Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Mrs. Maggott]

Several observations:

In the film, Boromir holds Frodo back for quite obvious reasons: there is nothing that the hobbit could do anyway, and the quest would not be served by him falling into the abyss with the Wizard.

In the book, it is noted that as they leave Moria after Gandalf's fall everyone is weeping, not just Frodo and/or the hobbits. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone would be lying around blubbing, but it certainly does mean that everyone's countenance would have betrayed their grief. Yet also in the book, as the remainder of the Company retreats from the gate, Gimli takes Frodo and Sam aside to look in the Mirrormere (which, of course, wasn't there so that particular scene was out). However inspirational a look into that magical lake might be, the scenario did denote a certain acceptance and ability to go forward with the Quest rather than a group that was so transfixed with grief that they needed to be tongue-lashed into movement.

In the film, Aragorn does seem rather untouched by the calamity and I find this all the more odd because he is the one who wanted to go to Moria while Gandalf held back - exactly the opposite scenario than took place in the book. That alone should have added to his grief but he seemed rather remote and untouched as has been mentioned. It appeared as if he took it as a slight "glitch" in the progress of the journey rather than the fall of their leader and the dashing of all hope of success. He mouths Tolkien's words about "Farewell Gandalf" but one doesn't get the feeling that it is all that hopeless - or at least any more "hopeless" than it was when Gandalf was with them.

[WhackoJacko]

look again

Gandalf was still hanging on when Frodo turned back !!!! before he said "FLy your fools!"

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
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!

Again, this is about two people watching the same scene and interpreting it two different ways. I see the look in Aragorn's eyes when Gandalf fell and that spoke VOLUMES to me. That one look told the audience (or at least me anyway) of the shock and pain he felt in losing his mentor and the sudden understanding that HE is now in charge. His actions outside Moria only reinforce that feeling. The audience KNOWS that Aragorn is hurting just as bad - if not more - than the others, but he has to set aside his feelings to lead the others on.

In many ways this is a PERFECT example of why Jackson showed Aragorn's human side more. If we hadn't seen Aragorn's self-doubt about the ring in Rivendell, his singing of the Lay of Luthien, and later on, his tears at the death of Boromir, most people might have agreed with Elf Girl and thought he was too cold and inhuman. In many ways, Tolkien's character on film would have significantly increased that perception.

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

The bridge had just collapsed. I think it was very prudent for Boromir to hold Frodo back since the rest of the now-unstable bridge might have gone down underneath of him as he ran out to Gandalf.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by WhackoJacko
look again

Gandalf was still hanging on when Frodo turned back !!!! before he said "FLy your fools!"

Of course he was still "hanging on" when Frodo turned back. It would have made no sense for the hobbit to run to the Wizard after he had fallen into the abyss!

But Boromir (a seasoned warrior) knew that even if Gandalf could have been pulled up onto what remained of the bridge, it would require a strong man, not a hobbit to do it. Of course, the coils of the balrog's whip still were entwined about the Wizard's legs which meant that any such attempt to pull him back up would be futile since it would require strength enough to pull the balrog with him - and quite aside from not wanting to retrieve the creature, I doubt that anyone there - or all of them together - had that kind of strength.

No, Boromir's restraint of Frodo was a worthy, understandable and intelligent act and certainly does not denote any attempt to separate the Bearer from the Wizard.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

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

This one I tend to agree with. I mean, the world Istar is deriven from "wise" (hence Tolkien's use of the word 'wizard'). The Istari were very wise and knowledgable folk. And yet, Frodo figured it out before Gandalf?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
No, Boromir's restraint of Frodo was a worthy, understandable and intelligent act and certainly does not denote any attempt to separate the Bearer from the Wizard.

Finally, Mrs. Maggott has said something here I actually agree with.

[Elfhelm]

Mirrormere was there, they just didn't look into it, at least not on camera. Obviously some things are there for the book fans to supply the details ourselves.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Finally, Mrs. Maggott has said something here I actually agree with.

Ah! I have achieved Nirvana - I guess!

However, doubtless I shall quickly disappoint you again given our diametric views on these films!

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
This one I tend to agree with. I mean, the world Istar is deriven from "wise" (hence Tolkien's use of the word 'wizard'). The Istari were very wise and knowledgable folk. And yet, Frodo figured it out before Gandalf?

In drama, you can't have one character doing all the smart stuff and everyone else just shuffling along behind like idiots, so you have to spread the ideas about a bit.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
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!"

You say he failed to tell the story, but that's an opinion. If he didn't tell the story, it would have failed to interest the audience. Yet you then use this opinion that you have stated as fact to support your next statement that he was lying about reading the books. It is an opinion that he has a superficial grasp, an opinion based only on your other opinion, which is really that he didn't tell the story the way you would have.

You are quick to tell people what they have to accept, but you are slow to accept that it is a difference of taste, and not an absolute fact.

Just because we disagree with BB and particularly dislkie the concept of "improving Tolkien", doesn't mean we can cheat the rules of fair dispute.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Again, this is about two people watching the same scene and interpreting it two different ways. I see the look in Aragorn's eyes when Gandalf fell and that spoke VOLUMES to me. That one look told the audience (or at least me anyway) of the shock and pain he felt in losing his mentor and the sudden understanding that HE is now in charge. His actions outside Moria only reinforce that feeling. The audience KNOWS that Aragorn is hurting just as bad - if not more - than the others, but he has to set aside his feelings to lead the others on.

Again, you contradict yourself. First you say two different people can interpret a scene two different ways, then you say the audience "knows" that Aragorn is hurting just as bad. How do you know that your viewpoint is the majority? Maybe mine is. Most likely, everyone interprets it slightly differently.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In many ways this is a PERFECT example of why Jackson showed Aragorn's human side more. If we hadn't seen Aragorn's self-doubt about the ring in Rivendell, his singing of the Lay of Luthien, and later on, his tears at the death of Boromir, most people might have agreed with Elf Girl and thought he was too cold and inhuman. In many ways, Tolkien's character on film would have significantly increased that perception.

(First I would like to say that we didn't see his singing of the Lay of Leithien in the theatrical release. However that is beside the point and a nitpick.) In the book, we do see him singing the Lay of Leithien and crying upon Boromir's death. Indeed:

He knelt for a while, bent with weeping, still clasping Boromir's hand.

If that isn't "human", I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The bridge had just collapsed. I think it was very prudent for Boromir to hold Frodo back since the rest of the now-unstable bridge might have gone down underneath of him as he ran out to Gandalf.

I agree completely. The quest would certainly fail if a Balrog of Morgoth got hold of the Ring.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You say he failed to tell the story, but that's an opinion. If he didn't tell the story, it would have failed to interest the audience. Yet you then use this opinion that you have stated as fact to support your next statement that he was lying about reading the books. It is an opinion that he has a superficial grasp, an opinion based only on your other opinion, which is really that he didn't tell the story the way you would have.

You are quick to tell people what they have to accept, but you are slow to accept that it is a difference of taste, and not an absolute fact.

Just because we disagree with BB and particularly dislkie the concept of "improving Tolkien", doesn't mean we can cheat the rules of fair dispute.

That Jackson failed to tell the story is not opinion but fact. He changed the focus of the tale from hobbits to men. He changed Aragorn from a "hidden king" doing deeds of errantry against the day when he could reclaim his throne to a man who rejected his heritage and feared his "blood". He changed Arwen Evenstar into Xena-Evenstar, Elfwarrior princess. He changed Elrond the compassionate and wise counselor into a nasty, cynical fellow who mouthed Saruman's words about "failed Numenor". He changed Merry and Pippin from stouthearted devoted companions willing to risk life and limb for a friend into bumbling sneakthieves swept up into the quest by accident. He changed Frodo from a strong and courageous hobbit into someone who was so weak that he virtually passed out from (or attempted to "pass out" the Ring to) any stray Nazgul. And most of this happened in the first film! It doesn't even take into account (except for the Ring/Nazgul episode) Jackson's "version" of TTT!

I tell no one what they have to accept save only where one is speaking of facts. Yes, you have to accept that one plus one equals two. It isn't a matter of my "opinion" vs. your "opinion", but a matter of black and white as it appears on the printed page. Jackson changed the story no matter how many "familiar scenes" he managed to put in to give veresimilitude to his deviations. The names were the same, but many of the characters were different, something which is easily seen when one character mouths the words that belong to an entirely different character - and Jackson does this more than once (see Elrond above). He keeps the plot relatively true in the first film (with the exception of the "million orc army" and the "stairs of doom" in Moria), but in the second film, he no longer even attempts to do that.

I have not "cheated" or in any way broken the "rules" of fair debate. I have merely pointed out where Jackson failed in this matter. When you change at the most fundamental level many of the main characters in the plot, you have changed the story even if its outward semblance remains familiar. And as always happens in such matters, with each film the audience has been willing to accept an even greater deviation from the original story simply because we have become familiar with Jackson's characters and they no longer bother many film goers. This is called "gradualism"; that is, "getting used to" something by virtue of length of exposure to it. I guarantee, if a Tolkien lover saw TTT first (knowing the story), he would certainly want to know why Jackson had been permitted to use either TTT or LOTR in the title since the film had little to do with either.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Jackson changed the story no matter how many "familiar scenes" he managed to put in to give veresimilitude to his deviations.

Yes, he changed it, but does that mean he failed to tell it? He certainly didn't tell it very well, (IMHO), but it was a movie and it was discernible as Lord of the Rings.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Yes, he changed it, but does that mean he failed to tell it? He certainly didn't tell it very well, (IMHO), but it was a movie and it was discernible as Lord of the Rings.

That all depends upon how you judge what constitutes "the story". Do you really believe it is no more than a "quest tale"? A "there-and-back-again" story with no more deep and important "message" than a sort of "hobbit finds Ring, hobbit leaves Ring to nephew, kindly Wizard learns Ring is evil" - and so forth? Surely, if the story were no more than that, I doubt seriously it would have achieved the fame, acclaim and almost permanent popularity that it has developed over the years. Tolkien's rather "simple" quest tale is merely the framework upon which is hung the author's comments upon so many different and complicated moral and ethical issues.

Certainly, when younger readers first come upon the tale (and the same thing happens in The Hobbit), they see the most obvious elements. However as time goes on and the book is read again (and again), the great Truths being postulated by Tolkien make themselves known and much of what is hard to understand in the story (why there is a chapter devoted to Scouring of the Shire when it seems to "anti-climactic" for instance) becomes not only understood, but frequently is seen as more important than many other more obvious plot threads.

Jackson gave us the story as someone who was seeing only its most superficial aspects. Therefore, he could see no reason why this or that couldn't be changed; why Arwen couldn't be made more prominent (and martial) and Aragorn less "heroic" - and so forth. But this attitude denotes a serious lack of understanding of the author's vision and meaning of the tale. It is a "comic book" approach to LOTR which really should not surprise us given the "comic book" nature of Jackson's past films.

[Elfhelm]

You have been arguing so long that all your opinions have become incontravertible fact in your head. But they are still only opinions.

It is your opinion that the focus of the story is hobbits. It is the opinion of others that the focus of the story is men. The fourth age, which the war begins, is the age of man. In my opinion it is perfectly valid to see the story from that point of view. I think the story can be written from myriad points of view, each could be valid in its own way.

Aragorn has doubts. Are you saying the Aragorn of the book doesn't have any doubts if it is time for his return?

We've all been over Xenarwen till it's a dead horse. When you think of all the awesome elven women in the Silmarillion, and of Eowyn later in the book, surely Arwen comes off as a sissy. It is my opinion that the girl who stays home sewing while her man is off to war is not particularly interesting. Just think of Luthien who chased Beren down to say we are in this together. And beside, it is my opinion that Xena is hot!

Elven kings in Tolkien's books aren't compassionate! um... in my opinion ... they are more often cold. I never thought of Elrond as compassionate. He hardly even helped, except that he thought fondly of Bilbo. Yes you can meet here, but please move along ... my pretty idyllic dreamworld is getting all mussed up by your farmboys.

Now hold on, it was common for the hobbit boys to raid Farmer Maggot's field. They rarely took much. What do you mean sneak thieves!? Now we both know that the two of them had recruited Sam to spy on Frodo, and isn't that sneaky!? But they were doing it because they were worried for him. As to their bumbling, well Pippin does bumble a few times in the book. And he does she that Pippin has the presence of mind to leaev the brooch, and he sets it up that Pippin (the bumbler) knows just how to get the Ents to fight. So their characters are still heroic, and hopefully we will see the serious side in the next movie.

And you're saying that Frodo didn't turn into a mean-spirited, weak, and bitter hobbit from his experience? Now that's just your opinion, and mine is that he did. The saddest thing is what the Ring does to Frodo.

In your opinion, you stated that many films, and gave Harry Potter as an example, have been more faithfully rendered. Frankly, in my opinion, Harry Potter shouldn't even be mentioned in the same place as Lord of the Rings. The books were written in a time when novels are cinematic to begin with. And secondly, Jackson's movies plumb depths of the human soul that those lightweight bits of fluff don't even know about! And I also am of the opinion that the depths Jackson found were from the LotR books to start with.

So now I am saying that you not only mistake your opinion for fact, but that you have entrenched yourself in a position that you are only interested in defending at any cost, even at the cost of truth. At least that's what it looks like from here.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I am sorry I failed to make myself clear. I did not say that the focus of the LOTR was the hobbits, TOLKIEN said it. Indeed, most of what I brought to you is either quotes from Tolkien himself or from books by those who have delved deeply into his works. These things have absolutely nothing to do with me or my opinions. It is one thing to have a difference of opinon with a third party about these matters - and quite another to have it with the chap who wrote the book.

Frankly, to suggest that Tolkien might not have known what he is talking about regarding his own work suggests to me at least, the same mindset as prompted Mr. Jackson to "rewrite" the story. I suppose it can be happen, but it will always result in a product that is inferior to the original.

[Elfhelm]

No, I do not believe that there is a final authority on anything, not even the author himself. If he were an authority on screenplay writing, or drama in general, then his opinions would carry more weight. But since he practically calls drama a bastard art, even though Aristotle calls it one of the three forms of poetry, he makes himself less an authority on the subject of fiction to drama conversions. I like Tolkien fine, but if he thinks he's better than Shakespeare, he's got another think coming, as the Gaffer would say.

In drama, you have to imagine the story from each character's perspective. In fiction you only have to read the writer's perspective. In fiction a writer can be full of opinions and colorful truisms, but in drama the actors have to use dialogue convincingly to convey those same ideas.

I bet none of the people trashing the screenplay has ever even tried to write one of their own. But they still want to say it has nothing to do with the genres. That would be speaking from a position of not-knowing.

Stop beating me over the head with "Tolkien said so". Tolkien never wrote a play in his life. He didn't even think it was literature. If your opinion is valid you can support it without having to resort to "but Tolkien said" all the time.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Again, I am sorry, but it doesn't matter if Tolkien never wrote a play in his life. Obviously, what he did write was so good that a lot of people wanted to see this "non-play" brought to the screen.

Jackson raised money and backers by promising to do just that: bring Tolkien's "non-play" to the screen. A great deal of interest was garnered (including in these sites) because of the belief that Jackson was going to at least attempt to bring Tolkien's "non-play" to the screen. But in the end, all we got was Jackson's attempt to fob his amateurish rip-off as a legitimate expression of Tolkien's "non-play". Frankly, if Tolkien's work were so inferior, why should Jackson have even wanted to spend all that time and money attempting to bring it to the screen when he could have given us another of his famous "splatter" films?

Considering that the best dialogue, the best action, the best drama and the greatest moments in these films occurred at those places wherein Jackson stuck as closely as possible to Tolkien's "non-play", I would say that the actors would have had a lot happier interpreting Tolkien than Jackson.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
That all depends upon how you judge what constitutes "the story". Do you really believe it is no more than a "quest tale"? A there-and-back-again" story with no more deep and important "message" than a sort of "hobbit finds Ring, hobbit leaves Ring to nephew, kindly Wizard learns Ring is evil" - and so forth? Surely, if the story were no more than that, I doubt seriously it would have achieved the fame, acclaim and almost permanent popularity that it has developed over the years. Tolkien's rather "simple" quest tale is merely the framework upon which is hung the author's comments upon so many different and complicated moral and ethical issues.

Yes, I think that 'hobbit finds Ring, hobbit leaves Ring to nephew, kindly Wizard learns Ring is evil, and so forth' is 'the story'. However I also think there is more to LotR than the story.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Certainly, when younger readers first come upon the tale (and the same thing happens in The Hobbit), they see the most obvious elements. However as time goes on and the book is read again (and again), the great Truths being postulated by Tolkien make themselves known and much of what is hard to understand in the story (why there is a chapter devoted to Scouring of the Shire when it seems to "anti-climactic" for instance) becomes not only understood, but frequently is seen as more important than many other more obvious plot threads.

Yes, it is true that most readers (not just the young ones, you know!) see first the story, and later on the ideas and opinions and meanings Tolkien has ingeniously threaded in.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Jackson gave us the story as someone who was seeing only its most superficial aspects. Therefore, he could see no reason why this or that couldn't be changed; why Arwen couldn't be made more prominent (and martial) and Aragorn less "heroic" - and so forth. But this attitude denotes a serious lack of understanding of the author's vision and meaning of the tale. It is a "comic book" approach to LOTR which really should not surprise us given the "comic book" nature of Jackson's past films.

That I agree with. However, as I explained above, I see the 'story' as being separate from the deeper aspects of the novel.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
...But in the end, all we got was Jackson's attempt to fob his amateurish rip-off ...

At least admit that these are opinions. Because when you then go on to use these opinions to support other opinions, it all seems like fanaticism.

Yes, it does matter, I am sorry to inform you, that Tolkien did not know anything about writing drama, and that he spoke ill of Shakespeare, and that he said drama is not literature. As a result, Tolkien is not an authority on drama. Therefore, continually beating Peter Jackson over the head with your Tolkien book is just not in the rules of fair dispute. It's called the "appeal to authority" fallacy, and isn't a fallacy if the authority is valid. But when the supposed authority is not knowledgeable on the subject (even though he be a monumental genius in many other ways), it is a fallacy.

Peter Jackson made the movies because he is a fan, just like us. Most of us diagree with him, just as we disagree with each other, about how to convert it. But it's not true to say he was ripping off Tolkien, or us. In my opinion, everything in both movies so far has been honestly rendered in accordance with his interpretation, together with Phillippa Boyens.

Saying things like "if he ever even READ the books" etc, is just taking cheap shots.