Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

[My Jack Nicholson voice]You can't handle the truth!!![/My Jack Nicholson voice]

Regarding the opening of FOTR, I can't imagine a more challenging bit of screenplay writing than the beginning of this film. There was SO MUCH to say and so little time to do it. In fact, New Line dictated to PJ that he could only do a TWO MINUTE prologue!!! Fortunately, he convinced them that he couldn't do the backstory justice in less than seven minutes.

I agree that Galadriel's comments about the "giving" of the Elven rings was dead-wrong. But think about how you smoothly handle an introduction about ALL of the rings that clarifies the real story behind the Elven rings without going into a lot of exposition that has filmgoers unfamiliar with the books going, "what the heck is she talking about?!?!?" The origin of the Elven rings is not as essential to the story as the mere fact that a long time ago there were many rings for the different races of Middle Earth.

The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I agree that Galadriel's comments about the "giving" of the Elven rings was dead-wrong.

I think I'm going to faint! Mark this date on a calendar!

[Melko Belcha]

why shouldn't a screenwriter create one "might-have-been" scene to accomplish the result of several scenes that wouldn't fit? It is ok to change a scene to make up for the stuff that would not fit in the movie, but it is a fine line between staying true to the source material and a complete rewrite

And is there a maximum number of these might-have-been scenes allowed before the readers of the book think it is too drastic a change?The more changes made, the further away from the source material it gets, the further away from the source matetrial it gets the less of the original story is told.

And is the number of such scenes less for fanatical fans?I will say yes on this.

And should screenwriters be guided in the opinions of casual readers, or be totally governed by the fanatical fans? When you take a book that not only has been read by a ton of people, but has had every detail studied about it and, thanks to Christopher Tolkien, has had the chance to study the full writing process and all the hard work the author went through to bring all the details together in the story, and knowing that all those people will go and see the films, the screenwriters should focus more on the fanatical fans and not the casual readers.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.

But it is. The Elven-rings slowed or stopped the "fading" of the Elven-realms, they did not rule the Elves. The Dwarven-rings filled the heart of the bearer with lust for gold; they did not rule the Dwarven peoples.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I agree that Galadriel's comments about the "giving" of the Elven rings was dead-wrong.

... O.O That is the most enlightened thing I have seen you post... ever. I am impressed.

But think about how you smoothly handle an introduction about ALL of the rings that clarifies the real story behind the Elven rings without going into a lot of exposition that has filmgoers unfamiliar with the books going, "what the heck is she talking about?!?!?" The origin of the Elven rings is not as essential to the story as the mere fact that a long time ago there were many rings for the different races of Middle Earth.

Nevermind...scratch what I just said.
Don't sell the movie goer short. It would have taken maybe about 1.5 to 2.5 minutes to say a brief explanation about the Elven Rings.
"... Three Rings were made in secret by Celebrimbor (pan a picture of Celebrimbor forging rings) to ward off the degradation of time and weariness of long life (pan past Lothlorien and the blooming of the trees). These were given to the Elves (pan a picture of Galadriel getting her ring from Celebrimbor, etc.) and remained secret. But Sauron coveted those most and longed to control them....."
Something like this, could tell it all in a nut shell.

Some movies require thought. Some movies do not. Why not make one that not only looks pretty, but also stimulates your mind? I value those movies more than simple entertainment.

The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.

Stronger?... nah... False?... yes.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Don't sell the movie goer short. It would have taken maybe about 1.5 to 2.5 minutes to say a brief explanation about the Elven Rings.

Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The part about "ruling each race" is perhaps stronger language than most Tolkienites would like to hear but I don't see that as factually wrong.
Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But it is. The Elven-rings slowed or stopped the "fading" of the Elven-realms, they did not rule the Elves. The Dwarven-rings filled the heart of the bearer with lust for gold; they did not rule the Dwarven peoples.

More can be said on this subject.

The elven rings did, indeed, have the power of preservation. The three enabled their bearers to create havens that were seemingly removed or disconnected from the rest of the world. A sort of quasi-valinor on a smaller scale. The disjointed passing of time that Frodo notes as they leave Lothlorien can be attributed to Galadriel's ring, while the raising of the Bruinen by Elrond, which serves the purpose of keeping evil things out of the valley, is likely rooted in /his/ ring. When Cirdan bequests the third ring to Gandalf, it is with the indication that 'this ring will uphold you, and stave off weariness, and uplift the hearts of others'.

Of the dwarven rings, the text seems to indicate that, more than simply creating the /lust/ for gold, they were actually able to /create wealth/. It is mentioned that the seven great dwarf-hoards of old were each founded on a ring of power. How, you ask? The appendices mention Thrain as saying, in exile, that his ring 'needs gold to breed gold'. Take that as you will.

And lastly, the Nine, the rings of men. Jackson simply been speaking of these, he would have been mostly correct.
It is stated flat out that the men who received the nine were, or became 'great kings and sorcerers'. I have no doubt that the rings, given to these men, were used to rule, to dominate and control. Almost assuredly they were the source of the great power which the Which-King shows on several occassions, which begs the question: did he already have that power when he was still a mortal ringbearer?

And, of course, the aptly named ruling ring was, in conception, designed to give sauron power over the free peoples, by way of controlling the other rings.

Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie.

You arrogant fool.

Why indeed, take two minutes to explain the matter that is fundamentally at the heart of the plot, when those scant minutes can be used to show more gratuitous violence, expand the battles, and cram in scenes that were completely removed from the story.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie.

But it is ok for him to take a large amount of time to change the plot and alter things about the story and characters. I guess you just can't go without that extra two and a half minutes of action.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Why take two and a half minutes to explain it?!?!?! It isn't worth spending that much time to address an issue that does nothing to further the plot of the movie.

I'd gladly give up many unnecessary scenes not associated with the actual book story from the movie in exchange for this bit of relevant information. How about when Frodo and Samwise meet Pippin and Merry in Farmer Maggot's field then the flight through field running from Farmer Maggot ... oh, wait, that's right... Farmer Maggot didn't actually chase them out of his field and Merry and Pippin started out on the trip with them .... ok... lets see, what else can we get rid of ... hmmm... I'd rather give up the scene were Frodo offers The One Ring to the Nazgul... oh, darn it... that's not in the book either.... Oh, I know!!! How about the scene when Arwen puts her sword under Aragorn throat and then they go into this long talk about her not being afraid of the Nazgul... ooops...
[snotty sarcastic voice]not in the book either.[/snotty sarcastic voice]

[azalea]

I have to agree that it doesn't make sense to take up two minutes to explain something that has nothing to do with the main plot of the movie (yes, it's important, but it doesn't help the audience to understand what's going to happen). It would have been better just to leave out the "power to rule their race" and just say "rings of Power" or something. That wouldn't take up any more time, but it would be more factually correct. But it really is a minor point within the context of the rest of the movie. It's one of those things that even the casual reader might make the mistake of assuming.

And now I have time to answer the questions Elfhelm put forth:

1) Yes, although lamentable to a fan of a book, it is forgivable IMO for a screenwriter to alter items from the story to create a "might have been" situation in the interest of making a "tight" film, as long as, of course, it is believable within the context of the rest of the story.

2)I would say it would depend on the length and depth of the source material, but for an average book to movie, I'd say more than (I'll just say) two would start to interfere with the level of satisfaction of the average fan of the book AND the level of understanding of the story of the average viewer that hadn't read the book. If a movie needs more than two instances of that kind of thing (IOW, stuff that can't completely be included but needs to be addressed rather than cut out altogether), it's time to make it into two movies, so that the moviemaker can go ahead and include the original material.

3)Absolutely. But it also has to do with a person's personality.
Someone who's read it once might be completely bothered, and another person who's read it several times might be less bothered by it, each being that way because of his or her general life outlook. This is something that cannot be changed without hard work, and is not even necessary to change, but it would be helpful to be the latter kind in these situations.

4) My respose to this would have to be: neither. In the realm of TRUE filmmaking, he should only be governed by the source material and the medium of film. In Jackson's case, he was governed by neither the hardcore fans nor the casual readers. I think in his case, the following were the main factors in producing what he did: the studio/ producer/ whatever the entity is that controlled the money, distribution and marketing (and their idea about what the movie should be and what the length should be); the book and Phillipa Boyens interpretations of it; his own impressions/ what he felt was important; Ralph Bakshi's LotR (this was after all his intro to LotR); his own ideas about moviemaking, as well as the "tried and true" methods/ tricks of the trade; and his love of action, conflict and the macabre. IOW, his flaw is that he allowed too many factors to come into play, especially those that ended up as him speaking through the films, and more especially (IMO), Ralph Bakshi's influence. If he had read the book first, or seen the R-B RotK first, we may very well have seen a different movie as the end result, who knows.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
.... Almost assuredly they were the source of the great power which the Which-King shows on several occassions, which begs the question: did he already have that power when he was still a mortal ringbearer?....

um, which king?

[Wayfarer]

Yes. He controls the whether.

[Rían]

[Rían]

(sounds like the "Who's on first" routine...)

Which king?
Witch king.

Which king?
WITCH KING!

WHICH KING???
GRRRR!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by azalea
It's one of those things that even the casual reader might make the mistake of assuming.

And a casual reader should not be making the movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by azalea
I have to agree that it doesn't make sense to take up two minutes to explain something that has nothing to do with the main plot of the movie (yes, it's important, but it doesn't help the audience to understand what's going to happen). It would have been better just to leave out the "power to rule their race" and just say "rings of Power" or something.

While it was not factually correct, I believe it is true that the rings of power were held by some of the most powerful rulers of each race. So rather than say "rings of power" which has no meaning to a non-Tolkienite, the "power to rule" line was used.

Originally posted by azalea
In the realm of TRUE filmmaking, he should only be governed by the source material and the medium of film. In Jackson's case, he was governed by neither the hardcore fans nor the casual readers.

He certainly didn't need to cater to the hardcore fans but in many ways he did. Thankfully most Tolkien fans are more appreciative and grateful of that fact than some of the people posting here.

I have read quite a bit about the making of the Lord of the Rings films. Throughout the filming, PJ fought and won more than a few battles with New Line--and don't for a second believe that it was the "Nightmare on Elm Street" Crew arguing for a more faithful adaptation.

To me, the most mindboggling example of this was when New Line Cinema worried that the ending of FOTR was too 'art house' for a commerical film. The New Line brass ordered Peter Jackson to create one of those Hollywood 'last second scare' moments for the movie's ending following the breaking of the Fellowship. As Frodo was heading off in the boat alone, they wanted Lurtz to pop out of the water and try to grab the ring. I swear to you, I...am...not...making...this...up. Fortunately, Jackson won out on this one.

You can always approach things with a "glass half empty" or "glass half full" attitude. I, for one, am incredibly grateful Jackson was resolute about bringing Tolkien's vision to life on film.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
And a casual reader should not be making the movie.

Agreed! A casual reader would not understand that the Rings of the different Races affected the wearer in a different way. A casual reader would not think it important that the Elven Rings were made in secrecy and for purposes other than greed and lust and power over others. A casual reader would certainly not think it necessary to keep certain characters noble, not making them the butt of jokes and a comic relief for the film.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
A casual reader would not understand that the Rings of the different Races affected the wearer in a different way. A casual reader would not think it important that the Elven Rings were made in secrecy and for purposes other than greed and lust and power over others. A casual reader would certainly not think it necessary to keep certain characters noble, not making them the butt of jokes and a comic relief for the film.

Agreed! A casual moviegoer who demands a 'connect the dots,' literal presentation of the Tolkien books thinks exactly that way.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Thankfully most Tolkien fans are more appreciative and grateful of that fact than some of the people posting here.

Can you please tell me when you became the offical spokesmen for Tolkien fans? Did I miss some announcement from the Tolkien Society? I have many friends who are Tolkien fans and I am sure they appreciate you speaking for them. And as I have stated before, I go visit many Tolkien forums and this is one of the nicer ones when it comes to people talking about their dislikes of the movie. Stop speaking for all the Tolkien fans out there because you have no idea what you are talking about. I have never even seen you post anything in the book threads, it really makes me wonder if you are a Tolkien fan?

[Black Breathalizer]

Here is the EXACT quote from the opening to Fellowship of the Ring:

It began with the forging of the great rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else, desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race. But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made.

You can say what what you want about the appropriateness of the "governing" of each race comment, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comment about the giving of the rings to the different peoples of Middle Earth. I'm sure Tolkien, himself, would have approved of it.