the story to the story teller and spending his time bringing as much of the original tale to the screen as was possible given the difference in the medium. Of course, in the end that is not what he did - and the films suffer thereby.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
So much of what was done was done simply because in his hubris, Jackson thought that he could tell "the story" better.

Do you know anything about the making of these movies, Mrs. Maggott? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements. Jackson has said in countless interviews -- and on the EE DVD -- that he didn't want to put "his stuff" into the films; he wanted to present the themes from the books that were important to Tolkien.

In an interview with Ian McKellan, he mentioned that when he arrived on set, he would always see Peter Jackson in his trademark shorts sitting in his director's chair rereading the scenes from the book that they were about to film that day. This doesn't sound to me like a guy who doesn't care about his film's source material. Why would PJ care about the book at this point in the production (the screenplay is their working guide) unless he wanted to make sure he was capturing the author's vision?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Do you know anything about the making of these movies, Mrs. Maggott? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements. Jackson has said in countless interviews -- and on the EE DVD -- that he didn't want to put "his stuff" into the films; he wanted to present the themes from the books that were important to Tolkien.

In an interview with Ian McKellan, he mentioned that when he arrived on set, he would always see Peter Jackson in his trademark shorts sitting in his director's chair rereading the scenes from the book that they were about to film that day. This doesn't sound to me like a guy who doesn't care about his film's source material. Why would PJ care about the book at this point in the production (the screenplay is their working guide) unless he wanted to make sure he was capturing the author's vision?

Really? And I can tell you about "countless other interviews" some of which I have seen and read (and others of which I have been told of by those whose word I trust) wherein Mr. Jackson said exactly the opposite.

Frankly, BB, you have to accept one of two things: either Jackson was telling the truth in your "countless interviews" and was therefore woefully incompetent (since he failed to tell the story from the virtual "get-go") or he was being less than truthful in the interviews to which you allude. You can't have it both ways - and the proof of that is these two films, the last of which is worse than the first and the first made serious changes in very important characters in the story. You cannot deny the changes made by Jackson. Indeed, you yourself acknowledged them and said that they "tell the story better" at least on film. Therefore, either Jackson meant what he said (at least those time to which you are alluding) or he was simply chock full of wild blueberry muffins!

I think this whole thing can be traced to Jackson's superficial grasp of Tolkien's work. Yes, he understood the basic plot outline, but he had absolutely no comprehension of Tolkien's underlying vision. Jackson simply interpreted the characters and changed to plot to accommodate his more "modern" understanding of what he and his screenwriters thought was Tolkien's "outdated" mythology. And, of course, in doing so, he completely changed the story.

Are there those who enjoy this "new" LOTR? Obviously! Is it equal or superior to the original? In my opinion (and that of others as well), no! Is anyone free to hold another view on the matter? Obviously! But just don't tell me that these films are Tolkien's LOTR because, as they used to say, "'tain't true McGee!"

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
*ahem*

PJ certainly did not try his best to keep the story true to tolkien'

Had he been attempting such a thing, there would not have been such ridiculous instances as the ford scene or Aragorn's "death". There would not have been pod orcs, Faramir would have been a decent guy, and Frodo would have been smart enough not to go trying to give the ring to a Nazgul.

Period.

Ok, well, I'll admit freely that I was appauled that PJ gave Arwen the ford scene. Very, very, very upset that Faramir was portrayed as this greedy, power hungry (insert word that means 'child without a father').
"Aragorn's death"???? "Frodo tries to give The Ring to a Nazgul???" Huh?
How do you mean pod orcs? They were organized in the books, same as the movie TTT.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I think the "pod orcs" were the Urak-hai whose birth from the ooze had a certain similarity to the birth of the pod-creatures from the two versions of "The Body Snatchers". Of course, I may be wrong, but there is an English gentleman on another site who is also particularly exercised by Jackson's "orc birthing".

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I think the "pod orcs" were the Urak-hai whose birth from the ooze had a certain similarity to the birth of the pod-creatures from the two versions of "The Body Snatchers". Of course, I may be wrong, but there is an English gentleman on another site who is also particularly exercised by Jackson's "orc birthing".

Ahh, ok... "pod" orcs. Gottcha. Yeah, I didn't understand where that came from. JRRT said that Orcs multiply the same way the Elves and Men multiply... which means they have ssss... ahem... well, never mind *looks around and checks for admins*. You get the idea.

[Elf Girl]

*looks sad because BB has ignored her posts*

[Black Breathalizer]

Sheeesh, the things I do just to keep Elf Girl happy:

Originally posted by Elf Girl
The movie Aragorn just doesn't add up. In FotR, this episode portrays him as cold and inhuman:
Aragorn: Legolas, get them up.
Boromir: Give them a moment, for pity's sake!
Aragorn: By nightfall these hills will be swarming with Orcs. We must reach the woods of Lothlórien...

I guess this is why there is so much disagreement on this thread. You look at the above scene and see a cold, inhuman jerk. I look at the same scene and see a man taking charge and urging the others to get their rears in gear before the sun sets and they are overwhelmed by an army of orcs.

Given the stress of the moment, Aragorn could have lost his patience and told Boromir where he could stick it. Instead he simply stated the urgency of their current situation. I see wisdom and sensitivity there, not coldness or inhuman indifference to their suffering.

[Lizra]

Yep, there'd be more to blub about if they didn't start moving!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Ok, well, I'll admit freely that I was appauled that PJ gave Arwen the ford scene. Very, very, very upset that Faramir was portrayed as this greedy, power hungry (insert word that means 'child without a father').
"Aragorn's death"???? "Frodo tries to give The Ring to a Nazgul???" Huh?
How do you mean pod orcs? They were organized in the books, same as the movie TTT.

"Aragorn's death scene" is when he goes over the cliff, everyone thinks he's dead, and then he comes back ("to life"). A kind of "symbolic" (not the right word, but hey, it's me) death. In Osgiliath, Frodo stood on a bridge or something face to face with a Nazgul, probably the Witch-king and extended the Ring to him as if offering it.

I see wisdom and sensitivity there, not coldness or inhuman indifference to their suffering.

Except for the sensitivity part, I agree with BB on this one. ( What is the world coming to? ) Not really sensitivity it seems to me, but the ability to put aside such things when necessary: sensibility rather than sensitivity.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I had no problem with Aragorn acting as a leader in the films even afte Moria. I merely wish that Jackson had set up the character so that the audience would expect him to perform that particular function.

However, it must also be remember that in the book, Aragorn does stop and treat both Frodo and Sam's wounds while they are on the way to Lothlorien. He even apologizes for not seeing to their needs sooner. Even as a leader under great duress, Aragorn evinces a warmth and compassion which no doubt Jackson missed the first time he read the book - if in fact he ever read the book (and there is some question about that given some of what has been said in interviews!).

So it appears that Mr. Jackson did not have to make Aragorn into a "wuss" to please his more sensitive audience members. Professor Tolkien had already made the man caring enough for anyone without emotionally castrating him!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
if in fact he ever read the book (and there is some question about that given some of what has been said in interviews!).

Again, I'd be interested in knowing more.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Sheeesh, the things I do just to keep Elf Girl happy:

Very kind of you. *smiles sickeningly sweet debating smile*

Have I mentioned I love to debate?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I guess this is why there is so much disagreement on this thread. You look at the above scene and see a cold, inhuman jerk. I look at the same scene and see a man taking charge and urging the others to get their rears in gear before the sun sets and they are overwhelmed by an army of orcs.

Calm down. I never said jerk. I do not disagree that Aragorn had every reason to be getting them up and away. However, it seems inhuman that he show no grief himself. He seemed pretty shaken in Moria directly after Gandalf fell. But as he's getting them up outside, there isn't a quiver in his voice. He could be waking up two tired hobbits in Midgewater Marsh!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Given the stress of the moment, Aragorn could have lost his patience and told Boromir where he could stick it.

Hmm, good point. It could have been better if he had, connecting FotR and TTT, making the little outburst with Legolas in Helms Deep seem more in character.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Instead he simply stated the urgency of their current situation. I see wisdom and sensitivity there, not coldness or inhuman indifference to their suffering.

I didn't say "indifference" either. Again: he shows no suffering himself. That is what makes him look inhuman, not the fact that he is trying to get them out.

[WhackoJacko]

the question really is why boromir tried to stop frodo from getting to gandalf, did he want to get rid of gandalf??

why gandalf doesnt know the passowrd to Moria? is ti because he doesnt want to go there in the first place??

major plot hole from jacko

[Sheeana]

Um, he didn't know it in the book either. And that would be because he came from the other direction. Which I believe was the reason in the movie also.

[WhackoJacko]

yeah but he eventually figured it out...

int he movie frodo showed him up as foolish, and the audience is left to wonder