Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Well, to be honest, it's true. Jackson has not given me my vision of LOTR. Nor has he given us something close to Tolkien's vision of LOTR.

This just means that you don't understand Tolkien nearly as well as you'd like us all to believe.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This just means that you don't understand Tolkien nearly as well as you'd like us all to believe.

*sigh*

Why do people even bother posting replies to you BB.......?

You might as well be cut 'n pasting you post's from the long deceased "Jackson has improved Tolkien" thread

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This just means that you don't understand Tolkien nearly as well as you'd like us all to believe.

(Although, I am hesitant to respond for Wayfarer as I know he is a big boy and can handle his own attacks. But, as many of you already know, I have very little self restraint.)

Actually, I think it is you, BB who doesn't understand Tolkien as well as you believe you do. You have worked so hard at proudly expounding the glory of PJ's 'improvements' upon Tolkien's literary masterpieces. You claim to have read the books, yet you keep making references which only exist in the movies that PJ has made, NOT in the books.

Those references by others, for whom you call 'purists', have been laid before you like little colored alphabet blocks, simply and elegantly, but you have dismissed them. You have no logical argument for anything you have said here. Give it up, [edited by me]. You [edited by me].

[Edited by me: lots of foul insults with a special emphasis on BB's parents being closely related; quite a lot of violent acts ... which I am now aware is not allowed here... (too bad about the chipper shredder smilie though... that was a work of art );a lot of foul language, which I will admit is well beyond the PG-13 level of this board; well, you get the picture. ]

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
(Although, I am hesitant to respond for Wayfarer as I know he is a big boy and can handle his own attacks. But, as many of you already know, I have very little self restraint.)

Actually, I think it is you, BB who doesn't understand Tolkien as well as you believe you do. You have worked so hard at proudly expounding the glory of PJ's 'improvements' upon Tolkien's literary masterpieces. You claim to have read the books, yet you keep making references which only exist in the movies that PJ has made, NOT in the books.

Those references by others, for whom you call 'purists', have been laid before you like little colored alphabet blocks, simply and elegantly, but you have dismissed them. You have no logical argument for anything you have said here. Give it up, [edited by me]. You [edited by me].

[Edited by me: lots of foul insults with a special emphasis on BB's parents being closely related; quite a lot of violent acts ... which I am now aware is not allowed here... (too bad about the chipper shredder smilie though... that was a work of art );a lot of foul language, which I will admit is well beyond the PG-13 level of this board; well, you get the picture. ]

Then why doesn't it say "Last editted"?

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Ruinel


Give it up, [edited by me]. You [edited by me].

[Edited by me: lots of foul insults with a special emphasis on BB's parents being closely related; quite a lot of violent acts ... which I am now aware is not allowed here... (too bad about the chipper shredder smilie though... that was a work of art );a lot of foul language, which I will admit is well beyond the PG-13 level of this board; well, you get the picture. ]

Don't you have anything better to do than this? Less is more.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
Don't you have anything better to do than this? Less is more.

Then don't focus on this... focus on the 'less' part. Sorry. Anyway, all that is to be said has been said. BB has nothing new to say and his arguments are stale and boring.

[Black Breathalizer]

I have provided numerous examples of how Jackson has communicated Tolkien's various themes through his films. The ONLY arguement I've gotten in return is that "the characters are a theme and Jackson hasn't gotten them right." Even though this is questionable as a "theme," when I explore this line of debate further, all I get is "Well Frodo was weak because he dropped his sword on Weathertop" or "Aragorn is self-doubting and needs an elf maiden to bolster his confidence."

Ironically, the same people who love pointing to a specific scene to support their negative view of some of the film characters are unable (or unwilling) to see how the character development scenes build on each other to support a differing view. I find this curious.

So if you want to shut me up, then back up your positions with CONCRETE EXAMPLES instead of hiding behind generic "Jackson sucks, blah, blah, blah" criticisms. Mrs Maggot was misguided but he/she was prepared to back up his/her perspective. If I've missed a point you wanted me to address, then share it with me. I'm ready for a spirited debate...but alas, too often I feel like the heavyweight boxing champion surrounded by a bunch of 100-pound hecklers who are willing to step into the ring with me.

[Melko Belcha]

Sorry, I just had to laugh at BB's last post. Just to let you know I am a member to 2 other Tolkien forums besides this one and the people here are actually pretty nice when it comes to their dislikes of the movies. You would not believe the conversations I have read about people disliking the movie and how it failed to capture the spirit of Tolkien's work. There are many people out there that enjoy the movies but feel that it was a bad adaptation. Get over it BB, PJ is not perfect. Many critics dislike the LotR books because it does not follow the typical guidelines for a novel, many fans dislike the movies because it follows the typical Hollywood BS. PJ was to afraid to take a chance and make a movie that would capture the spirit of the book, instead he made a typical action adventure movie.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) I have provided numerous examples of how Jackson has communicated Tolkien's various themes through his films. The ONLY arguement I've gotten in return is that "the characters are a theme and Jackson hasn't gotten them right." Even though this is questionable as a "theme," when I explore this line of debate further, all I get is 2)"Well Frodo was weak because he dropped his sword on Weathertop" or "Aragorn is self-doubting and needs an elf maiden to bolster his confidence."

3) Ironically, the same people who love pointing to a specific scene to support their negative view of some of the film characters are unable (or unwilling) to see how the character development scenes build on each other to support a differing view. I find this curious.

4) So if you want to shut me up, then back up your positions with CONCRETE EXAMPLES instead of hiding behind generic "Jackson sucks, blah, blah, blah" criticisms. Mrs Maggot was misguided but he/she was prepared to back up his/her perspective. If I've missed a point you wanted me to address, then share it with me. 5) I'm ready for a spirited debate...but alas, too often I feel like the heavyweight boxing champion surrounded by a bunch of 100-pound hecklers who are willing to step into the ring with me.

1) Examples to you, not to me.
2) Anything which could possibly suggest that Jackson was imperfect, and Tolkien was more than a hack, you automatically discount, for no more reason that that.
3) The scenes conflict, and do not do anything. There is very little character development. Jackson does it in leaps and bounds, when it should be gradual
4) We havem you just ignore everything but sin offering to Jackson.
5) Arrogant ****.

You said that it took a lot of time and work to convince yourself that Jackson was in fact the superior of Tolkien etc. etc. and so on and so forth. So why do you insist on trying to convince us?

edited by azalea -- I don't know about anyone else, but where I come from that word has a meaning similar to calling someone a d*** or p**** so I edited it.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Examples to you, not to me.

Where are your examples?

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
2) Anything which could possibly suggest that Jackson was imperfect, and Tolkien was more than a hack, you automatically discount, for no more reason that that.

I'm still waiting.

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
3) The scenes conflict, and do not do anything. There is very little character development. Jackson does it in leaps and bounds, when it should be gradual

This is a perfect illustration of purist talk...all Jackson bashing with zero percent specifics to back it up.

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
4) We havem you just ignore everything but sin offering to Jackson.
5) Arrogant twat.

This really advances your arguements.

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You said that it took a lot of time and work to convince yourself that Jackson was in fact the superior of Tolkien etc. etc. and so on and so forth. So why do you insist on trying to convince us?

I never said Jackson was better than Tolkien. I never said that Jackson's story was better than Tolkien's. My crime? I had the audacity to say that Jackson IMPROVED ON PARTS OF THE STORY. I would also add the original was better in most parts. If you are going to bash me, at least get your facts right.

I'm not sitting here and saying the movies are without faults. But I find myself defending them on a regular basis because of the trashing they continuously receive from people like you.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

1) I've given them, but you don't listen, so there's no point in continuing.

3) All right, I'll give. I.E. Aragorn. There was VERY little that happened between when he was anti-Men, and "I will die as one of them!"

You said that Jackson brought more to his craft than Tolkien did to his. You said that Jackson was truer to Tolkien than Tolkien was. You have said countless things which, when put together, say "Jackson was better than Tolkien."

I never said that Jackson's story was better than Tolkien's. My crime? I had the audacity to say that Jackson IMPROVED ON PARTS OF THE STORY.

Um...you started a thread that said "Jackson has Improved Tolkien" in the title. How is that not saying that Jackson's was better...and I didn't see anything about parts of the story.

Definition of "improve" from dictionary.com:

To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better.
To increase the productivity or value of (land or property).
To put to good use; use profitably.

Sounds to me like if he improved it, then it is better.

But I find myself defending them on a regular basis because of the trashing they continuously receive from people like you.

That is plain and simple a lie. Why is it then that you are constantly starting up threads for this purpose? You stir up probably 80-90% of the trashing of the movies in this forum. I personally think that they are good movies, and enjoy them. I had no problem whatsoever with them, until I met you.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
All right, I'll give. I.E. Aragorn. There was VERY little that happened between when he was anti-Men, and "I will die as one of them!"

After Boromir chastised Aragorn for having so little faith in men, the following took place:

1. Aragorn was able to resist the temptation of the ring;

2. Aragorn held a dying Boromir in his arms. He acknowledged how Boromir fought with honor to protect the hobbits after his "fall from grace."

3. Aragorn gave his word to Boromir that he would not let the white city fall.

4. Boromir acknowledges Aragorn's legacy with his dying breath;

5. Upon their first meeting, Aragorn notices Eomer's lack of faith and sees a part of his old self.

6. Aragorn meets Eowyn and is impressed with her iron will.

7. Aragorn assures Gandalf that the defenses of Helm's Deep will hold.

8. Aragorn's brush with death shows the audience his determination and faith in the face of pain and exhaustion.

9. Aragorn argues with King Theoden and his visible frustration makes it clear he questions the King's ability to lead his people through this nightmare alone.

10. Aragorn is aware of all of the women and children in Helm's Deep who are dependent upon his leadership.

Did I make all of these things up, Gwaimir Windgem?

[IronParrot]

Allow me to interject here regarding the "improvement" point:

I won't presume to speak for BB, but I get the sense that Jackson "improved" on Tolkien in the sense that the vast majority of the changes he made served the film in an appreciable way. Nay, I'd say almost all of them. That doesn't mean I agree with every change in the film - but I can see that such changes were reasoned and justifiable.

Jackson did not "improve" on Tolkien's text in the sense that the story, on the whole, was a lot richer. That simply can't be done in the space of ten hours of footage, considering the monumental scope of Tolkien's work.

It's a tough difference to wrap your head around, yes, but there is a huge difference there.

Regarding film critics:

Most film critics - both those in favour of and against the film as an adaptation - either knew jack-all about the source material, or failed to demonstrate that knowledge to me in the span of 500-1000 words or whatever their editorial limits are. In a discussion regarding the adaptation, quoting film critics is useless. Their job is to appraise the film as a film. I have a lot of respect for film critics - far more than almost everybody I know - and their qualifications are in the judgment of how well a film succeeds as an independent entity. Yes, Ebert complained about the lack of focus on the hobbits or whatnot, but plainly didn't know what he was talking about and even admitted he was not really deeply versed in the books. It was an uncommonly weak moment for him, as his argumentation is typically much better than that. The same goes for the film critics who praised the movie for being practically the most faithful adaptation of all time, which it clearly wasn't (because it made - hush - changes!).

In a discussion such as this one, where we are talking strictly about the adaptation, we'd best continue to rely on those who know Tolkien's work well. On the other hand, these same Tolkien scholars are not as qualified to talk about the film's cinematic achievements.

The key point to keep in mind - on both sides of this debate - is that a film's quality as an adaptation, and its quality as a stand-alone film, are mutually exclusive.

[IronParrot]

One thing I should point out is that ironically enough, some of the differences in the film served it's portrayal of Tolkien's story better than it would have if it stuck to the minor, nitty-gritty details. The timeline compression, the portrayal of how some characters change over time - these are all replacements of brilliant things in the book that would be bad expository technique in a film. You can't relegate Arwen to the appendices, nor can you have a full-length Council of Elrond. Even the changes with Faramir - which left me with a sour taste at first - made a whole lot of sense when you take the whole story into account, and where it's heading in ROTK. Details provided upon request.

I think it's far more important that the film kept true to Tolkien holistically, instead of attempting to niggle on the minor points. I fail to see how Frodo not taking a swing at Weathertop or crying out for Elbereth at the Ford of Bruinen suddenly undermines him completely as a character. That argument rests on the assumption that in the book, such actions are foundational to Frodo's personality in the first place, and that he is nothing without them. That is simply not true. (And if asked to support this with evidence, I might as well plop a copy of The Lord of the Rings in front of you.)

Where this whole debate really becomes convoluted is when you consider that Tolkien himself boiled everything down to minor details, which is an entire discussion altogether (and perhaps one that already exists a few pages back on this thread). But as cunning a linguist and writer as Tolkien was, this naturally lends him to having a prejudice against the film medium entirely - and Tolkien really didn't know a darn thing about cinema.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, I most definitely admire you for that.

High-fives Gwai, who is our finest example of self-restraint in this thread. Sorry, next post will be on topic.

---
later
---

After reading all the posts since I last was here, I find that IP in his last post has stated a case I have tried to state many times. I won't dilute it by repition. But, IP, don't think that little pun went by unnoticed.

[Melko Belcha]

IP you are right that Tolkien did not know cinema, but just because PJ is a director doesn't means he's a screenwriter. It doesn't mean he understands the reason Tolkien had things play out or characters act a certain way. I dosen't mean he is a story teller, something that Tolkien was. I dosen't mean he understood what Tolkien wanted to come across from his work. Just because PJ knows what looks good through a camera dosen't mean that he knows everything about the story he is filming. And just because he's a director does not mean he knows what the public would like and except. Just because he read the book does not mean he understood the book or the author who wrote it.

[azalea]

Originally posted by azalea

No one can really KNOW if Jackson captured the "spirit" of Tolkien's vision or not, because each reader has his own ideas about what that "spirit" is. It can be argued effectively, but it is ultimately subjective.

Tolkien cannot speak for himself in this matter, although we have Letters that can be used in arguing the points. However, although Tolkien surely had his own ideas about why he wrote it and what it is about, he could not dictate that to his readers unless he had decided to explicitly write it out in the published work. He wrote a story, which he had published. In doing so, he was permitting each reader to form his own ideas about the spirit of the work.

Okay, I thought about this after I wrote it and wanted to clarify, because it didn't come out the way I intended.

There are indeed lesser themes (since it's been stated that Tolkien himself only acknowledged one key theme) and crucial elements that are indisputably contained within the work (IOW, it is a "fact" that such and such a theme is an element of the work). When I say it becomes subjective I mean that when each person retells the story, either to another who asks "What is it about?" or to himself in his own mind as he mulls it over, different aspects of the story will come out to each person as being crucial to capturing the spirit of the work. This is what I meant by the spirit being subjective.
The theme of "the power of the powerless," so to speak, is indisputably an element that pervades the story. But each person will identify different parts of the story that they think are crucial to conveying that theme in a film. Likewise, a theme that one person believes is indipensible, another may feel is minor and dispensible in the context of a cinematic dramtization.

I hate that Gimli was made into such a comic figure, but that in itself doesn't nullify the work as a successful adaptation. The personality of dwarves in ME is not a make or break element within the story. Do I like it? No. Was it necessary? NO. But does it make the film fail as an acceptable adaptation? No! You can say that about several of the changes made. He made a lot of unnecessary changes, but to me, the heart of the story is still there. It doesn't surprise me that there are people who disagree, because they are of course coming away from the story itself with a different sense of its "spirit."
I also think that a lot of people disliked the minor changes so much that they don't WANT to see it as an acceptable adaptation. That is fine, too. But those of us who enjoyed the movies (for the most part or a lot) and were fans of Lotr before could take offense when people say "you didn't 'get' Tolkien's work if you think PJ's movies are a good adaptation." I don't because I'm very easygoing and am secure in the fact that I have been a lover of ME for many years, and indeed I "get" it.

I completely agree with the person who said it is frustrating because PJ did so many things "right" that the unnecessary changes made it so much more frustrating. Yes, and I would argue that nonetheless, the "spirit" of the work remains.
I would have preferred a "literal" adaptation (not word-for word, but one that stuck to the books rather than made changes to the storyline), but as it stands, I find it an enjoyable movie that brings to life the story of Frodo's quest.

[IronParrot]

IP you are right that Tolkien did not know cinema, but just because PJ is a director doesn't means he's a screenwriter. It doesn't mean he understands the reason Tolkien had things play out or characters act a certain way. I dosen't mean he is a story teller, something that Tolkien was. I dosen't mean he understood what Tolkien wanted to come across from his work. Just because PJ knows what looks good through a camera dosen't mean that he knows everything about the story he is filming. And just because he's a director does not mean he knows what the public would like and except. Just because he read the book does not mean he understood the book or the author who wrote it.

But then who defines what constitutes an "understanding" of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings? Since when was there a concrete standard of interpretation? If anything, Tolkien put the story first and the meaning second. That was pretty much the point of that preface to the book (second and later editions).

I'm not sure what you mean about PJ not being a screenwriter, when he has screenwriting credit on every single film he has directed. Also, I would once again point out that a good deal of the major changes can indeed be accredited to Philippa Boyens, who was hired in the first place because she was already an established Tolkien scholar. So you might go on to argue that just because she studies Tolkien doesn't mean she "understands" him, but then you might as well take all of the literary criticism surrounding LOTR and toss it out the window.

The fact remains that while Tolkien had a certain motive behind doing certain things in his book, that should not restrict people from reading behind the lines. That does not suddenly set some sort of rigid standard by which one derives the "correct" interpretation. I'm sure Shakespeare is rolling in his grave because of the hordes of scholars dissecting his work line by line and attributing secret meanings to him, when he probably wrote a good deal of those lines because they were pretty (or for some other sinister purpose that people are missing). As azalea pointed out, it is indeed subjective.

So how do we judge if Peter Jackson & co. "understood" what they were doing? Well, we look at the final product that they produced. And that means the entire product, which is a greater entity than the sum of its parts.

Are there changes I disagree with? Once again, yes. As I've pointed out before, I whined about cutting the Scouring of the Shire before it was even announced that such a cut was to be made. I lamented the fact that Treebeard didn't mark his entrance with that great line, "Almost felt you liked the Forest! That's good! That's uncommonly kind of you." But these changes, even if I disagree with them on a personal level, are still justifiable at the objective level of what everybody sees on the screen, when taking the whole thing into perspective.

Let's look at it logically:

If removing or changing something from the book suddenly makes the entire film collapse, what does that imply?

It implies that such an element was absolutely critical to the book for the story to make sense.

And you know what? That's exactly the problem that many of these changes are trying to solve. There simply isn't enough time to include everything Tolkien wrote. So if something doesn't make sense due to omission... you need to work around it. And working around it means making changes. And making changes means the story will still make sense.

Example: the film has no appendix by which to talk about Aragorn and Arwen. Therefore, there needs to be some device to introduce Arwen, without going off on too big a tangent from the central story, or dragging the pace to a dead stop. The solution? Well, you all saw it. The consequence was that Frodo didn't get to ride out to the Ford alone, but that was a minor sacrifice to make. Does the change undermine Frodo as a character? As I've pointed out before, no. But does leaving the original situation intact - yet still omitting Appendix A - completely undermine Arwen as a character, thus also slashing away a major part of Aragorn's motivations? You bet it does.

Tolkien's work is a challenge to adapt simply because he did build it like a house of cards. But if you take something out, you have to reinforce it with something new - you don't just let the whole thing crumble, just because adding things is so evil and should be avoided.

[IronParrot]

As a case study, let's examine a nice and controversial additive change in The Two Towers: the warg attack on the way to Helm's Deep.

Now, it was of course quite a shocker when I saw the film for the first time, but maybe we should take a look at the problems it resolves.

In the book, the women and children of Edoras are shipped off to Dunharrow, while the Rohirrhim go to Helm's Deep to fight off the invasion from Isengard.

The film is constrained first by time, and then by linearity. It doesn't have the luxury of sending everybody off to two places at once. Visually, it would confuse the audience. So the way it's done, not only do you have less traveling here, but you get to see Eowyn develop as a character without tarrying around in Edoras for too long. By putting the civilians and the military in one place, there is a visual idea that the stakes of this battle are really high. This is as opposed to verbally saying, "We'd better win this battle or they'll get to the women and children at Dunharrow." What it's saying visually is, "We'd better win this battle or we're screwed right now."

So, everybody goes to Helm's Deep. Now think about Middle-Earth's geography: if the women and children are going to cut across the hills all the way to Helm's Deep, why wouldn't Saruman try to waylay them? He'd be stupid not to! It's a golden opportunity.

Put two and two together, and you get a warg attack there. And it's not like a warg attack is un-Tolkienlike, since the book has a big one in II.3 ("The Ring Goes South").

[Melko Belcha]

The wargs scene is actually one of the main additions I find completley worthless.

So, everybody goes to Helm's Deep. Now think about Middle-Earth's geography: if the women and children are going to cut across the hills all the way to Helm's Deep, why wouldn't Saruman try to waylay them? He'd be stupid not to! It's a golden opportunity.

Ok lets look at the geography. The Rohirrim had been living at Edoras for 500 years and their closed refuge is about a day and a half ride from Edoras. Really good king to send his people out into the open plains when they are under attack.

By putting the civilians and the military in one place, there is a visual idea that the stakes of this battle are really high.

There were civilians at Helm's Deep, the people of Westfold.

The scene wasted to much time that could have been spent with, IMO, more important things like character development. But what we get is a typical Hollywood action scene with hyenas on steroids.