Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
800 million for each of the first two at the boxoffice and they're....losing steam? Will TTT lose steam when the DVD comes out? What about the Extended version of the film? Since "people are complaining about them", will ROTK be a dud at the boxoffice next Christmas? I swear, some of you people live in a self-delusional fantasyland. You have to share a retelling of LOTR with the rest of the world now. So what? Get over it.

Sorry - but the are losing steam. Not many people have countdown to the release of TT like they did for FotR in their sigs (actually I don't see any). People did NOT go to see TT as many times as they went back to see FotR and if Jackson screws with RotK - even more people will be pissed.

The movies are action movies and with each movie - more and more fans come around to criticising jackson. I also said that wait 10 years, 50 years and see if they're on the best movies ever made list - like Tolkien has been named for books.

What IS VERY FUNNY is that you're really the only one defending the movies. Last year I was the only one complaining about them and eveyrone was against me. I say that's a sign that they are losing steam and won't surpass Tolkien.

[Ruinel]

I wasn't here a year ago.

Many movies gross millions, BB. That doesn't mean anything. People are fickled, they lose interest. I know people that saw the first movie (FotR) and never went back to see the second (TTT). They do not have intentions to see the third.

I will go to RotK, if for nothing else, to find more rotten tomatoes to sling at PJ.

And I have said this before, FotR has many fine points. The costume design and props and weapons had some of the finest people working on them. The CG people did a wonderful job. But don't get me wrong, what I saw on that screen was NOT Tolkien's great story... it was some bastardization of his great work.

I equate it to the story of Moses in the Bible, but hey lets make Moses an ass kickin' dude that wields a sword and Ninja stars and kills all the first born himself... instead of frogs and flies... bah.. lets make them giant flesh eating frogmen from another planet! With FANGS! And make a lot of bloody battles with the flesh eating frogmen and have them [edited] while they scream for mercy... yeah... great improvement.

[Curufinwe]

I respect all of the opinions of purists or devotees of the epic literature who wanted a recreation of Tolkien's work onto film. That was, however, an impossibility outside of a BBC or PBS miniseries we're dealing with 9 hours of film for 1300 pages of text. The question before us concerns themes or vision as seems to be the prefered term. Tolkiens themes of the influence of power strength in simple values like friendship and loyalty as well as peripheral colorations such as the professors dislike for industry its byproducts and effects and his love of nature REMAIN UNTOUCHED AND WHOLE throughout the films thus far. The removal of Bombadil and the scouring are both important thematic elements. Particularly Bombadil, in a story in which all sides are striving for Masterery and power he represents another choice mastery over noone except himself that is why he is there at all. But again not a central theme or certainly not THE theme. Central to the work is a basic faith in making the right moral choice in resistance - to the death if necessary to - domination of a hostile will who is outside of God's will, as the prof would put it. This remains true to form absolutely. This is an inherently christian work whatever you think of it, and so remains, Gandalf is still a prophet or saint or part Christ as is Aragorn. Without putting too fine a point on it they remain so and Aragorn even undergoes a resurection of sorts that is not in the book but true to one of his mythological or actual (if you believe) forebears the Christ. Sauron is the devil for the purposes of this epic (please don't tell me about Melkor-Morgoth Im aware and its not relevant to this discussion) And so he remains corrupting tempting he takes Saruman - a herod like figure - and shows him inevitability of EARTHLY power in his own ranks. The movie shows this quite clearly - our heros are blessed with luck throughout in both cases but its NOT luck. Its devine grace sent to aid the righteous (sp.) The essential elements are there and really so is the PLOT! I just wonder what people were expecting because page for page is totally unrealistic. The "vision" or themes are there and the actual settings are so spot on to be marvelled at. The sucess of these films, and for those of you who think they're not oscar nominations and huge box office receipts constitute that, is due to the adherence to the universal western moral values represented in the film coming straight from the book.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I wasn't here a year ago.

Ah, but remember, at first you weren't fighting the Good Fight. It wasn't until you heard of BB's statement that Jackson improved on Jackson, if I remember correctly.

Now, now, he didn't go THAT overboard...

By the way, did anyone think it was interesting that New Zealander Jackson just so HAPPENED to decide that New Zealand (by sheer coincidence, and no prejudice whatsoever, of course) was the best country to film it in? Despite the fact that it actually takes place in Northwestern Europe? And the fact that the Valley where Rivendell stood is STILL THERE?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Deal with it, gang. Peter Jackson's movies are now as much a part of Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's books. Future generations won't be wondering why the "gift-giving scene" was kept out of the theatrical release, they'll wonder why the book didn't have the collapsing staircase and why Arwen isn't written about much.

I think you're dumbing down future generations a lot. Most people can make the distinction between book and film. I think they will PERFECTLY know why the collapsing staircase was NOT in the book. They may be surprised at first but soon see the reason why. Whether they like the difference or not is an ENTIRELY different matter, I hope you can see that. There can always be more films made but there will always be one original book. BB; deal with this: Jackson is replacable, Tolkien can never be truly replaced.

This is not an ownership issues, so please don't give me a bunch of "it will always be Tolkien's story, he owns it" garbage. I'm talking about Lord of the Rings in terms of the perception of modern society. Like myths through the ages, Jackson has now placed his permanent stamp on the story. Tolkien could have prevented this if he wanted exclusive control over how it was presented...but he didn't. He sold the film rights.

This has nothing to do with legal rights. Tolkien WROTE the book, Jackson FILMED it. It has nothing to do with ownership it has to do with what they did with the story. Though Jackson added a lot of things of his own, he would not have been able to write the book himself. Which makes it definately Tolkien's story. Jackson also put an emphasis (IMO) that he was filming an already existing book. He doesn't lay claim on it like you seemingly attributes to him.

The discussing about preventing and selling the rights is rather pointless. Tolkien is very dead, how can we know exactly what he would have wanted? We can make guesses, yeah sure. But we can never be sure for real. And even so, what do you think he could have done to prevent it? Rise from his grave? He sold the rights, yes he did, you can't blame the man for wanting to make some money too, can you? Because Jackson wanted to do just the same thing. And besides Tolkien thought his book was infilmable, at that time it was. We don't know how he would have felt the same with today's technology. You can't blame the man for not knowing how much the film industry can evolve.

As a result, the Lord of the Rings mythology now belongs to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson. [/i]

Again I disagree. Who do the people see as the owner of the Harry Potter universe? Rowling or her director? Why would it be any differently with Tolkien?

Originally posted by Jerseydevil
What IS VERY FUNNY is that you're really the only one defending the movies. Last year I was the only one complaining about them and eveyrone was against me. I say that's a sign that they are losing steam and won't surpass Tolkien.

I liked the movies (well at least the first one, the second one was a bit of a dissapointment) and I will defend them where due. And I do think the movies will be popular for a very looong time still to come (if PJ doesn't mayorly screw up ROTK, that is).

However I just think that without Tolkien, Jackson would have stayed a relative nobody. (IMO at least, I never heard about the guy before the movies)

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
By the way, did anyone think it was interesting that New Zealander Jackson just so HAPPENED to decide that New Zealand (by sheer coincidence, and no prejudice whatsoever, of course) was the best country to film it in? Despite the fact that it actually takes place in Northwestern Europe? And the fact that the Valley where Rivendell stood is STILL THERE?

The guy comes from there, obviously he'll know better just what New Zealand has to offer than Europe. It has probably saved him millions on locationscouting- and relocationcosts. And frankly I don't think it was such a bad choice. I know but very few places in Europe that can compete with the vastness of seemingly unspoiled sceneries that the movie offered. Though honesty dictates me to say that I have not seen the majority of Europe yet.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Last year I was the only one complaining about them and eveyrone was against me.

Hey man, don't forget me! There were two of us complaining!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Hey man, don't forget me! There were two of us complaining!

.and don't forget BB's "jumping in"...


"We started out thinking we would have to change a lot of Tolkien's story, but we found as we went along that the more Tolkien we put in the better it got." ~ Peter Jackson "Page to Screen" Bravo television

hmmm.

[Black Breathalizer]

If the new LOTR movies were "average" like the Harry Potter flicks, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason we are is because Jackson's movies are fast approaching "classic" status and will be repackaged, resold, and thus, remembered for many generations to come. Thanks to Peter Jackson, the books will see a longer life too. So I must say I find it odd that being such big Tolkien fans, you guys aren't applauding him instead of hating his guts.

But I've come to understand your motivation: fear. In your hearts, you Purists know the films are damn good. You don't like them because PJ didn't give you a literal, page by page, retelling of Tolkien's tale. But nevertheless, you know this film production is high quality stuff. You're not fooling anybody.

Your interest in attacking PJ (as amusingly evidenced here) simply shows your fear of the ever-growing popularity of the Jackson movies. Your worst nightmare is that the popularity of the movies will eventually surpass those of the books and become the definitive telling of the story in the minds of most people.

As irrational as these thoughts are, they strike a responsive cord with all of you, don't they? Coooooome on now, 'fess up. Let's try being honest for a change.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But I've come to understand your motivation: fear

oooo noooo it'sd going to destroy... oh, wait a minute, it has no effect on my life whatsoever.

Coooooome on now, 'fess up. Let's try being honest for a change

How many times have you read the book?

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
As a result, the Lord of the Rings mythology now belongs to J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson.

No it is Tolkien's mythology and always will be. PJ just cannot write his own blockbuster story so he uses other peoples. Have you seen any of his movies prier to LotR, they are all horrible. Why do you think he is doing a remake of King Kong? Because it is not possible for him to come up with his own story, he has to use other peoples work.

And the reason I attack PJ is not out of fear that his movies will surpass the books (it will never happen), but because this was the one time the money had actually been put up to beable to bring this story to life with respect to the original material. But what do we get, a typical cheesy Hollywood fantasy movie with the title of LotR on it. PJ had a chance to bring (IMO and many others) the best story ever written to the screen, and he failed worse then I had feared.

And the numbers in the box-office don't mean nothing when you know that many of the sells are teenage girls who only want to see Legolas or Aragorn and go see the movies 20 times in the theaters. (No offense to Legolas and Aragorn fans)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Ah, but remember, at first you weren't fighting the Good Fight. It wasn't until you heard of BB's statement that Jackson improved on Jackson, if I remember correctly.

Yes, I recall. I was trying to be diplomatic about it, until that dreaded moment when I read that statement. *shudders*

By the way, did anyone think it was interesting that New Zealander Jackson just so HAPPENED to decide that New Zealand (by sheer coincidence, and no prejudice whatsoever, of course) was the best country to film it in? Despite the fact that it actually takes place in Northwestern Europe? And the fact that the Valley where Rivendell stood is STILL THERE?

Actually, I think NZ is a beautiful place. I've never been, but I saw it in some other movies and I've seen pictures.

I don't know where you'd be able to tear up an area and make a Hobbit town anyplace in NW Europe. And I already know the argument for PJ defenders: Hollywood has been doing that for years in their studios. Don't forget that this is PJ's vision and story, not Tolkien's.

The Alamo with John Wayne wasn't filmed in San Antonio but was filmed in a desert. Thus, many people think desert when they think of Texas. Really rather annoying.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
No it is Tolkien's mythology and always will be.

This is not an ownership issue, there is no question who owns the story rights. This is about public opinion.

Tolkien originated the story, but Peter Jackson's telling of the tale is now as much a part of the modern mythology that is the Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's own telling. You can seriously dislike this fact but to say I'm wrong and that PJ has no influence on the way LOTR is now and will forever be perceived is to ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1) If the new LOTR movies were "average" like the Harry Potter flicks, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason we are is because Jackson's movies are 2) fast approaching "classic" status and will be repackaged, resold, and thus, remembered for many generations to come. 3) Thanks to Peter Jackson, the books will see a longer life too. So I must say I find it odd that being such big Tolkien fans, you guys aren't applauding him instead of hating his guts.

4) But I've come to understand your motivation: fear. In your hearts, you Purists know the films are damn good. You don't like them because PJ didn't give you a literal, page by page, retelling of Tolkien's tale. But nevertheless, you know this film production is high quality stuff. 5) You're not fooling anybody.

6) Your interest in attacking PJ (as amusingly evidenced here) simply shows your fear of the ever-growing popularity of the Jackson movies. Your worst nightmare is that the popularity of the movies will eventually surpass those of the books and become the definitive telling of the story in the minds of most people.

As irrational as these thoughts are, they strike a responsive cord with all of you, don't they? 7) Coooooome on now, 'fess up. Let's try being honest for a change.

1) But that's just it. They ARE "average". Cliched, average, Hollywood.
2) Ye gods! How stupid can you get? A classic is a work which has stood the test of time. They aren't all out yet!
3) Um...pishtosh.
4) Oh PLEASE, don't play amateur psychologist. And also, we have said MANY TIMES that we did not EXPECT a "literal, page by page" adaptation. Here, you are flat out LYING, and you know it.
5) Well, you gave a ridiculously false statement of me, so evidently I am.
6) No. It is because it does not do justice to Tolkien. The popularity of it is only a minor issue, and one that shoots off from the fact that it is a cliched, Hollywood, piece of average cinema. PJ actually DID give a literal, page-by-page adaptation, from the Big Book of Over-used Hollywood. Too bad he considered this more important than the book he was adapting from.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This is not an ownership issue, there is no question who owns the story rights. This is about public opinion.

Tolkien originated the story, but Peter Jackson's telling of the tale is now as much a part of the modern mythology that is the Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's own telling. You can seriously dislike this fact but to say I'm wrong and that PJ has no influence on the way LOTR is now and will forever be perceived is to ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.

Your statements get more and more ridiculous with each post. First of all - you can't say what lasting affect the movies will have on ANYONE'S perceptin of the books since they haven't been out that long. Sure - you'll have the legolas lovers and Frodo lovers - but they'll past by the wayside and fall in love with actors in another movie and not give a second thought to Lord of the Rings.

Also - movies have always had an influence on society ever since Edison showed the first movie - the Great Train Robbery in West Orange NJ - but that doesn't mean that it will influence people's views of Lord of the Rings - or that the movies will become classics.

As has been repeatedly stated by me and others - our argument isn't that jackson made the films - but that he made hollywood cliched crap. I've listed my complaints with the film - and I have listed my praise. I also donated a ton of money to what was made with FotR - I saw the movie 8 times just trying to like it. TT - I ended up seeing it twice.

Jackson made an action movie with hardly any characteristion. It's a great action movie - it's not Gone with the Wind or Dr Zhivago though. We will ALL Have to wait at least 20 years to see what impact the movies have 0 if any. So far - they are starting to lose steam. Of course I'll be donating money to a film I can't stand when RotK comes out - but that is only because it has Lord of the Rings as it's title. I donated far too much to FotR though

Someone asked me if I like the Matrix better than the Lord of the Rings and the aswerr is "YES". Lord of the Rings has cheesey hollywood comic relief, cheesy slo-mo. Both are action movies (one wasn't supposed to be) but at least Matrix doesn't dumb itself down to the audience like Jackson did with LotR.

[Earniel]

woah long sentence!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
[...] is to ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.

I don't know about your place but around where I live (and that is about 10 km from one of the biggest cinema complexes in Europe) books are still mightily popular. I have yet to see a decrease in them. Movie-power may be increasing but that DOES NOT mean the influence of books is necesarily deminishing. Books and movies can not be compared like say CD's and records. People also like reading on paper a lot more than on screen.

[Curufinwe]

I think perhaps this threat could use some more civility, black breathalizer Peter Jackson's lord of the Rings is an interpretation and a version of LOTR they are not "as much a part of LOTR" as Tolkien's books. That statement makes no sense there is one LOTR written by Tolkien just as there is one King Kong wether people realize it or not. Anyone can interpret or present the source material but that does NOT make it theirs. LOTR does not belong to Peter Jackson in any sense and he would tell you as much as an artist. The movies are extremely popular though people, I can't imagine that you have missed this. Don't let your feelings about them color your objectivity.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1)This is not an ownership issue, there is no question who owns the story rights. This is about public opinion.

2) Tolkien originated the story, but Peter Jackson's telling of the tale is now as much a part of the modern mythology that is the Lord of the Rings as Tolkien's own telling. You can seriously dislike this fact but to say I'm wrong and that PJ has no influence on the way LOTR is now and will forever be perceived is to (3) ignore the increasing power of movies and other visual media in our society and the shrinking power of the written page.

1) The story will always be Tolkien's LotR! When PJ has passed into obscurity and no one knows his name, Tolkien will always be there. He is immortalized in his work. THAT is public opinion.
2) No... *sigh* we've been over this before. Just because some Hollywood hack makes a movie based on a book does not mean it is now 'a part of the modern mythology' of that book, whatever it might be. There are other movies which attempted to bring the beauty of Tolkien's words to the screen and failed miserably, just as PJ has done. The only difference is that PJ had better people working as his crew.
3) Yes, it is unfortunate that society is getting more stupid every day. Probably a result of this "shrinking power of the written page". However, the crowd I hang out with is pretty well read and intelligent. I suppose the antithesis to your own crowd.

Fëanor/Curufinwë: popular? So was: "I Know What You Did Last Summer", but I wouldn't call that a classic either.

[Black Breathalizer]

Do classic movies need to stand the test of time? Yes. I acknowledge my comments are premature. But I would bet any of you that I am right on the money in proclaiming they will be.

I was in the opening night line to see Star Wars in 1977. I knew the first time I saw it that I was watching something special and unique. I recall thinking after my first viewing of the film that I had just seen a modern-day movie classic. Twenty-five plus years later, it turns out I was right. Sadly I haven't had that type of feeling much since then...until Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring came out a year ago.

The movies and the books compliment each other. The fact that Jackson has a developed a movie trilogy with the same kind of quality and attention to detail as Tolkien's books is a good thing. So all these negative responses here make absolutely no sense whatsoever....

...unless you buy into my fear theory.

[Earniel]

Surely you can't compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings! Lord of the Rings was already a very wellknown book before Jackson even considered making a movie out of it. Star Wars is a completely different situation.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But I've come to understand your motivation: fear. In your hearts, you Purists know the films are damn good. You don't like them because PJ didn't give you a literal, page by page, retelling of Tolkien's tale. But nevertheless, you know this film production is high quality stuff. You're not fooling anybody.

I did not ask for literal page by page, really. I would however have wanted the characters to stay as they are in the book. There were reasons why Tolkien wrote these characters they way he did. There were reasons why each scene was developed the way it was and each event happened the way it did. Unfortunately, PJ was conserned more with cowering at the feet of the Hollywood big boys rather than being true to the story. He knew that if he did not develop his movie with the tried and true Hollywood action/adventure recipe, he would be out on his keester.

I'm happy for you, really, that you got your rocks off watching PJ's LotR. However, they do not compliment each other if they are so very different from each other.

Compare book Gimli to movie Gimli. Tolkien wrote Dwarves as ...

...they are stone hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples....

(I hope I got that right, I do not have my book with me) They are proud and noble, and NOT clowns!

Look at Merry and Pippin. Book Merry and Pippin are intelligent enough to know that Frodo is leaving the Shire and Crickhollow, even though Frodo has made all efforts to keep it secret. Because of their fast friendship with Frodo, they choose to go with him. Rather, they demand it. Movie Merry and Pippin are theiving baboons stealing the crops from Farmer Maggot (when it was in fact Frodo who had stolen mushrooms from the farmer when he was younger), and also another comic relief for PJ-otR (more Hollywood recipe... yummmmy).

As for fear, I have no fear. PJ-otR will be forgotten in 5 years and will end up in some trivia based game somewhere. But Tolkien will always be read.