Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation - Page 21

mithrand1r · 05-02-2003, 09:22 AM

As movies, I thought they were good, (FOTR more than TTT), but I enjoyed both. As Adaptations I thought the movies could have been better and still stay within the 3hr/movie timeline.
As for the general feel of Middle Earth I think the films succeeded.

I think the movies (upto now) conveyed the following themes from the books well:

Good vs. Evil
Duty and honor
Friendship and loyalty

The following was not so well or clear

Characterization of characters
Things change and do not remain the same

I will need to look for info to back my opinions, but this is a good start of my impressions of the movie conveying Tolkien's LOTR.

Sincerely,
Anthony

Wayfarer · 05-02-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

The following was not so well or clear...Things change and do not remain the same

Ooh, tempting. So tempting. Must... resist. urge. to. snap!

Elfhelm · 05-02-2003, 11:25 AM

"enhance" and "improve" are vastly different concepts...

I still see no evidence of this charge that PJ claims to have improve on Tolkien. I think people are using BB's words and putting them in Jackson's mouth.

Melko Belcha · 05-02-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elfhelm
"enhance" and "improve" are vastly different concepts...

I still see no evidence of this charge that PJ claims to have improve on Tolkien. I think people are using BB's words and putting them in Jackson's mouth.

From the Webster's Dictionary

enhance - to make greater, better, etc.; heighten

improve - 1. to make better, 2. to make (real estate) more valuable by culitivation, construction, etc. vi. to make better

Not reall vastly different, they sound pretty similar to me.

Black Breathalizer · 05-02-2003, 02:10 PM

PJ has never said he improved Tolkien. The closest he's come is to say he changed things from the books that wouldn't translate as well to film. It was the legendary Black Breathalizer who had the keen insight to publicly observe that aspects of Tolkien's story were improved in PJ's cinematic version.

I continue to say Peter Jackson has captured the essence of all of Tolkien's major themes. The two that seem to be brought up more frequently from The Dark Side are: The focus on Hobbits and Capturing the Characters.

A few thoughts:

Capturing the Characters. There is a huge difference between PJ emphasizing different aspects of the same personality versus having totally different people possessing the bodies of our beloved book characters. My observation has been that some of the loudest complainers here fail to grasp the complexities of Tolkien's characters. The ironic thing is that they whine about Peter Jackson when in reality he understands the characters far better than they do.

The focus on Hobbits. I'm hearing a great deal about the the film version's focus on men instead of hobbits, particularly after the release of The Two Towers. I would argue that it is unfair for the book purists to compare the entire book trilogy against only the first two films of PJ's trilogy (which doesn't even cover all of Tolkien's second book.) It is obvious knowing the plot of the last parts of TTT (the ending of books 3 & 4) and the ROTK book that the "hobbit focus" will dramatically increase in film three.

Elfhelm · 05-02-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
From the Webster's Dictionary

enhance - to make greater, better, etc.; heighten

improve - 1. to make better, 2. to make (real estate) more valuable by culitivation, construction, etc. vi. to make better

Not reall vastly different, they sound pretty similar to me.

Anything can be distorted. Do I need to show how this was done, or is it obvious to other people, too.

Ruinel · 05-02-2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
...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."

He actually said that?!? That he was making The Book better? No, no... no...
[IMG] http://www.spacespider.net/emo/shakehead [/IMG] ...it can't be... no, no... no... What kind of animal would say such a thing?
[IMG] http://www.spacespider.net/emo/sad06.gif [/IMG]
This is not right.... I'm so very, very glad that I don't keep up with all this Hollywood crap. I think I would be so disappointed with the world I would jump off a clif.

Elfhelm · 05-02-2003, 03:23 PM

When someone says "I believe" and "I think" it doesn't mean they KNOW.

Obviously when he said he enhanced things people wanted to think it meant he thought things were'nt good enough, but that says more about them than about him. Some things have to be enhanced and other things downplayed when converted between media.

Mrs. Maggott · 05-02-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
PJ has never said he improved Tolkien. The closest he's come is to say he changed things from the books that wouldn't translate as well to film. It was the legendary Black Breathalizer who had the keen insight to publicly observe that aspects of Tolkien's story were improved in PJ's cinematic version.

I continue to say Peter Jackson has captured the essence of all of Tolkien's major themes. The two that seem to be brought up more frequently from The Dark Side are: The focus on Hobbits and Capturing the Characters.

A few thoughts:

Capturing the Characters. There is a huge difference between PJ emphasizing different aspects of the same personality versus having totally different people possessing the bodies of our beloved book characters. My observation has been that some of the loudest complainers here fail to grasp the complexities of Tolkien's characters. The ironic thing is that they whine about Peter Jackson when in reality he understands the characters far better than they do.

I have absolutely NO problem "grasping the complexities of Tolkien's characters" but I can assure you, that FEW or NONE of those complexities appear in Jackson's characters with the exception of the names. Aragorn, Faramir, Theoden, Elrond, Arwen, Merry and Pippin are all changed in the full meaning of that word. Now, do these characters maintain some manifestations of the books' characters? Of course! But the true characters of these main protagonists are lost in Jackson's "interpretation". To suggest that because they retain a few characteristics in common means that they are in fact the same is to suggest that because they each have two eyes and one head in both book and films really means that they are the same!

Black Breathalizer · 05-02-2003, 05:31 PM

I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.

Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.

Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.

Others complained that Gandalf the Grey wasn't the commanding leader he was in the books and deferred too much to Saruman. They forgot the Gandalf they were remembering was Gandalf the White.

Can the characters from the films be as complex as their book counterparts? Of course not. But are the personalities from the books represented in the film characters? Of course. No credible evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Elfhelm · 05-02-2003, 05:39 PM

I'm not complaining, I just would do things differently. I have the same reaction to every production of Shakespeare I've ever seen, of course. It's OK to imagine how you would do it if you had the skill and time and money and access to great actors. Many people here feel they can be more "true to Tolkein" than PJ was. Of course, they are all speaking out of their ... er ... hats because none of them has even a glimmer of real experience.

Ruinel · 05-02-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elfhelm
When someone says "I believe" and "I think" it doesn't mean they KNOW.

Obviously when he said he enhanced things people wanted to think it meant he thought things were'nt good enough, but that says more about them than about him. Some things have to be enhanced and other things downplayed when converted between media.

*relief* So, PJ did not say he had made Tolkien's work better? *sigh* My faith in humanity is strengthened.

Wayfarer · 05-02-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

*relief* So, PJ did not say he had made Tolkien's work better? *sigh* My faith in humanity is strengthened.

Jackson may not have said it for sure. Black Breathalizer DID!

Ruinel · 05-02-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Jackson may not have said it for sure. Black Breathalizer DID!

BB!!! You did NOT!!!!

How dare you mar the Work of Tolkien by saying that anyone could improve on perfection!! A pox on you!!!!

Elf Girl · 05-02-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.

Yes, Tolkien's Frodo was terrified. However, the natural resiliance of Hobbits allowed him to bear the splinter of the Morgul-blade for a long time. (Can't be bothered to check how long.) Eleven days, I think. Anyway, it makes you wonder why a Hobbit was allowed to bear the Ring if they are so weak.

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.

Tolkien's Aragorn is proud that he is Elendil's heir, not terified by Isildur's 'weak' blood.

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.

A Dark-Green Galadriel in a glittery bathingsuit and a high wind that affects no one else.

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Others complained that Gandalf the Grey wasn't the commanding leader he was in the books and deferred too much to Saruman. They forgot the Gandalf they were remembering was Gandalf the White.

Can't answer to that, I thought Gandalf was okay in the movies.

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Can the characters from the films be as complex as their book counterparts? Of course not. But are the personalities from the books represented in the film characters? Of course. No credible evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Show me any of Merry and Pippen's character represented in the movies, except for 'blundering idiots who are still clumsily loyal'.

Wayfarer · 05-02-2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

BB!!! You did NOT!!!! How dare you mar the Work of Tolkien by saying that anyone could improve on perfection!! A pox on you!!!!

He Did <- Link to the (locked) thread.

Ruinel · 05-02-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayfarer
He Did <- Link to the (locked) thread.

OMI!! BB!!! You f^$#%*& b@$@%d!!! How dare you!!! Who the h*ll do you think you're talking about!!???? Some dip sh** paperback writer that's here today and a 'has been' tomorrow??!!! This is classic work!!! Do you realize that!?! This is TOLKIEN you little @#%#$#$@$#%^@#$%^#$!#$!%$%^#$^@%^ ! Sonofa....

I can't say more without getting kicked off The Moot... I'll come back when I'm calmer... which might be never the way I feel right now.
#@$%@#$%@#$%!@#$%!@#$%@!!!!

Wayfarer · 05-02-2003, 07:44 PM

Coney · 05-02-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruinel
OMI!! BB!!! You f^$#%*& b@$@%d!!! How dare you!!! Who the h*ll do you think you're talking about!!???? Some dip sh** paperback writer that's here today and a 'has been' tomorrow??!!! This is classic work!!! Do you realize that!?! This is TOLKIEN you little @#%#$#$@$#%^@#$%^#$!#$!%$%^#$^@%^ ! Sonofa....

I can't say more without getting kicked off The Moot... I'll come back when I'm calmer... which might be never the way I feel right now.
#@$%@#$%@#$%!@#$%!@#$%@!!!!

LT will be proud

D'ya see why there is no "serious" film discussion, we got cursed with a BB

Wayfarer · 05-02-2003, 07:52 PM

Fiesty. ];-)

05-02-2003, 09:22 AM	#401
mithrand1r Cyber Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Left of Rock, Right of Hard Place Posts: 986	Movies separate from books As movies, I thought they were good, (FOTR more than TTT), but I enjoyed both. As Adaptations I thought the movies could have been better and still stay within the 3hr/movie timeline. As for the general feel of Middle Earth I think the films succeeded. I think the movies (upto now) conveyed the following themes from the books well: Good vs. Evil Duty and honor Friendship and loyalty The following was not so well or clear Characterization of characters Things change and do not remain the same I will need to look for info to back my opinions, but this is a good start of my impressions of the movie conveying Tolkien's LOTR. Sincerely, Anthony __________________ Sincerely, Anthony 'Many are my names in many countries,' he said. 'Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Drarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.' Faramir What nobler employment, or more valuable to the state, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation? Cicero (106BC-43BC)

05-02-2003, 11:25 AM	#403
Elfhelm Marshal of the Eastmark Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,412	"enhance" and "improve" are vastly different concepts... I still see no evidence of this charge that PJ claims to have improve on Tolkien. I think people are using BB's words and putting them in Jackson's mouth. __________________ cya

05-02-2003, 03:23 PM	#408
Elfhelm Marshal of the Eastmark Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,412	When someone says "I believe" and "I think" it doesn't mean they KNOW. Obviously when he said he enhanced things people wanted to think it meant he thought things were'nt good enough, but that says more about them than about him. Some things have to be enhanced and other things downplayed when converted between media. __________________ cya

05-02-2003, 05:39 PM	#411
Elfhelm Marshal of the Eastmark Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,412	I'm not complaining, I just would do things differently. I have the same reaction to every production of Shakespeare I've ever seen, of course. It's OK to imagine how you would do it if you had the skill and time and money and access to great actors. Many people here feel they can be more "true to Tolkein" than PJ was. Of course, they are all speaking out of their ... er ... hats because none of them has even a glimmer of real experience. __________________ cya

05-02-2003, 07:44 PM	#418
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	__________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

05-02-2003, 02:10 PM	#405
Black Breathalizer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 828	PJ has never said he improved Tolkien. The closest he's come is to say he changed things from the books that wouldn't translate as well to film. It was the legendary Black Breathalizer who had the keen insight to publicly observe that aspects of Tolkien's story were improved in PJ's cinematic version. I continue to say Peter Jackson has captured the essence of all of Tolkien's major themes. The two that seem to be brought up more frequently from The Dark Side are: The focus on Hobbits and Capturing the Characters. A few thoughts: Capturing the Characters. There is a huge difference between PJ emphasizing different aspects of the same personality versus having totally different people possessing the bodies of our beloved book characters. My observation has been that some of the loudest complainers here fail to grasp the complexities of Tolkien's characters. The ironic thing is that they whine about Peter Jackson when in reality he understands the characters far better than they do. The focus on Hobbits. I'm hearing a great deal about the the film version's focus on men instead of hobbits, particularly after the release of The Two Towers. I would argue that it is unfair for the book purists to compare the entire book trilogy against only the first two films of PJ's trilogy (which doesn't even cover all of Tolkien's second book.) It is obvious knowing the plot of the last parts of TTT (the ending of books 3 & 4) and the ROTK book that the "hobbit focus" will dramatically increase in film three.

05-02-2003, 05:31 PM	#410
Black Breathalizer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 828	I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too. Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too. Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too. Others complained that Gandalf the Grey wasn't the commanding leader he was in the books and deferred too much to Saruman. They forgot the Gandalf they were remembering was Gandalf the White. Can the characters from the films be as complex as their book counterparts? Of course not. But are the personalities from the books represented in the film characters? Of course. No credible evidence has been presented to the contrary.

05-02-2003, 07:52 PM	#420
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	Fiesty. ];-) __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tolkien's Languages	Forkbeard	Middle Earth	3	10-14-2004 01:08 PM
Tolkien's message =to die with dignity. Can any one help explain this interpretation	Seblor	Lord of the Rings Books	6	12-18-2002 01:18 PM