Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Most fans of the books I know have been blown away by the film performances and appreciate the way the film version has expanded our appreciation of the characters we've all grown up to love from the books. I'm sorry for you that you didn't have the same experience. [/B]

Sorry but my friends who are fans of the book are sickened by the portrayal of some of the characters in the movie and I look at most of the changes like Aragorn and Faramir as a disrespect to Tolkien. If it takes dumbing down the characters and tearing away the roots to who the characters are make you appreciate the book more then you must have no understanding of the book. And if you call the 180 they pulled on Faramir getting it right then I would hate to see what they would have had to do to make you say they got it wrong. Just because you know people that don't mind the changes does not in anyway prove to me that they got it right, I know way to many people who feel the way I do, and even more that are more upset with the movies then I am.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Most fans of the books I know have been blown away by the film performances and appreciate the way the film version has expanded our appreciation of the characters we've all grown up to love from the books. I'm sorry for you that you didn't have the same experience.

Expanded our appreciation. I assume I am not included in that 'we'. Just because 'most fans of the books BB knows' have been 'blown away' by the films doesn't make my opinion invalid.

Thank you for your concern.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

There is one thing that keeps coming up in this thread that is absurd (posted over and over by BB and the Bird) and that is the assertion that: the changes made were necessary in order to make a "good film", and that people who don't like those changes ("purists" ) don't understand this necessity.

I would remind everyone that many professional film critics such as Roger Ebert (not my personal favourite, but perhaps North America's most well known) as well as many others, argued that although the film was worth seeing on it's technical merits, the essence of Tolkien had been lost in all the action, and the Hobbits had been upstaged by the race of men.

If you are arguing that what happened to the story in the film "had to be that way because it's a film, and not a book" than you are arguing with many professional critics who seem to be of the opinion that it did not "have to be that way", and in the case of Ebert, stated in his review (on the tv show) that the film would have been better had it been more faithful to the spirit of Tolkien, pointing precisely to the expansion of Helm's Deep as one specific example of expanded violence at the expense of the book's lighter charm, which is largely missing from the film.

There were other ways this film could have been made, THAT IS SIMPLY A FACT, and one of them would have been to reduce the amount of action/violence and increase the ammount of character development. I, along with many critics, fans of the book and many who post here, would have prefered that approach to a shield surfing Legolas.

[Melko Belcha]

"'The Two Towers' is one of the most spectacular swashbucklers ever made...it is not faithful to the spirit of Tolkien and misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books, but it stands on its own as a visionary thriller...What one misses in the thrills of these epic splendors is much depth in the characters...The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me...Jackson has steered the story into the action mainstream. To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver." --Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Thanks Melko

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
then I would hate to see what they would have had to do to make you say they got it wrong

Judging from his posts, I would hazard a guess that the answer would be "Stick to the book".

The characters were thoughtfully researched and brought to life with great care and concern for getting it right by the individual actors and their director

False. Researched, perhaps, but when it came to bringing them to life, I cannot possibly agree, or even see how someone thinks "Quest...mission...thing" twat is equivalent to Pippin, even in the first part of LOTR.

Go Ebert!

[Sheeana]

Yep, gotta love Ebert.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The other one (Roger?) hasn't even read LOTR, I think...

[Black Breathalizer]

LOL...you gotta love the way you purists operate. I've been told many times that the critical praise given to PJ "doesn't mean squat." Now you all go and rally behind...Roger Ebert!?!?!?!?



To squinteyedsoutherner: Yes, there are many ways the films could have been done. But that doesn't mean that other ways would have been anywhere near as successful from an artistic or storytelling perspective as PJ's. His results speak for themselves.

[Elf Girl]

Yeah, thanks Melko Belcha.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I knew you wouldn't understand the previous posts breathalizer.

There is no rally. The arguement is that if the most well known and influencial film critic in North America can argue that the film is a "mainstream action" film, that the "charm" of Tolkien is missing, that the hobbits have been upstaged, that the character development is weak; than it is rather stupid to suggest that people here are "book purists" who don't underdstand film, when they argue the very same thing.

Perhaps when people accuse Hollywood of catering to the lowest common denominator, which they often do, they are refering to people like you -- who are, shall we say ............easily entertained.

[Lizra]

Lowest common denominator to some maybe .....to me movies are just entertainment, take a ride and (try to) have a little fun! I have always rankled at people trying to tell me why or why not I should enjoy something. I didn't care for the heavy handed Helms Deep battle myself, but there it is. (so, so what! ) I'm still excited about seeing extended TTT, and RoTK, who knows what cool stuff I'll find! I'll take what pleasures I can get, and ignore the rest! Nothing's perfect, these movies are fun and exciting to me. I always have the books and my imagination, but it's GREAT to have some beautiful movies to take me a few hundred steps further than looking at a picture. The things I don't like (wargs, ear picking hobbit dolt ) I'll just ignore. I personally think it's pointless to fixate on what I don't like...HEY! there's a lot of stuff I DO like. I'm not sure if this is capturing Tolkien's vision...but for me, it really boils down to capturing MY vision. So..I guess I'm off topic in a way! I just refuse to jump on the "I hate those movies" bandwagon. Loosen up people! (Can you spell C H E A P ...T H R I L L S ? ) Woo hoo...bring em on!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
The arguement is that if the most well known and influencial film critic in North America can argue that the film is a "mainstream action" film, that the "charm" of Tolkien is missing, that the hobbits have been upstaged, that the character development is weak; than it is rather stupid to suggest that people here are "book purists" who don't underdstand film, when they argue the very same thing.

Perhaps when people accuse Hollywood of catering to the lowest common denominator, which they often do, they are refering to people like you -- who are, shall we say ............easily entertained.

Watch it there, squinty, your elitism (which is at the heart of your side's issues with the film adaptations) is showing again.

I have appreciated your new arguement though. Now, instead of calling you Tolkien Purists, I can call you all Roger Ebertists!!!

[Elf Girl]

*gag* I prefer Tolkien Purists, thanks.

I agree with squinty's post exept for:

Perhaps when people accuse Hollywood of catering to the lowest common denominator, which they often do, they are refering to people like you [BB]-- who are, shall we say ............easily entertained.

[Melko Belcha]

"Jackson departs from the book by incorporating an unnecessary battle with orcs and warg wolves just to enhance a subplot between Aragorn and Éowyn (Miranda Otto), the niece of Rohan’s King Théoden (Bernard Hill). Also, Gondor warrior Faramir (David Wenham) is a lot more like his brother Boromir, who perished at the end of the first installment, instead of his own man. This results in his dragging Frodo and company to the battle of Osgiliath, an event mentioned in the books but at which no major character participates. Jackson’s Two Towers also ends surprisingly early, only about two-thirds of the way into the book." - George Wu

"Part two, The Two Towers, picks up right where the first one ends, and the special effects are even more spectacular. But the middle part of a trilogy is always the toughest to tell. And it's even tougher in this case, because of our expectations. This movie simply doesn't match up to the first. In the middle book, on Middle Earth, the fellowship is divided. The film intercuts three separate stories — tough to do under the best of circumstances — but impossible here because two of the three are better read than seen." - Joel Siegel

"Deeply Disappointed! They are just few words to say about this film. Though The Fellowship had some minor glitches, it was a well done adaptation of the book. But The Towers is just so disappointing. No problem with the special effects and the scenery (even if it really is darker than the original), but why, oh God, why did Peter Jackson have to change the storyline? There's no reason to do that. The whole book offers suspense enough, so why change all the parts. All year long I couldn't wait till yesterday. Now, I'm no longer looking forward to The Return of the King. Style, form and language: brilliant, Content: failed!" - Patrick Luedemann, Germany

"It is understandable that much has to be missed out, but what spoiled the film for me was the additional material which never happened in the book. The Elves never came to Helm's Deep, Aragorn never fell off a cliff and nearly drowned and as for the nonsense with Frodo and Sam being forcibly taken to Osgiliath and Frodo offering the Ring to a Nazgul - what on earth was the director thinking of? He certainly badly misunderstands the character of Faramir, who is the most noble character in the whole book, a contrast with his brother Boromir. This is a crucial part of the central underlying study of this work - i.e. the corrupting influence of power (the ring) and how each central character measures up to this test.The director has also mistakenly pandered to political correctness and radically changed the storyline in order to expand the role of Arwen. On the bright side, Gollum was sensationally good." - Robin Woodward, UK

"What has Peter Jackson done? This was a massive disappointment, I am a huge fan of Fellowship, I thought the plot differences between film and book were necessary and helped the film. But The Two Towers has been hacked about, it lacks continuity, action jumps about from story to story. Scenes have been invented for a Hollywood blockbuster feel and perhaps the most unforgivable is the treatment of the character of Faramir. I will still see the third film but I no longer look forward to it in the same way as after the first movie." - Niall Mahoney, UK

The Times - "What we don't get is close and consistent tension. Like most trilogies, The Lord of the Rings sags in the middle. Jackson's middle episode is a vast schematic piece of action with large damp patches of wooden acting. The camera seems forever on a horizon, gazing across distant plains at humourless armies of yodelling orcs. At times it feels like a giant game of toy soldiers. "

I can find more if you like!!!!!

[Elf Girl]

*applause*

[Black Breathalizer]

I'm sorry, but posting negative reviews here is just plain ridiculous, Melko Belcha. What am I supposed to do?...go "wow, I guess I was wrong..MB found critics who didn't like it." You and everyone else reading this thread knows that for every ONE you can find, I can find NINE who loved it.

Wanna bet what the critics are going to say after ROTK???

[Elf Girl]

I believe what Melko was saying is that you can't say we are the only people who didn't like the movies. The reviews prove that we are not a small elitest class.

And if you can find 54 positive reviews and post them here, I will be deeply impressed.

[azalea]

At the risk of annoying everyone, I'm going to remind you all to stay on topic, please. This argument is turning into one that is more appropriate for the "What did you think of TTT" thread at the top of the forum. Let's go back to what we were discussing before in here: a literal translation vs. non-literal, but one that captures the spirit of the book. Thanks. (And feel free to continue the tangent argument in the other thread. )

[Elf Girl]

That's not exactly what we're discussing. I think we should be discussing whether PJ captured Tolkien's vision. After all, no one is asking for a literal interpretation.