Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

um, BeardofPants? I coulda sworn you and your buddies were the ones telling me that hating PARTS of the movie, didn't mean I should make the statement you all disliked the movie.

Well, let's follow your own logic. Perhaps this could mean that ...(cue drumroll)...I could actually like the construction of a scene from the screenplay better than the book without feeling the whole movie is better than the entire book.

I'm going to eat pie now too.

bye-bye.

[bropous]

Well that should be a big steaming plate heaped with crow pie or humble pie, son, 'cause if you had any intellectual honor whatsoever you would be packin' both in great greasy gobbets right down your own gullet.

Let us, in a sudden burst of clarity after 20 pages of horse manure-laced rants by yourself, review your original post:

I quote:

"Some of you purists may disagree, but in writing the screenplays to his movies, I think it's clear that PJ actually improved on The Master's great work.

"Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Tolkien fan. But I love the changes that Jackson has made. Some of my favorites include:

"Boromir's character. PJ made him much more "human." In the movie version, you could actually empathize with Boromir in a way you didn't in the book. Who didn't like the way he related to Merry and Pippin?

"The Breaking of the Fellowship. PJ's version tied things together in a way that Tolkien wasn't able to do.

"Arwen. Why didn't Tolkien highlight this beautiful love story? Using her in the flight to the ford was a stroke of genius.

"I can't wait to see what improvements Jackson and Co. make to TTT!!!"

[Becoming once again loudly sick. Sorry, kitty.]

Well, BB, Boromir's character was more cartoonish and one-dimensional in Jackson's screeenplay, and I guess that would more fit your limited ability to conceptualize descriptions, subtleties and undertones. Boromir in the books was FAR more human than the film version, though I actually thought Sean Bean's characterization was one of the finer points of the film. Boromir in the books had far more levels to him, levels which were NOT untranslatable to the film medium, but which were ignored by Jackson and Boyens. Facile replacing complexity, and unfortunately, that was a recurring theme throughout the entire film.

The Breaking of the Fellowship: Well, I'm sorry Tolkien did not tie everything up into a nice comic-book version in one easily-read chapter for you. I am sure that Ronald's heart bleeds "on the other side of the veil" that he lost your approval with his wordcraft. See, part of the wonder of Tolkien is a hanging thread of the story over here that is not tied up until much later; in this, Tolkien actually goes back and adds additional dimension and depth to his well-woven tapestry. Laying it all out right up front may be the way Spiderman is scripted, but Tolkien is another level of reading, a level which hopefully you will grow to appreciate fully.

As for Arwen, the simple fact there is that she had VERY LITTLE to do with the story line in the long run. Jackson's rewriting of the story in her case meant putting Elrond's daughter out in the wilds with the full complement of Nazgul on the hoof in the vicinity, and that actually rips up Elrond's dedication to his daughter and his own wariness of letting distaff members of the family abroad after losing his own wife to Orcs in an attempt just to cross the Misty Mountains and visit family and friends in Lothlorien, EVEN WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY A STRONG ESCORT OF ELVEN WARRIORS!!!!!! You want to know who was REALLY weakened by this unnecessary strengthening of Arwen/Xena? THE NAZGUL!

And while we are at it, WHY did Jackson not include Legolas shooting the winged Nazgul out of the sky over the Anduin, Gollum hanging onto a log following the three boats, the TRUE vision of Lothlorien with the mallorns and the platforms far above the ground, the Barrow-Wight scene, Old Man Willow, etc etc etc?

CAUSE HE WASTED TOO MUCH FRIGGIN TIME EXPLORING AVENUES WHICH WEREN'T EVEN IN THE FREAKIN BOOK!!!!!!! Had Jackson not wasted his time with Arwen, the Cave Troll, this BS about the collapsing dwarf-toss bridges in Khazad-Dum, etc etc etc, he could have left in those portions of the book which were MUCH more important to the story as a whole.

The origin of the sword which breaks the spell of the Witch-King is IMPORTANT!!!! The passing of the Elves into the West and Gildor's scenes with the hobbits were IMPORTANT!!!! the fact that Frodo did not know the fate of the rest of the Fellowship was IMPORTANT!!!! (Oh, and BTW, you can bet Frodo most certainly DID hear the blowing of the Horn of Gondor, so at least he had SOME idea they were in trouble).

Fact is, kid, and you ARE a kid, at least intellectually, Jackson's detractions from the books far outweigh any points he may have scored for this-or-that aspect. It was totally unnecessary to make the changes he felt all-too-comfortable with, and just hang on, 'cause you ain't heard NOTHIN' yet.

[Sween]

some intresting points Bropus. The Nasgul did not come across as deadly in the film as they do in the book. But rember its hard to do this using film you cannot just say 'the nasgul are s** scary' know what i mean.

As for arwen i dont think this reflects badly upon the nasgul by all rights of tolkien lore she should be more than able to handle herself in the wild. Been of Maira blood by only a few generations.

please also do not winge about wasting time with arwen sceans because shes only on screen for about 5 minutes and most of them are simply just replacing a character that has nothing to do later on. Also your statement about her having very little to do with the story in long run doesnt quite fit she marrys aragorn in the end you cannot have her not pop up again. Tolkien had the great advantages of apendecies where he could fill in all these little gaps to his hearts content (and why not) but movies do not work like this so give him his dues.

Elrond was very badly depicted in the movie and i have no defence for him.

I thought Boromir was depicted very well if anything he has taken that character and made people look at him diffrentally. All he wanted to do was protect his people....not such a bad guy is he?

Im surprised no ones had a go at aragorn character as he is vastly diffrent from the book but he makes sence to be like that in the a movie if he was like he is in the book people would not of liked him.

i think your grivences about lorien will be fixed in the special edition its a movie theres a thing called pace dont want people nodding off now do we?

the cave troll and bridge scean were 2 of the best in the film from an action standpoint. we are all entitled to our opinions but action is a key comonent of a movie like this and the bridge i felt carried off there desperate escape from moria amazingly well IMHO.

the sword thing can still be fixed. i had not read the books b4 hand and i managed to understand the elves passing into the west so it was there. Oh please frodo not knowing the fate of the fellowship the movie ended im sure he will muse over the subject in the two towers.

Im not saying that the movie is better than the book because its not as the books not better than the movie the book would of made crap movie if it was made word for word and the movie would of made for a crap book (that make sence?)

either way go scunthorpe united

[bropous]

oh come on, sween, let's pull together for FC Biggleswade!

[Sween]

Originally posted by bropous
oh come on, sween, let's pull together for FC Biggleswade!

Just thought that post was far to serious needed to ligten it up and whats more happy a thought the mighty iron .

seriouly though i did make some good points didnt i?

[markedel]

I certainly agree about elrond-he was done badly. Actually large chunks of rivendell were utter tripe.

[GRONK!!!]

*Actually takes the time to read most of the argument* Can someone quote GRONK and then insult him? He feels so left out of the meaningless flaming...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by GRONK!!!
*Actually takes the time to read most of the argument* Can someone quote GRONK and then insult him? He feels so left out of the meaningless flaming...

Sorry gronk. While your marginally verbal you must at least make the effort of saying something pointlessly contrary to something someone else posted.


How was that?

[GRONK!!!]

Yaaaaaay. Thanks that felt good.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by GRONK!!!
Yaaaaaay. Thanks that felt good.

Cirdan happy gronk like.

[durin's bane]

Hee hee, you're funny, GRONK.

*puts a PJ mask on the includes a...very...ugly...WART!*

OK, BB, hit me with your best shot.

[bropous]

Sure, Gronk, I'll take a poke....

"Can someone quote GRONK and then insult him? He feels so left out of the meaningless flaming"

INSULT: Third person voice in a conversation is really irritating.

Feel better?

========================================

Sween: you made some EXCELLENT points in your post.

========================================

Guys. it looks like our "teacher" has taken a sabbatical.

[Sween]

Originally posted by bropous

========================================

Sween: you made some EXCELLENT points in your post.

========================================

Guys. it looks like our "teacher" has taken a sabbatical.

thank you thank you very much! Bloody scunny united went and lost to our bitterist rivals today (damn you mud rats aka hull city) 2-0 bunch of muppets. Brian laws has the tactical skill of a 1st world war genral

[LuthienTinuviel]

hmm bropous, i don't think youve ever tried to insult me either! lets have it! wee!

thank you GRONK for the idea! you rock!

[Cirdan]

Hmmm, somewhete NOT in a human colon. When did you move?

*ducks*

Oh, sorry. Was it not my turn?

Well, have at me then. Should be plenty to work with...

[theworkhorse]

I disagree. I thought the screenplay did a excellent job of highlighting the changes in Frodo from the beginning of the story to the breaking of the fellowship. Even though Frodo didn't show his hidden courage in his confrontation with the ringwraiths, he showed courage and spunk in his decision to leave the shire with the ring. He also showed great courage in offering to take the ring to Mordor in the Council of Elrond. But by highlighting Frodo's fear in the movie, Jackson created a powerful emotional climax to the first film. Both the book and the movie did a great job with Frodo. But to be fair to Peter Jackson, he was able to capture the essence of Frodo and have him become the audience's "everyman" because he had the guts to take a different slant. If PJ had tried the Christopher Columbus approach with LOTR, it would have fallen flat IMHO.

How is this an improvement? As I said in the last post, I thought Frodo was portrayed adequately, if not differently, than Tolkien described him. We are not talking about personal preferences, but technical merits, I still fail to see improvement.

The courage he showed in leaving the Shire and taking the ring at the Council of Elrond is not the fighting courage to which I was referring. He comes off as a wimp in battle. The courage of Hobbits in battle was important to the story. Tolkien describes in at least a dozen places a submerged fire and indominability of Hobbits, leading one to believe he wanted to emphasize that charactristic. This is a facet of Frodo's character that is missing so far, (though admittedly, Merry and Pippin show it a few times).

Is having an 'everyman' necessary? Is there a rule in writing books and/or screenplays that says an 'everyman' is necessary or at least beneficial? (This is a real question, not a statement)
In Tolkien's world, almost every character has traits that endear and relate them to the reader, so long as the reader has some measure of empathy and self-introspection. Differences in how the reader relates to a character reflect the differences between us all. (For me, I relate to Samwise, Gimle, and Boromir the most, because they were all workhorses (=Þ).

In the movie, Frodo has the courage to take the ring; he is a wimp in Battle on Weathertop. At Rivendell, he has the courage to take the ring further; he is a wimp in the Chamber of Mazarbul. At Parth Galen, he has the courage to take the ring alone to Mordor; he falls down on his butt when Boromir chases him and he does not fight the orcs, (I would not say this is as wimpy as the others because fighting would not have been beneficial, but clearly he is not courageous in a fighting way). His character remains static through the film. It can be argued this is only the first film, and so things might change later on. We shall see in a few weeks. I hope it is the case, but it is irrelevant at this point. There is no growth in the character.

[theworkhorse]

I'm justing saying most good editors would have talked him out of it.

You still have no sources listed. I have talked to three english professors, a local newspaper editor, and one book editor. Of the five, three have read the books. Only one said he would not have included Tom Bombadil in the books, though all said for a movie it was a good idea that he was left out. Granted, this is hardly a scientific, representative survey, but it was the best I could do in this small town. (can you all not tell how boring this place is?) I do not expect you to do an extensive survey to validate your statement, I am just looking for a source. Is it not more accurate to say that if you were an editor, you would have cut him out, rather than to presume most editors would do so?

One other thought on Tom, which others have probably mentioned before: the LOTR is not an allegory or a story. It is a history. Tolkien wrote a history for a world he imagined. History does not occur in a vacuum, there are always intricately woven threads that come together and split apart at unexplainable and unpredictable times. Tom Bombadil makes Middle Earth a more realistic history. He adds to the credibility of Middle Earth as a world of its own.

I would agree with you that Boromir's character didn't really change.

If he did not change, than he did not improve. Perhaps you mis-spoke, or I am, again, just nitpicking.

Having him presented in a more likeable light was a wonderful improvement to the story for many reasons:

Why must he be more likeable? What about those of us who are not likeable? I am proud, outspoken, (can you not tell), and overly self confident. I certainly related to him.

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.

People who see Boromir as "just another 'bad guy' did not read into his character too deeply. Tolkien's version does show Boromir as a good man who was tempted by the ring. All of the Fellowship saw him as an admirable man and a worthy companion, so spoke Frodo to Faramir. He was proud and outspoken, not bad traits to have for a future ruler of Gondor.

theworkhorse

[theworkhorse]

And while we are at it, WHY did Jackson not include Legolas shooting the winged Nazgul out of the sky over the Anduin, Gollum hanging onto a log following the three boats, the TRUE vision of Lothlorien with the mallorns and the platforms far above the ground, the Barrow-Wight scene, Old Man Willow, etc etc etc?
CAUSE HE WASTED TOO MUCH FRIGGIN TIME EXPLORING AVENUES WHICH WEREN'T EVEN IN THE FREAKIN BOOK!!!!!!! Had Jackson not wasted his time with Arwen, the Cave Troll, this BS about the collapsing dwarf-toss bridges in Khazad-Dum, etc etc etc, he could have left in those portions of the book which were MUCH more important to the story as a whole.

I totally agree Bropous. If Pete had such a problem getting in all of the things that were in the book, he should not have added new, and rather unnecessary, parts to it. Pete's interviews for TTT seem to imply that the next film will go even further away from the storyline. I am very scared, and even hesitant to see the next film because of it.

[theworkhorse]

(Oh, and BTW, you can bet Frodo most certainly DID hear the blowing of the Horn of Gondor, so at least he had SOME idea they were in trouble).

Frodo mentions it during his discussion with Faramir in "Window to the West:"

'And you can tell me nothing of the cleaving of the horn?'

'No, I did not know of it,' said Frodo. 'But the day when you heard it blowing, if your reckoning is true, was the day when we parted, when I and my servant left the company.'

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by theworkhorse
I totally agree Bropous. If Pete had such a problem getting in all of the things that were in the book, he should not have added new, and rather unnecessary, parts to it. Pete's interviews for TTT seem to imply that the next film will go even further away from the storyline. I am very scared, and even hesitant to see the next film because of it.

I think some of it is expanding scenes that are part of settings they wanted to emphasize. Since the bridge scene is critical, maybe the developed CG made it a convenience to add scenes in that setting. I didn't like it mostly because it was too silly and improbable. This may be the drawback to filming the sequels in sequence;that greater attention to detail can't be added retroactively now that they know they will make plenty of money to pay for it. I also wonder if there wasn't some bad blood with the Tolkien family not being willing to participate. It seems bizarre but I can't fathom taking so much effort to rewrite parts unneccessarily. Switching dialog from one charater to another is a pointless arbitrary change; more of a distraction than anything.