Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Wayfarer]

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.

Well now.

I do think that they were bad films. I consider them to be failures of narrative, plot, character, and circumstance. They were bad movies overall. I obviously didn't like them as much as you did.

That said, there were /places/ in the films where I know what you're saying.

Jackson ruined vast swaths of middle earth by making it into psuedomedieval hack fantasy. But in a few places the majesty and grandeur of Tolkien's world really did shine through. And you know... those few places almost make the whole thing worth it.

If only the fools had seen fit to bring Tolkien's LOTR to the screen in whole, rather than in part.

[Sheeana]

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

Little spiders from New Zealand. They were actually avondale spiders (from Avondale ). Cute little buggers too.

[Wayfarer]

Very Cute. I like spiders.

Say, Sheeana- why'd you get a new profile rather than just changing the name?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
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.

Beautifully said. You've captured the way I feel about the films too.

Last night I watched a "Screen to Film" TV show on the Making of Jaws. The author of the novel, Peter Benchley, who has written both novels and screenplays said the following when asked about the changes that were made in translating his novel to the big screen:

The two are very different mediums. Any author who thinks his story can be translated to film exactly as it was written is nuts.

[Melko Belcha]

You say we keep on bringing up small details like characters, well to me the characters are the #1 thing that makes the story. The characters are who you connect with and who carry you through the story. I would have been more accepting to changes to the book if the characters would have stayed the same. Characters are not a small detail, a small detail is like there are no mountains near the Shire, well in PJ's ME there is, that is a small detail, and not one I care to complain about. But the charaters for me are the most important detail of the story, to change the characters, and to rearange their dialoge is to destroy the entire story.

And LotR is through the eyes of the hobbits, and not because Tolkien said it was, it's because that is the way the story is written. There is no room for a difference of interpretaion when the story is written a certain way. Ever since the begining of writing LotR Tolkien had it through the eyes of the hobbits.

[Elvengirl]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

But in a few places the majesty and grandeur of Tolkien's world really did shine through. And you know... those few places almost make the whole thing worth it.

I feel the same. The TTT was a major dissappointment for me, I was hanging my head throughout most of the movie. But the scenes where the book just comes alive for me and I am seeing Middle Earth or watching Gandalf fight the Balrog or Bibo's party, that is what I love about the movie. Those scenes where I get excited just thinking about them, that make the whole thing worth it.

[Elf Girl]

You never defined "purist". You must be using a differant dictionary, since you seem to think it is an insult.

Originally posted by 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."

There you go again. You must be one of those people. We have put themes to you. You have evaded them. I challenge you to say, straight out, that characterization isn't a theme. Just so you know, there isn't a lot of text on the screen before the movie saying, "In this movie, Aragorn's character is such and such, and Frodo's character is so and so..." The only way to see their character in the movie is to look at specific incidents. If you refuse to actually look at the movie itself, than there is nothing we can do for you.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
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?

Oh, they certainly don't mean diddily squat. However, Acadamy Award recognition and lots of money have to do with whether it was a good movie, and not whether it captured the themes of Tolkien's vision, which is what we are discussing.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
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.

Huh? First you say we're not the majority, then you say you're the minority. And I'll thank you to not put words in our mouths. (Or feelings in our hearts in this case.)

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 don't know (or care) if you believe me, but I have been seriously considering just that. I will certainly be waiting a few weeks after it comes out to see what the general opinion on Entmoot is.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
... But in a few places the majesty and grandeur of Tolkien's world really did shine through...

There are some MAJOR parts in the film that absolutely make me cringe with embarassment or yell out "No! That's not right at all!", but those places where Tolkien 'shines through' make the movies well worth it, for me. I just basically put my mind in the 'ignore' mode (you know, like when your parents are talking to you ) during the bad parts, and really, really enjoy the good parts.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Say, Sheeana- why'd you get a new profile rather than just changing the name?

It has something to do with the colour of my hair, and the nature of the beast.

[Wayfarer]

The two are very different mediums. Any author who thinks his story can be translated to film exactly as it was written is nuts.

Let me ask you something.

Where do you draw the line at 'nescessary changes'?

You know what? I'm perfectly okay with replacing Glorfindel with Arwen. I really am! I have nothing against the character of Arwen.

What I /do/ have a problem with is this new, expanded Arwen usurping the roles (in the ford scenes) of Four Hobbits, Two Elven Lords, A Ranger and Future King, and a Maian Istari.

Do you see the difference? The character of Glorfindel may not be nescessary. It may be fine to replace him. But to completely butcher that scene, placing the focus on Arwen's sword-brandishing and 'magic' rather than the group efforts of far more important characters than her, and completely... well rape is as suitable an ajective as I can find, the character of Frodo, turning him from a simple hobbit who finds within him the strength to resist both ring and morgul wound, into a simpering, fainting, pathetic... nothing.

Do you see the tiny difference? Do you see how what was actually done might not fit the criteria of 'nescessary modifications'?

The changes that were made were mostly ridiculous. While there were some that were logical and acceptable, such things as the ridiculous side trip to Osgiliath or elves showing up at helms deep add nothing to the story, and are not even remotely close to 'nescessary modifications'. They were not made because of the differences between film and written mediums, they were made because jackson insisted (foolishly) that he could tell the story better than tolkien.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Sheeana
It has something to do with the colour of my hair, and the nature of the beast.

Wow, you lost me there... you are blond, and you're now saying that you are a ewe? Explain please. BTW, Ulmo tossed me back on shore... seems I anoy him also with my babbling.

Originally posted by Wayfarer, the truely insufferable
...The changes that were made were mostly ridiculous. While there were some that were logical and acceptable, such things as the ridiculous side trip to Osgiliath or elves showing up at helms deep add nothing to the story, and are not even remotely close to 'nescessary modifications'. They were not made because of the differences between film and written mediums, they were made because jackson insisted (foolishly) that he could tell the story better than tolkien.

Aren't you being a bit harsh? I agree that most of the changes made the story confusing to readers (ie, birthing of the Orcs, Arwen takes Glorfindel's scene... etc, etc, all your points are good). But do you really think that PJ felt he could tell the story better than Tolkien? And you say he 'insisted'. So, when was this insistence? Was this your interpretation or did he really say this.

[Melko Belcha]

PJ has said many times in various interviews that he 'has improved Tolkien's work". And he has said that there was many things he disliked about the books and that is whay he made some of the changes he did.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
PJ has said many times in various interviews that he 'has improved Tolkien's work". And he has said that there was many things he disliked about the books and that is whay he made some of the changes he did.

Thanks, I don't keep up with the movie stuff. This is what I wanted to know. That really tweeks me! I didn't know he said those things. How dare he!?!

I'm mainly a book fan, although I own the first movie, saw the second (disappointed though) and will see the third.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

See above post.

Especially this:

I'm mainly a book fan, although I own the first movie, saw the second (disappointed though) and will see the third.

[Elf Girl]

Agreed completely, Wayfarer. *mutterings about how Glorfindel is not expendable*

And Gwaimir, why are you dimwitted now?

[Wayfarer]

Why Gwaimir, why?

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I just basically put my mind in the 'ignore' mode (you know, like when your parents are talking to you )

Nah....that's the good stuff! 'Ignore mode' is often used when your kids are spouting off their usual confused nonsense. ho ho! grumble...

[Lizra]

I think everyone has their own unique, personal level of tolerance for "changes to the book". BB's is extremely high, Mrs M's...very low. We all have our own little spot where we fit on this 'comfort level' measurement. Bottom line for me, (being quite selfish! ) is, "did I enjoy the movies"....not, "did they match Tolkien's intentions". FoTR movie I enjoyed very much, TTT I haven't digested yet. Some people simply cannot enjoy the movies because they bring to (their) mind "changes" from the book. I understand, but I'm glad I'm in the group that isn't bothered by this. I get two Middle Earth treats to enjoy! PJ's stuff beats the hell out of the cartoon offerings!

[Elvengirl]

I wonder, would any of you like the movies had you not read the books first?

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Elvengirl
I wonder, would any of you like the movies had you not read the books first?

Fellowship, yes

Towers, no. It was too choppy. None of the characters did I connect with. Some real cheesey camera shots. There was actually stuff in the movie that made me embarresed to even be in the audience.