Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I also, enjoy them, Lizra. I think Fellowship was a good movie, TTT a fairish one; I am just rather disapppointed with them as adapatations. As I've said a number of times: Like the movies, don't like the adaptations. (That's why I like being a Separatist Purist)

As to my title, I wanted a change. Also, as an aside now I'm liable to be mistaken for a halfwit, as opposed to being halfwitted. But mostly for change.

[Elfhelm]

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.

You know, I think I do a fair job of keeping abreast of things on this topic, and I haven't seen either of these statements. Can you please provide a date and full sentence quote in which he says 1.) that he thinks he has "improved" Tolkiens work and 2.) that he generally "disliked" things in the book (as opposed to found them unfilmable or need to cut and merge because of time constraints). I don't think he has improved anything, myself, and if he disliked Tolkien then why would he waste so many years of his life filming it?

Because so far every such claim (that PJ said these things) has been third party and I'm not convinced that it's not hearsay.

[Rían]

Elfhelm, I'll keep my ears open next time I play the commentaries on the FoTR CD - I'm pretty sure I heard PJ (or perhaps Fran or Philippa) say he "improved" it on one of the FoTR commentaries. (I'll sometimes pop the commentaries on when I have a lot of mindless paperwork to do - kind of a nice background - I can hear some interesting stuff, and get a bit of a feeling of Middle Earth, but it doesn't matter if I tune in and out - I don't miss anything important).

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You know, I think I do a fair job of keeping abreast of things on this topic, and I haven't seen either of these statements. Can you please provide a date and full sentence quote in which he says 1.) that he thinks he has "improved" Tolkiens work and 2.) that he generally "disliked" things in the book (as opposed to found them unfilmable or need to cut and merge because of time constraints). I don't think he has improved anything, myself, and if he disliked Tolkien then why would he waste so many years of his life filming it?

Because so far every such claim (that PJ said these things) has been third party and I'm not convinced that it's not hearsay.

I would be happy to, but the times I have heard him say it was in interviews on tv, and most of them was before Fellowship was released. PJ does talk about some of his dislikes in Tolkien's work on the DVD, but as of now I can not remember what section. But more then anything my dad and sister keep me up to date on it, neither have read the books, but they refuse to watch the movies because of PJ's attitude of improving Tolkien's work. But if I can find a quote I will dedicate an entire thread to it.

[Lizra]

Dear Gwaimir, Are these things supposed to be "adaptations" or movies? I just thought they were just movies! Enlighten me on this "adaptations" business, please!

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
I would be happy to, but the times I have heard him say it was in interviews on tv, and most of them was before Fellowship was released. PJ does talk about some of his dislikes in Tolkien's work on the DVD, but as of now I can not remember what section. But more then anything my dad and sister keep me up to date on it, neither have read the books, but they refuse to watch the movies because of PJ's attitude of improving Tolkien's work. But if I can find a quote I will dedicate an entire thread to it.

You do realize, of course, that this is practically the definition of hearsay, right?

[Elf Girl]

I'll enlighten you.

They are movies. They are also adaptations of LotR. You first see if it was a good movie, (i.e. was it enjoyable?) then if it was a good adaptation. (i.e. did it capture Tolkien's vision?)

[Wayfarer]

Wrong.

When bringing a work such as Tolkien's to the screen, the adaptation is /foremost/. If you only wish to make a good film, then by all means do something original.

Jackson's films are bad adaptations. They fail in bringing tolkien's work to the screen.
The fact that they are also, in many ways, bad movies, only adds to the shame.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lizra
Dear Gwaimir, Are these things supposed to be "adaptations" or movies? I just thought they were just movies! Enlighten me on this "adaptations" business, please!

Both, from my understanding. I believe I read where Jackson said in an interview, I think "What we've done is we've brought all of the most important things into the movie, and we've actually made it better." Sorry, Elfhelm, I don't have a link to the interview at the moment, but I'll see if I can find it.

[Lizra]

I guess it's "suit yourself" time again! (Sorry I asked) When I read the dictionary, one of the definitions of 'adaptation' that catches my eye is:
2. Anything that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special use or situation.
Sounds like there's some leeway here! I see this glass as half full, others half empty. Que sera, sera!

Oh, I do see your point GW, movie good, adaptation bad. I'll go with movie great, adaptation fair (as in 'fair enough' for me! )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Re: the quote about PJ improving upon it for Elfhelm, I found the interview here. From the interview:

The reality is that The Two Towers is the slightest of the books, I think. We kind of have all the memorable moments of the book in the film and what we've done is to actually enhance and add bits of story that weren't in the book.

Also, another quote I found interesting (on the second page) was

He created the Elvish race as his perfect ideal beings.

Surely PJ read the Silmarillion? Elves are hardly perfect.

[Wayfarer]

Lizra-

Of course there's some leeway. Of course there are changes.

But jackson has gone beyond anything that can be excused as adaptation. He hasn't tried to make changes so that Tolkien's story would come out better on screen, on the contrary, he made many changes that made the film /worse/ than the alternative.

[Lizra]

I've heard that before! I see where you are coming from, I'm just not as picky as you I guess!

In some cases, his changes wern't too hot, in others they worked well. Bottom line for me, I liked the movies, they aren't perfect, but I really enjoyed them none the less! In fact, they were much better than I thought they would be. I hope RoTK is more like FoTR than TTT. I can't wait to see Vigo/Aragorn fulfill his destiny! ahhhh! (and Gollum fulfill his)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I hope so too. Given PJ's ahem interest with monsters, Shelob should be quite good. I'm interested in the Voice of Saruman.

Thoughts on the Window on the West for the Extended Edition? Do you think they'll have it? Do you think it would fit in with the revised Faramir? Anything related?

[Lizra]

I don't understand Gwaimir! It was in TTT....Henneth Annun, caves and hideaway. It's been awhile since I saw that movie, what are you hoping to see? Sorry if I'm being dense here!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It was? I don't remember anything beautiful about the Faramir sequence. Certainly not the Window on the West:

But in front a thin veil of water was hung, so near that Frodo could have put an outstretched arm into it. It faced westward. The level shafts of the setting sun behind beat upon it, and the red light was broken into many flickering beams of ever-changing colour. It was as if they stood at the window of some elven-tower, curtained with threaded jewels of silver and gold, and ruby, sapphire, and amethyst, and kindled with an unconsuming fire.

So beautiful...I feel like I'm about to cry...

P. S. I'd be interested in quotes from Rian and Melko, of course.

[Wayfarer]

In some cases, his changes wern't too hot, in others they worked well. Bottom line for me, I liked the movies, they aren't perfect, but I really enjoyed them none the less!

Now see, that's where we dissagree.

I don't like the movies /as movies/. As far as I'm concerned, they're just more of the B-rated trash that jackson has put out all his career. Had it not been for my love of anything eveb remotely tolkien, I would not have gone to see TTT. I might not have even bothered with FOTR. Because they weren't that good.

As for 'some his changes not being hot', I answer- /None/ of his changes were for the better. /Some/ of them were absolutely nauseating, again, not only as changes from the the book but as sequences in the film.

The ford sequence, I may note again, might have been passable- if /arwen/ had been a main character. As it was, it simply served to show the audience that Frodo was a pathetic weakling with no spine and no courage.

[Lizra]

Aw, that scene where Boromir comes in after arriving at Rivendell, when he first meets Aragorn, picks up the shard of Narsil, cuts himself, hurries off as Aragorn watches, the beautiful murals on the walls, That was wonderful! (IMO)

[Rían]

Yes, I liked that scene, too, except the part where Boromir calls Aragorn 'friend' (because they're both enemies of the One Enemy) and Aragorn doesn't respond, except with a rather snobbish look. Perhaps they were trying to add 'tension', as they seem to be trying to add alot.

I don't particularly like them as movies, I like them because the good parts (the parts that remind me of Middle Earth and Tolkien's writings) outweigh the bad parts, at least for me. They may not for others.

I was re-listening to the director's comments today on the FoTR DVD (great to do while knocking off paperwork) and I do understand many of the changes (I only got as far as them meeting Merry and Pippin in the corn field) as far as what will work in a movie and what won't. For example, the sheer amount of names - in the prologue, they didn't mention Narsil (you can see it is the same sword that shows up in the Rivendell scene Lizra mentioned), let alone the name of Gil-Galad, because they said they thought the sheer amount of names and characters already in the movie was on the verge of being overwhelming. I can understand changes like that. But to me, the wimping down of Frodo and Aragorn was a travesty. Frodo's defiance of the Witch King at the Fords of Bruinen was one of the highlights of the book, IMO ("By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair," said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, "you shall have neither the Ring nor me!") In PJs movie, he just oozes green gooey stuff and never defies the Ringwraiths.

But I can ignore that, and enjoy the parts that I do like, like I said before. (And Asfaloth, even tho he had the wrong rider, was very pretty! I read a funny bit about Glorfindel back at Rivendell, reading a newspaper and thinking to himself "Ho hum, it's about time to set out to find Frodo," then Arwen zipping by him and grabbing Asfaloth and riding off.)

[Lizra]

Yeah...when Boromir says "friend", I get all woozy! The look on Aragorn's face is strangely pained. I wonder what he's supposed to be conveying there? His (Aragorn's) respect for the history of the shards of Narsil? That pumped up "poor" Boromir part makes makes my heart skip a few beats! (I know it's not written that way, and I don't care! LOVE IT! ) I sure hope Faramir's character comes off as "improved" as Boromir's after the EE. Do you think Sean Bean is that much more of a fabuloso actor than the Faramir guy? (haven't even bothered to memorize his name! )