Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

Instead of quoting music lyrics that add nothing of interest to this thread topic, why not actually address a relevant point, Cirdan?

Even though your earlier "evidence" was an off-topic comparison of the book to the movie, let's use one of your points for the sake of creating a relevant discussion:

Cirdan said:

Important to the creation of the fastasy is Tom B. and Goldberry. Unexpected allies are critical to the thread of the story. It is not one hobbit and his posse against the world. The enigmatic pair lend a bit of mystery to the story.

I don't think the theme of unexpected allies comes crashing down with the removal of Tom Bombadil. In the book, the Grey Haven-bound elves, Farmer Maggot, and Aragorn are all unexpected allies on the way to Rivendell. I don't see Tom and Goldberry as an enigmatic pair. I see them as devices which make the reader wonder whether he's reading a kiddie tale instead of an adult fantasy. Tom detracts from the sense of realism that Tolkien works so carefully to cultivate everywhere else in the books. Ultimately, Tom and Goldberry add nothing to the plot so Jackson wisely eliminated them from the screenplay. Before the movie came out, some people I know tried reading the book for the first time and gave up at (surprise, surprise) the appearance of Tom Bombadil. Tolkien would have had a tighter and better trilogy without Tom and Goldberry's cartoonish silliness.

[Cirdan]

Sorry but I'm not interested in peicemeal debate. I went to the trouble of posting a complete arguement in some format that could be understood by all. I don't want to repost it for each point. I'll debate when you've posted a response to each point is some structured way. Neatness counts.

[Black Breathalizer]

Cirdan, you gave us a structured arguement on the merits of the book versus the film. What you posted was fine. Unfortunately, the thread topic is whether or not Peter Jackson's script and characterizations improved the LOTR story in any way. If you don't want to actually discuss a topic on a discussion board, fine by me. But then don't waste our time with postings that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic.

In all 321 posts, I've yet to find anyone here with the honesty to admit that PJ did anything that was an improvement over the books, even something as plainly obvious as Boromir's characterization. All I'm asking for here is a little more honesty and little less ruthless bashing of poor innocent, little me.

[Cirdan]

If you had read carefully you would have seen that I compared story lines. What other basis could you possibly have to compare? Character development, movement, etc are all elements of the storyline. If we aren't comparing the two why then are you discussing TB? Logic, boy, logic.

[Black Breathalizer]

All I'm trying to say is that in the course of a three-hour movie, Peter Jackson came up with a few great enhancements to the storyline and characters. If we want to talk about all the things PJ didn't include that the book did, you win. I'll grant you all that the book's depth comes shining through. Okay? This discussion is not about which one is better. It is about whether some of Jackson's devices improved Tolkien.

If you guys are honest with yourselves, you would have to grant me that PJ did some things better than the book.

That is ALL I've been saying. And no one seems willing to fess up and admit to even one teeny weeny little improvement Jackson made. I find that odd. What are you people scared of? Afraid you'll be cursed by Tolkien's Ghost or something?

[BeardofPants]

Ah, poor BB. Noboby taking diddums seriously anymore? Awwww. Maybe it's because diddums has changed his argument around so many times now, that nobody is quite sure what diddums is trying to say.

Sure, if you wanna argue that, then it's probably true. There are probably *some* things that PJ did better. But again, it falls to movie vs book - something you quite plainly said that you didn't want. Make up your mind bozo.

[Coney]

Ok one little concession to keep BB happy

Jackson did the music a lot better than Tolkien did

Happy now?

[Cirdan]

Good one, Coney. Heh heh... music.

I wayched the movie again last night. Eight year olds tend to have one track mindds, but I don't mind going along for the ride. Once the visuals become memorized one tends to see more and more flaws. I really don't understand the reassigning of dialog. Boromir throws the rock in the pool of the watcher. Why switch it? And why does the watch dangle Frodo around while the others hack it's limbs off? Wasn't the first grab enough?

Just something to discuss while BB mounts his assault of logic.

I'm looking forward to me and the boy's LotR reading tonight. We're at the bridge at Khazad-dum.

[theworkhorse]

Sorry about the lapse...too much homework!

I have searched and searched for literary critics of Tolkien, and found many. However, most of the negative criticisms focus not on literary devises or character developement, but on the merits of the work as a whole and the genre of literature. These critics include:

Philip Toynbee, who in 1961 announced with great relief that popular enthusiasm for Tolkien was now thoroughly tapped out and his works were finally on their way to "merciful oblivion."

Edmund Wilson, who in 1956 dismissing the book as "balderdash" and "juvenile trash

Germaine Greer, who arrived at Cambridge as a student in 1964, wrote "it has been my nightmare that Tolkien would turn out to be the most influential writer of the twentieth century. The bad dream has materialized."

Judith Shulevitz, wrote: "no modern work of fiction in which people say things like "There lie the woods of Lóthlrien! . . . Let us hasten!" can be anything less than "death to literature itself."

I know you would disagree with these critics, but I could not find too many others. I have not been able to obtain Shippley's book, and perhaps being a Tolkien enthusiast and former colleague, he might offer the criticisms you have sighted.

In any case, who are the critics YOU have read? I am most interested to find them.

[theworkhorse]

It seems you want to discuss specific points of comparison between the book and film based on technical superiority. To do this, it would seem we have to juxtapose the movie and the film to see which one is technically superior on specific points, (i.e. Boromir's character development, the chase scene at the ferry, the breaking of the fellowship, etc.). We must pull ourselves away from the temptation to "look at the film through book-colored eyes." We must pretend that we have the option to choose between the two based on technical superiority. If we do not, then we are only left with subjective opinions, which you have made clear are not what you want.

Do you agree?

[Black Breathalizer]

Thanks for your posts, theworkhorse. I'll give you a response when I have more time. We may disagree but I respect you for your thoughtful approach.

But frankly, I am growing tired of reading the same worn-out insults from some of you. If you want to insult me, at least be clever about it like bropous. Ol' bropous may be my sworn archenemy, but I must admit I find his wicked sense of humor fun.

If you don't want to actually discuss the thread topic, then please leave it alone and allow those of us who want to carry on an lively discussion about Jackson's changes the opportunity to do so without your interruptions.

[BeardofPants]

Sorry, your holier than thou attitude dont' work no more. Must be all those insults and skits.

[theworkhorse]

1. No Tom Bombadil. He was unnecessary to the book and a welcomed omission from the movie.

I do not agree that Tom was unnecessary to the book, but Gerbil has already made an adequate argument on that: "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?"

But I do agree his cut from the movie was a good choice. It is an act that could be very cleanly cut and not be too costly to the plot.

2. Increased drama and tension with the ferry scene. Having the riders chase the hobbits to the ferry was cool

Not a good argument. So what if it was cool. Why is it superior? This thread is too long to reread on every point and I am sure you have probably talked about it at length before. Can you restate it again, or direct me to where you said it?

It seemed to be an adequate change to me, but I fail to see the IMPROVEMENT. I think the scene in the book was sound. However, people on this tread have pointed out several technical flaws in the film. A hobbit outrunning a horse is not anything I wish to dwell on, but it does show potential flaws in the film. What was wrong with the book at this point that needed to be corrected? Do the critics address this?

[theworkhorse]

3. The increased sense of drama and tension in Rivendell. I loved Elrond's line, "The Ring cannot stay here." Reading the book, you understand the Rivendell will eventually become an island in a sea of darkness. But you don't get a sense that there is any immediate danger. The change, while absolutely necessary for a movie, added an extra element of tension.

I do not see this as an improvement either. I think "the increased sense of drama and tension" resulted from the compression of a journey of several months and six books into three hours and three movies. If constant tension and action were part of the book, I believe that would have detracted from the believabiltity, (is this a real word? It is now), of the storyline. Several points in the book show that even in the worst of times, there are respites from danger. Tom's house, Rivendell, Lothlorien, and the forbidden pool in Ithilien were all havens for the ringbearer for short periods.

I think the change was adequate, and probably necessary for film adaptation, but not an improvement.

4. Moria. It was absolutely incredible. Okay, to be honest, Jackson didn't improve on Tolkien here, but he certainly captured the magic of Tolkien's descriptions and gave us stunning visuals. More than that, he gave us an action/adventure sequence that while fantastical, was grounded in a sense of reality that made the audience feel and understand the terror of the Fellowship's predicament.

I agree with this. I think Moria was the closest sequence from book to film. A few mistakes/changes like the cave troll fight, which did not happen as Jackson described it, the stairs, and the running from the Balrog, (did anyone else notice the change in distance between the Balrog and fleeing company from shot to shot? Similar to the ferry scene.), but most were forgivable.

[theworkhorse]

5. Boromir. We have discussed this before. One of Jackson's biggest improvements on the story was to give us a more well-rounded and human Boromir than Tolkien did. And for every person here who rolls their eyes at Bean's "My brother..." line, there are a 1000 who find it the most heartwrenching moment of the film.

I am still not convinced on this. I see a change, but not an overall improvement. Boromir is the son of Denethor, and very much alike to him in mind and demeanor. His affection for the younger Hobbits is an improvement of sorts. (So there you go BB, finally someone to agree with you, however minutely) However, this must be qualified. I am reminded by his affection for the young Hobbits in the film of the affection Denethor showed to Pippin later. I also believe that this is a change that Tolkien would not have totally blanched at, (this impression is totally unfounded and bears no weight), because, as mentioned before, he showed similar characteristics in Denethor.

In reading certain passages, I get the impression that Boromir was benevolent to his "inferiors," like his brother, other soldiers, and his people. These passages show that this side of his character was not something created by Pete, but merely emphasized in an appreciable manner. The book, being able to show these themes easier because of the medium, can be more subtle. Films can not be quite as subtle, so they must necessarily focus on ideas more clearly. Thus, this is not an overall improvement, merely a necessity of media. The affection for the Hobbits is merely a way of showing a side of the character that could not otherwise be portrayed in the film. I liked the change, it was heartwarming. But it does not really change the character of Boromir.

In any case, the changes to the rest of his character are worse than the books and so negates any improvement that other good changes made. His selfdoubt and whining are not only out of character, but weaken Boromir as a character. Only with the whole story of LOTR can this be seen. Tolkien's Boromir was strong and majestic, confident and regal. His bearing in the book portrayed his upbringing. His weaknesses in the film seem out of place for a man raised as he was. What purpose does Boromir's doubt play in the story? To make the audience relate to him better? I relate to him better in the book than in the movie. While many people may find the opposite true, this is merely a subjective measure, and nothing more. So it in not technically superior.

[theworkhorse]

The is getting to be like a "Rocky" series. It never ends.

7. Frodo. Jackson and Woods took some risks with Frodo and, in doing so, gave audiences a well-rounded person that millions of people identify with (even though he is a "hobbit") while staying true to the character that Tolkien created. Some of you disagree with this statement but the aspects of Frodo's character that people here seem to have problems with are in the book. The issue is really just the level of emphasis.

I liked the character portrayal, but again see no imporvement. He is different in the book. You do not get a sense of his fighting courage in the movie, (he stabbes the Cave Troll in the foot, for example). I agree with several other posters that he falls on his butt too much, and he does not show that hidden courage in confrontations. This is not interpretation, as Tolkien is clear on these points, so the problem is not in the books. I found Frodo to be rather un-wellrounded in the movie. For me, well rounded means that there are many facets to a characters personality and a growth/change in the character during the story. Frodo does not seem to change as much in the films as he does in the books. What do you see in his character in the movie that I do not see?

8. Aragorn. Jackson and Viggo not only captured Tolkien's great action hero, but they really dug into the character to bring out qualities in Aragorn that made him more well-rounded and believable. Again, those qualities were not created by Jackson, he just brought them to the surface in a way that made Tolkien's great warrior come to life.

What did Pete show that Tolkien did not? His doubts in himself are scarce in the book, though not totally absent, (see him at Breaking of Fellowship). Where is the improvement? I have looked for movie traits not found in the book and come up with nothing.

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

Frodo would not have left without a word if he had not three fears:
1) Fear of the corruption of the ring, made clear by its effect on Boromir
2) The knowledge that his road would lead to certain death in success or failure.
3) His departure would be made more difficult if he had to confront the others with his decision.
This second and third fears are down played in favor of the first in the movie.
So why is this better? The movie makes it seem like the ring's corruptive power is the ONLY reason he leaves. That is very one dimensional. Friendship, trust, and sacrifice are all negated in favor of corruption. The movie could have shown these factors quite easily, but did not. Pete could have shown a short clip of the fellowships discussion while Frodo and Boromir are away. Sam's point especially would have shown the other dynamics quite clearly. It would be enlightening to hear why Pete chose not to show it.

In any case, I do not see how the movie improved a multidimensional decision with a one dimensional decision.

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

I do not know that it was a horribly bad thing, but it certainly did not add anything to the story.

I have thought far too much today, so I am going to go log off my brain for a bit and await you replies.

[Gerbil]

OK BB.

You've now had my thoughts at length.
You've had Cirdan's thoughts at length.
You've had TheWorkHorse's thoughts at length.
Not to mention points from others earlier in the thread.

So far as I can tell you've responded to 1 of Cirdan's points semi-seriously.

If, as you say, you wish to actually discuss this, then some intelligent responces are due from you right about now.

I can hardly wait

[LuthienTinuviel]

Im sorry to do this, but he makes it SO EASY!

Posted by Black Breathalizer: Instead of quoting music lyrics that add nothing of interest to this thread topic, why not actually address a relevant point, Cirdan?

And I suppose your skits and parodies have everything in the world to do with all of this, and not some ugly flame war then, eh?

[Black Breathalizer]

Whoa...when it rains it pours. Too much good stuff to address all at once. But I'll respond to a couple right now:

Tom Bombadil. Gerbil and theworkhorse say that according to Tolkien's letters, JRR had a very good reason for Tom. Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with his main plotline other than to provide a "safe haven" point in the story. In fact, the ring having no power over Tom actually detracted from the corrupting power of the ring theme that Tolkien was creating. I'm not saying Tolkien didn't think he had reason for including Tom (whatever the hell it was), I'm justing saying most good editors would have talked him out of it.

Boromir. theworkhorse said: "In reading certain passages, I get the impression that Boromir was benevolent to his "inferiors," like his brother, other soldiers, and his people. These passages show that this side of his character was not something created by Pete, but merely emphasized in an appreciable manner. The book, being able to show these themes easier because of the medium, can be more subtle. Films can not be quite as subtle, so they must necessarily focus on ideas more clearly. Thus, this is not an overall improvement, merely a necessity of media. The affection for the Hobbits is merely a way of showing a side of the character that could not otherwise be portrayed in the film. I liked the change, it was heartwarming. But it does not really change the character of Boromir."

I would agree with you that Boromir's character didn't really change. Jackson highlighted aspects of his character than Tolkien only implied. But that is the whole point. One of the most frequent comments about the movie from Tolkien book lovers was, "I liked Boromir in the movie a whole lot better than I did in the books." Having him presented in a more likeable light was a wonderful improvement to the story for many reasons:

1. It helps people to understand that Boromir wasn't just another 'bad guy' who wanted the ring but a good (if not somewhat arrogant and bullheaded) man who was tempted by the ring.

2. After trying to take the ring from Frodo, his ultimate redemption was something that resonated with the audience more because we cared about him. I loved the first chapter of TTT, but I never really cared about Boromir's death. I did in the movie.

3. It will enhance our understanding of Faramir and Denethor differently because of the powerful impact Sean Bean has had on our perception of Boromir. I believe people are going to understand Denethor and his motivations in the upcoming ROTK movie much better thanks to Jackson's and Bean's handling of Boromir. As a result, Denethor not going to be viewed as just some crazy old fool who was tricked by Sauron.

Note to my dear friend, Luthien Tinuviel: My occasional skits are intended to share my thread points in a different way. The first one to do that here was bropous. I liked his soccer parody post and have done a few myself since. They are meant to be fun. It you, Gerb, and company don't see them that way, I'm sorry. But hey, you've gotta admit you made a cute female orc a few pages back.

[bropous]

Son, don't flatter yourself by calling yourself an "archenemy" of mine. Only individuals of consequence could ever attain that level of disdain from this braincasing. You don't even get close.

As for my soccer "tangent" [my characterization] being the inspiration for your third-grade reject skits, mayhaps you actually got your inspiration from the dialogue between "bro" and pous" which occurred before. A theatrical aside does not a full scene make. So now we know that you are as adept at script-writing as you are at analyzing Tolkien.

Bombadil unnecessary? In my own [oral] retellings of the story over the years to family and friends, I have omitted Bombadil and perhaps even Gildor and Glorfindel, along with other "minor" characters simply in expedience. I had not a captive audience for three-plus hours JUST to tell Fellowship.

It is possible Jackson felt he had to change dialogue in his own modern RETELLING. Fact is, BB, no matter how you kick and scream at purists and hold yer breath til your teats turn blue, Jackson's RETELLING of Tolkien falls flat on EVERY level. There, I said it, go and blow yer nose, there's a good little thing.

One cannot IMPROVE upon the creation of another.

One can [I]imitate, copy, mirror, reflect, reproduce, repeat, echo, reecho, translate, match, or even parallel. Jackson has, arguably, done little more than mock, take off, mimic, ape, simulate, impersonate, approximate, misrepresent, counterfeit and parody a great work of literature with inserting unnecessary changes, ending, at times, with a true travesty, caricature and burlesque of the original, which was PERFECT, child, PERFECT, and required NO editing to transmogrify it into a work of truly inspired film.

BB, the more and more you flail about, shift your position, amend your premise, all you do is show yourself as an individual who is completely and unmitigatedly out of his depth when discussing Tolkien.

It must be truly sad to be so intellectually lazy that you can neither:

1) Fully appreciate a work of such complexity and depth that it not only challenges the imagination but also speaks to the very ethical core of every individual who dares reach past personal limits to embrace the scope of just a majestic work of literature;

2) Cogently present a premise and back it up with logically-connected supporting evidence; nor

3) Completely understand the works of Tolkien.

EVERY facet of the story is necessary, young-'un. To make a film of the books which changes basic elements is in no way an improvement. Every argument you have presented where you think the film outdid the book is a whining protest that "the written way was too hard for my tiny pointed brain to process."

What an embarassing admission in the face of true Tolkien scholars like Gerb, Cirdan, the workhorse and BoP. Schmuck.