RotK: a successful adaptation?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Eruviel: . . .But about the siege: there's only so much you can do. In the books, Tolkien says that the armies of Mordor encamped outside of bowshot range. Interesting point about them having to wait until enough masonry was broken before they had anything to throw back.

Well, Tolkien may have said they encamped out of bowrange, but PJ didn't--in the movie, they were close enough and unless I was too tired to notice things properly, at the movie, they did start shooting at the armies once the masonry exchange started. I think the way they did it in the movie, well, it looked like the Gondorians could have done so much more, but didn't. I mean, yeah, they might have been waiting for orders from their crazy Steward (alas! poor Denethor! what they did to his character!) but then why did the Steward not notice the big army that came right up to his gates? I mean, did he take an extra long lunch break or something? It takes a while for an army of that size to set up the way they had! So why did Denethor act so surprised?

Oh, and again, I actually liked the thing with Frodo sending Sam away. I thought it worked.

[Nurvingiel]

I didn't mind the Frodo-Sam thing so much. I thought it was an odd change, but at the same time, it was well done and I don't mind it.

I don't understand why it occurred, but it worked well enough I suppose.

However, it's deviations like that that decrease its success as an adaptation.

Overall, though it was a highly enjoyable movie, LotR was not a successful adaptation.

[obscenename]

I believe he meant crack that Jackson was smoking.

[barrelrider110]

Of the three movies, this was, in my opinion, the best adaptation. It may be that I had a different set of expectation regarding changes, but as far as a movie goes I thought it was well done. I don’t have a problem with anything that was deleted, it’s over 3 hours and 20 minutes for goodness sake, but I did have issues with additions. I thought that Gollum’s attempt to turn Frodo against Sam was OK, and the appearance of the Mumak battalion at the Pelennor was superb. I thought the Legolas-as-Spiderman routine was a little corny.

[Elfhelm]

If Ioreth is not in the Entended Edition, I will be upset. For now all I can say is, wrong idea to leave out the Houses of Healing. Very bad move. What's the point without Ioreth? Can just any old Dunedain come walking in and claim to be King? Though I shouldn't give more material to movie bashers, I will just wait till November.

I have to throw a link to a great essay Michael Martinez wrote about the Wise in which he mentions the scene that I am refering to:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/71710

Well, maybe only indirectly.

[Orpheus]

-well it sure was interesting to see shelob sting frodo wearing a mithrill shirt, and marry and pipping being not realy taller at the end of the movie (:

best movie ever for a long time to come

[Nurvingiel]

In the book (though I haven't read RotK for a while) I believe she's described as stinging Frodo in the back of the neck, where the mithril shirt would not reach of course.

Since they included the Entdraught in the extended edition, Merry and Pippin should have been taller. Good noticing.

I believe this has been mentioned before, but no one made a big deal over Eowyn and Merry slaying the Witch-king. They also recovered from their wounds impressively and unnaturally quickly. If the Houses of Healing isn't included in RotK extended edition, that will not make sense. (It already doesn't, but EE could repair the damage anyway.)

[Dúnedain]

Read this:

Ain't it Cool is also reporting a list of the scenes to be added back into the film for the extended DVD. These include Gandalf confronting Saruman at Isengard, Merry pledging allegiance to Theoden at Edoras, Aragorn using the Palantir to reveal himself to Sauron, the Witch King confronting Gandalf during the battle of Pelennor Fields, the Houses of Healing scene in which Faramir and Eowyn meet, Frodo and Sam joining a column of orcs on the way to Mt. Doom and the infamous 'Mouth of Sauron' scene at the Black Gates. Glimpses of a few of these appeared in trailers for the film. We've also heard that the drinking game at Edoras between Gimli and Legolas will be added back in, along with possibly more footage showing other characters going into the West at the end of the film. Peter Jackson has said that approximately 65 minutes of material was cut from the film for its theatrical release, so a good portion of that could find its way back into the extended cut. We'll post more when we hear it.

[Nurvingiel]

Oh my goodness, that's almost everything they missed! No wonder it's about 5 hours long (apparently).


So what are everyone's conclusions so far? I feel that, though the movies are visually stunning and beautiful, they are not very good adaptations. I will probably not deviate from this viewpoint with future viewings of the movies.

The way I would describe a successful adaptation would be the book in film form, or as close as humanly possible.

Before I saw any of the movies, I gave Jackson full marks. Watching the movies, each major or pointless deviation detracted from its success. This would include (in no particular order) the Flight to the Ford, the omission of Saruman and the Scouring of the Shire (from RotK), the omission of the shortcut through the Old Forest, Gimli and Pippin's more unfortunate lines, and many parts of the battle of Helm's Deep, among others. Small details such as pointless differences with the book in the battle in Moria at Balin's tomb, or the omission of Gandalf's letter to Frodo about Aragorn.

I did enjoy the movies immensely, and they were visually stunning. Arwen (the movie character) was very beautiful, but nothing like her character in the book. Dark hair, being Elrond's daughter, beauty, and love for Aragorn are not enough to make her character successfuly adapted from the book.

Likewise the movie, though beautiful and well-done in many parts, the movie was overall not a successful adaptation.

[cassiopeia]

I'm confused, Nurvingiel. How could you give Peter Jackson full marks before you have seen the films?

[Nurvingiel]

I should have elaborated on that a little.

Before I saw it, I knew of no mistakes. I gave it full marks because of this, but when I watched the movies and saw deviations from the book, I knew there were mistakes and started taking off "marks", which eventually led to me concluding it was a failed adaptation.

The full marks thing was my way of going into the movie with an open mind.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Well, I went into the theater fearing the worst (because I was extremely dissapointed when I saw the Towers). I was, however, pleasantly surprised. I was a bit miffed at what they cut out, but even more amazed at how much they crammed into the amount of time that they had. The biggest problem I've got with it is the whole Shelob deal (Frodo leaving Sam included). The whole thing is sooo much better in the book- and what isn't??- but I think it was a silly decision to change it from the book. I missed Sam getting to beat the crap out of Gollum and Shelob. His "Drop him" growl was the best part of the whole thing. I was sooo dissapointed that he had no good-bye speech to poor Mr. Frodo. Much to short.
Other than that and no Houses of Healing, I was rather pleased with the whole movie. Simply a beautiful job on everyone's part.
I do indeed think it was a very successful adaption.

[Aden]

Well, I believe it was a good adaptation (not a great one though)
So to start with the good:

1) I liked Minas Tirith
2) The battle scenes were good (except from Legolas...)
3) The hobbits
4) Theoden's part
5) Minas Morgul

I disliked:
1)When entering the paths of the dead (Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli) the horses flee in terror. I think that PJ should emphasize the loyalty of those horses.
2)Denethor eating
3)I missed Mouth of Sauron
4)I think PJ presented Faramir weaker than he is.
5)Reduced the power of the Nazgul since Mery and Eowyn don't seem to suffer much (Mery even goes to the black gate to fight)
6) The palantir thrown in the water
7)on March 6 Dunedain and Elladan and Elrohir don't show up (Aragorn doesn't get the banner)

And... I hated:
1)Gandalf beating up Denethor
2)Arwen-scenes (especially the one with the baby )
3)The Scouring of Shire missing
4)Frodo sending away Sam

Anyway, despite these I really enjoyed the movie

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Rosie Gamgee
Well, I went into the theater fearing the worst (because I was extremely dissapointed when I saw the Towers). I was, however, pleasantly surprised. I was a bit miffed at what they cut out, but even more amazed at how much they crammed into the amount of time that they had. The biggest problem I've got with it is the whole Shelob deal (Frodo leaving Sam included). The whole thing is sooo much better in the book- and what isn't??- but I think it was a silly decision to change it from the book. I missed Sam getting to beat the crap out of Gollum and Shelob. His "Drop him" growl was the best part of the whole thing. I was sooo dissapointed that he had no good-bye speech to poor Mr. Frodo. Much to short.
Other than that and no Houses of Healing, I was rather pleased with the whole movie. Simply a beautiful job on everyone's part.
I do indeed think it was a very successful adaption.

I agree that there were many moments of success, some of which you pointed out, but IMO they do not knit together into a successful adaptation due to major changes, deletions, and insertions.

[Bregalad]

I loved ROTK.
I was not expecting to see the book, exactly as it was written, up there on the screne. The time it would take to do that is staggering, and it's over 3 hours as it is.
I can't wait to see the extended version, as many of you have mentioned, I too miss the house of healing, among other things.
I wish they could have filmed the scourging of the Shire, but since I was aware it would be absent I wasn't disapointed. (I was very sad when I saw "Fellowship" because I hadn't heard Tom bombadil was cut!) These are movies based on Tolkien's work, and I think they do an admirable job. I shudder to think how they would have ended up if some slob of a hollywood director had gotten ahold of them and completely butchered them. I have seen so many movies that have nothing to do with the books they supposedly are based on. Peter Jackson, in my opinion, has kept the feeling of the books intact. Yes, he has changed things, mostly for time considerations, and I do not always agree with those changes. But everytime I see one of these movies I have a great time. I haven't had this much fun at the movies in a long time.
I was suprised that Denethor was so wacked from the get go, in the book he's a jerk, but doesn't flip out until Faramir is hurt. But I have to admit that the scene with him eating and Pippin looking aghast is very compelling.
I have often read of calvary overunning infantry, but I've never seen it, and it was beautifully done in this movie. I could watch that scene over and over.
I'm arachniphobic, Shelob scared the pants off me and there I was in front of god and everyone with no pants!
I'm not sure how I feel about Frodo ordering Sam off. In my opinion, that would never happen. But perhaps Peter jackson felt he had to show more of how much the ring was effecting Frodo so folks who have not read the books weren't completely suprised when Frodo claims the ring.
Frodo going over the edge in Mt. Doom was a bit hollywood, but not nauseatingly so.
Dang, but that actor playing Faramir is cute!
I hated Orlando Bloom when I saw him in the first movie, but he has really grown on me. I think I was predjudiced because he wasn't what I had pictured. I hope we see more of him and Gimli in the extended version.

Hmm.... I wonder what's on my signature, I havn't posted in so long!

[Artanis]

I like the movie as a movie, but it doesn't work for me as a good adaptation of the book. It is too many deviations and omissions.

[Dúnedain]

I think a lot of you are forgetting the key word here. ADAPTATION!

Adaptations are NOT literal interpretations of books. So when I see people above saying it wasn't a successful adaptation because of changes it makes me smirk. It's sad, yes I know, but change in adaptations are practically required. Ask any screenwriter or even pick up a big time screenwriting book that discusses adapting books to film. In fact I will give you a quote from one of my books, which by the way is one of the most popular screenwriting books out there. This is from a chapter on Adaptation:

What happens when you want to turn a book, short story, or play into a movie? The true art of adaptation, so the saying goes, is not being true to the original. Let me explain. Adaptation is the transformation of a story from one medium to another. Remember that a book is a book, a play is a play, a short story is a short story, and a screenplay is a screenplay. The trick here is how to turn the story from one of these other media into a sharp, incisive screenplay.

Continuing on...

When you adapt something, try to think of the book or short story as research material only, and the screenplay you're writing as original. Some of it you keep; some of it you throw out. Forget about kneeling before the altar of the book. Your job is to turn it into something else. The book will always remain as it is. You need to make a movie out of it.

Be true to the original material only insofar as it applies to your version of what the screenplay should be. Your sole responsibility is to turn the material into a good screenplay, which will hopefully become a good movie. If you find a short story, novel, or play, take a good hard look at what you're attracted to. Ask yourself if the story is visual enough to be a movie. Is the story strong enough? Do you care about the people?

So with that said, I can add more quote from other books as well, but the main point is, it's all about the story itself. That's one of the reasons why I think it was a successful adaptation. The movies are true to the theme and overall story. That's what successful adaptations do. If you look at bad adaptations, it's mainly, because the translation of the story and theme did come across well on screen. Now, that is not to say adaptations have to be somewhat different from their original sources, but 9 times out of 10 a bad adaptation is because it was too true to the original source...

P.S. I also think they did a good job by picking certain things that were said in the books, but attributed them to other characters and made them work.

[Arathorn]

One thing I noticed as I watched it more times is that many of the big scenes felt more action-hero driven than epic. For instance, I was expecting the big Aragorn screne to be shown from the point-of-view of Gondorians and Rohirrim in battle and their initial despair at seeing the black sails of the corsairs AND THEN being much surprised to see the the standard of Aragorn. The film-writers wanted to focus on the 3-action stars right away. The quick intercutting made that long stretch between the lighting of the beacons up to the time the One Ring is destroyed feel action-hero driven as well but I did like the charge of the Rohirrim and the Eowyn moments.

I guess successful adaptation is a personal thing: it is different for each person who views the films and depends largely on their expectations. Mine was based on both my personal experience on the books and the first 2 films. The 3rd film suddenly felt like the glaring/obvious liberties taken suddenly multiplied.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I think a lot of you are forgetting the key word here. ADAPTATION!

I think the intent of the thread is whether or not people like the effort and not so much successful in the objective sense. Just the boxoffice receipts are proof of success by professional standards such as the quotes you posted. I liked the movie but felt that in many ways is departed from the subtle nature of the book in favor of a simpler and more superficial story. Some of the changes were neccessary for techincal reasons and others for style. I think it is reasonable to include personal bias towards the original work in an opinion on the success of the adaptation.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I think a lot of you are forgetting the key word here. ADAPTATION!

By your definition, it's still only a half-decent adaptation at best. (Edit: my opinion, obviously.)

I didn't feel that the spirit of the book was maintained. Not all the "made up" scenes were departures from the spirit or intent of LotR, but there were too many that were completely off.

Also, as was previously pointed out, focusing on action at key points, and leaving Saruman's story arc unfinished scuppered any success they might have had at a good adaptation.

Because there were many excellent, Tolkien-spirited scenes, it is still halfway decent.