Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
1)No, I do not believe that there is a final authority on anything, not even the author himself....2)but if he thinks he's better than Shakespeare, he's got another think coming, as the Gaffer would say.
3)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...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

4)If he didn't tell the story, it would have failed to interest the audience.

5)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.

6)I bet none of the people trashing the screenplay has ever even tried to write one of their own.

1) From what I've heard, wouldn't that be especially the author? I thought that you'd said a few times that the author is the single person who is least capable of telling about his story and the meanings themes etc. therein.
2) Um...isn't this just the same thing: opinion?
3) But what does Tolkien's lack of knowledge in regards to drama have to do with the themes of his book?
4) Not necessarily true. If he told a different story, it could have interested the audience.
5) Um...isn't that exactly what BB always does?
6) Yourself included?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

In my opinion, everything in both movies so far has been honestly rendered in accordance with his interpretation, together with Phillippa Boyens.

I really don't understand that. How can someone "interpret" Glorfindel sending Frodo to the Ford with his horse as Arwen taking him to the Ford? Or how can someone think that when Tolkien said that Faramir aided Frodo, he really meant he kidnapped him? Surely PJ does not think that Tolkien is so stupid?

[Elfhelm]

1) In my opinion the author's guess at his own themes is important, but I don't think he's the final authority.

2) Sure, it's my opinion that Shakespeare is greater than Tolkien. I hope that doesn't get me banned!

3) What I'm saying is that Tolkien's prejudice against drama has made him a non-authority on the subject of converting fiction to drama. His opinion is useful, but on some matters he lacks the experience to address dramatic issues.

4) She said he failed to tell the story. I think he is succeeding.

5) Yes, they're both guilty of stating their taste and opinions as holy writ.

6) My lame attempt to make an operatic libretto of Beren and Luthien taught me one thing: it is impossible to do it following the fiction writer all the way.

Glorfindel: What would you rather have, a cameo for an obscure hero from another book or expansion of a central character? I know your answer is different from PJ's, but it is a mattter of taste.

Faramir: Yeah, I disagree with him here, too. But it's my guess he wanted to make it clear by showing, not telling, that Gondor was also under attack. Because Theoden just said that Gondor would not aid him. (Never mind that Osgiliath was actually attacked months earlier... grrr...) I mean, I can see his rationale. Can't say I like it...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

1) I'm curious: who do you think gets the final authority? The reader?

2) Well, each to his own.

3) You didn't answer my question. I was talking about such things as what he wrote without any regard to dramatization of his book, as in the Themes, or the appearance of Orcs.

4) But it stands he could tell a different story, and quite possibly captivate the audience, yes?

5) I'm sorry, I don't think I've ever seen you jump on BB for this. Is it because he's been around longer?

But those are still not interpretations of Tolkien, but rather changes (with the intent of improving upon) of Tolkien. Of course he had reasons; I didn't think he just went through blindfolded, tore out pages, and then rewrote them.

[Elfhelm]

It's obvious that some people think those changes were attempts to improve on Tolkien. I think BB is the only one who ever used that word here actually making that claim. I think in every conversion between a narrated art and an acted art you'll have to change things. I don't agree with those changes either, I hope that's clear.

3) That's a different topic.

4) Given that there must be changes, it stands to reason that the story will be a little different. It's certainly not as different as people have been exagerating!

1) Now we're getting into philosophy and that's way off the point. You know what I will say in my existential angst...

Basically, a writer can't spend his life trashing an entire genre and then people get to use his books to bonk the heads of those who work in that genre. That's just absurd.

[Elfhelm]

I mean, just because I would do it differently doesn't give me the right to go around declaring war on everyone who likes the way it was done.

Let's start a thread about what we would have done differently!

p.s. remind me to jump on BB...

[Black Breathalizer]

Everything that gets posted here only reinforces my opinion that you Purists here really are caught up in the details. You just can't let go of the little nitpicky things that for some reason upset your personal view of LOTR. As Elfhelm has so eloquently pointed out, screenplays are different creatures than novels. Peter, Fran, and Phillipa tried to capture the spirit of the books while making changes necessary to the drama, pacing, and flow of the films.

Everytime I ask for examples of how PJ's themes differ from the books, I get nitpicky specifics about characterizations or plot deviations deemed necessary for bringing the story to the big screen. If you want to continue to trash these films, that's your right. If you want to say they fail to capture the spirit of the books, you can do that too. But understand that your so-called "truths" only cause most LOTR fans to smile to themselves and say, "uh oh, one of those people."

The real truth is that the world is hailing Peter Jackson's film version of this tale. Each of the first two films has made over 800 million at the box office in their theatrical releases alone. With the DVD sales, the take is in billions of dollars. The critics, many of them huge Tolkien fans, have applauded the way PJ has captured the magic of the books on film. Others in the industry agree: The films have received 18 Academy Award nominations and won 7. And we haven't even gotten to THE BEST of the three films yet!!!!!!!!!

*** Special note - This is the point where some Purist responds with "yeah, so what? Lots of money and Academy Award recognition don't mean diddily squat!" ***

I understand. Really I do. Why spoil your precious "truth" with the cold, bitter taste of reality?

Mark my words, Return of the King will earn over a billion dollars at the boxoffice and will win the Academy Award as Best Picture of the Year. The entire film series will be gobbled up by eager LOTR fans for years and years to come. If the view of you Purists was truly "the Majority" view and not the grumblings of a few whiney LOTR message board geeks (I mean this in the NICEST way ), then these things wouldn't be happening. I may be in the minority here, but in your heart of hearts, you all know I'm right about this.

By the way, how many of you are planning to boycott ROTK since you are so disgusted with its translation from the book?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Of course not. I have no problem with people who thought they were fine adaptations, as I've said before, i.e. Lizra, Dunedain, and a few others. It's BB that gets annoying, with his militaristic attitude about it, and the way he acts like those who don't agree a) don't understand Tolkien b) are too dumb to tell that it is in actuality perfection on screen, or c) which I won't even mention.

Consider yourself reminded.

Basically, a writer can't spend his life trashing an entire genre and then people get to use his books to bonk the heads of those who work in that genre. That's just absurd.

In regards to other areas, such as the author's own work, and the story it tells, what's important in it, etc. I disagree.

P. S. He did not "spend his life trashing an entire genre". The fact that he strongly disliked does not mean he bad-mouthed seven days a week.

[WhackoJacko]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
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!

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.

interestingly, NO attempt to save Gandalf, despite the general feelign that the quest was doommed without him. Cant say i would have you as firend in hour of need Miss Maggott

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Whacko, it is the same in the book; once Gandalf has fallen from the bridge, there are no attempts to aid him.

[Elfhelm]

I'm not a purist, I'm a snob.

If the details aren't important, maybe the author should have written a short story! There you go justifying your means with your "same ends" again. The story IS the details, didn't you know?

GW, I wasn't refering to those other areas. However, I do prefer to think for myself.

[WhackoJacko]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
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.

thats the whole point of contention, there isnt any depths in Jakcon's attempt at all, and despite the anti Hollywood blurbs, they have made all the hollywood cliches.

I for one, came away from the movie feeling rather hollow for a 3 hour movie sitting !!

Prime example, Tolkien wrote three contrasting characters for erhmm "dramatisation": frodo, gollum faramir.......the past, the present and the future...what did Jackson give us?? 3 gollums (actually 2, faramir was a confused wreck) And this is in the middle of the second book, doea anyone doubt the outcome of the sotyr? great suspense NOT

for a visual medium and a director aspiring to greatness, Jackson seems to have a lot of voice overs so for those who say why dont you write a screenplay, well i say i dont have to coz i paid for that ticket to criticise bad screenplays

[WhackoJacko]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
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.

In fiction you only have to read the writer's perspective. In fiction a writer can be full of opinions and colorful truisms,

how untrue can u get??? that my friend is the criteria to judge a fiction author

[WhackoJacko]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Surely PJ does not think that Tolkien is so stupid?

Nope, Jackson thinks the audience is that stupid...well this one wont buy the TTT DVD, EE or otherwise

[WhackoJacko]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
It's obvious that some people think those changes were attempts to improve on Tolkien. I think BB is the only one who ever used that word here actually making that claim. I think in every conversion between a narrated art and an acted art you'll have to change things. I don't agree with those changes either, I hope that's clear.

i believe Jackson made the same BS in answering web questions on changes to Faramir, that the ring was all conquering and it wouldnt make sense to have faramir (who has never seen the ring) NOT tempted by it.

well it made sense in the book so why not on screen?? Given the fact that Boromir had the ring in his hands already (the one person who wanted it and would use it) and gave it back duh !!!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Oh, didn't you know? Apparently, TTT was Tolkien's brain fart.

[Elfhelm]

That's silly, Aragorn isn't corrupted by it either.

But I guess he's trying to give more persona to the One Ring. I heard him say he was trying to make it a character but it can only act through others. Sounds to me like he's approaching it like a dramatic challenge.

I can't explain the depths I get from these two movies, and I don't think you really want to read it anyway. For months after the first movie I was unable to watch any other movie. Again after the second movie I had the same situation. My expectations for film became very high. I have been moved by the performances of the actors. I have played the two sound tracks over and over. I sing Britten and Bach and barbershop. The singing on the soundtrack, the awesome choral writing, the haunting songs, that's just a small piece of what these renditions do for me. I've always liked Alan Lee. Some of the set are right out of his drawings! I could go on, actually mention some emotional reactions, but if you've never had them, you wouldn't understand.

There are things I don't agree with, and I've mentioned them here in the past, but I am eagerly awaiting the EE DVD and I am ready for RotK. Maybe I should rent Arachnaphobia to get me in the mood for her.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Wasn't Arachnaphobia about little spiders? Eight-legged Freaks is big spiders...but that movies was pure crap...

[WhackoJacko]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

By the way, how many of you are planning to boycott ROTK since you are so disgusted with its translation from the book?

i will be right there saying i told ya so " heheh

it will be such a let down is u get so hyped up lol....go watch 'the rise and fall of the Roman Empire" the "real" Gladiator and see why modern directors sux swo much dpesite better technology

[Gwaimir Windgem]

By the way, how many of you are planning to boycott ROTK since you are so disgusted with its translation from the book?

I think they're good movies, which can be enjoyed as separate entities. There's no reason for me to boycott it.