Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

Ruinel: I did not ask for literal page by page, really.

BB: What did you want?

Ruinel: I would have wanted the characters to stay as they are in the book. There were reasons why Tolkien wrote these characters they way he did.

BB: oh.

Ruinel: There were reasons why each scene was developed the way it was and each event happened the way it did.

BB: oh.

Ruinel: So, BB, don't you dare say I wanted a literal interpretation!!!

[Ruinel]

BB: Down with the books, burn them all! *tosses a handfull of Tolkien books, including The Sil onto a bonfire*

Ruinel: NO!! What are you doing!!! *reaches into fire to try to save the books (The Sil first, of course)*

BB: We don't need them any longer, Ruinel. We have the beauty of cinema. Don't you see? *becomes glossy eyed* If we get rid of these boring old tales, we'll have more shelf space for the Extended Edition DVD's and a small altar where we can worship Peter Jackson... I'm planning to sacrifice a goat to him. How about you? *shows Ruinel his shiny new sacrificial knife from LotR.net*

Ruinel: ACK!! WHAT!!?? YOU'VE GONE MAD!!! *runs in the opposite direction*

BB: Now what was that all about? *continues to feed the fire with more Tolkien books*



............ hehehe... fair is fair.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

BB: Tolkien was a drooling old senile idiot who didn't know how to write a story. He didn't even know what he wanted to right, for Pete's sake! Good thing the divinely inspired JACKSON descended from the heavens to set that doddering fool straight. He completely ruined a story, which would still be ruined, if not for Jackson Almighty!

[Ruinel]

BB: *chanting some devilish spell, he [edited gore] across a barely legible, autographed picture of PJ "To my biggest fan, Black Breathalizer! Love, Peter Jackson". [edited gore]
Shouting and holding the chalice skyward: "For your glory, OH DARK ONE, to show OUR LOVE for you and the works of thy hands: Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers. We offer this gift to you, Peter Jackson, holy of holies....may your new work be as brilliantly evil as your last two!" [edited gore]

[edited by azalea -- too much graphic violence.]

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I think THAT may be going a bit far...

[Ruinel]

hmmmm, ya think?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ten bucks says azalea agrees.

[Ruinel]

LOL! Well, I don't consider it flaming and I didn't cus (this time). Ah, well, too bad BB won't get the chance to see it then. I'll just save it an post it again when he's on.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He's never on. He's on stealth mode; he strikes from the shadows.

And here, I found another quote, which sounds just like him:

It took me ten years to finally get up the determination to plow through Tolkien's massive opus - and while it's been adapted brilliantly on-screen, as a book the story is much less impressive and tends to be addle-brained.

[Ruinel]

I'm so glad that wasn't really something he actually said. *phew* I would surely be banned for what immediately comes to mind to post for that.

[Black Breathalizer]

You guys may be awfully misguided...but you're damn funny today.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You guys may be awfully misguided...but you're damn funny today.

hehehe... you have no idea of the wild things that run through my mind.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Jackson made an action movie with hardly any characterization. It's a great action movie - it's not Gone with the Wind or Dr Zhivago 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.

Obviously characterization is in the eyes of the beholder. Is there LESS characterization in the movies than the books? YES. Score a point for jerseydevil. But if you are comparing Jackson's movies to other fantasy or action/adventure films, there is definitely MORE characterization than one would normally see.

Which leads me to jerseydevil's comment about "dumbing down" movies for the audience. Novels can do so much more to communicate emotions and motivations to its readers than films can for its audiences. A screenwriter has to look for creative ways to communicate complex themes. An example is Frodo's resolve to go alone to Mordor despite his fear. Jackson's close-up on Elijah Wood's eyes and the way Elijah was able to communicate he new-found resolve after thinking about the words of his friend and mentor, Gandalf, was impressive. Was it the way Tolkien wrote it? No. Did it effectively communicate the same message for film? IMHO, yes.

Before you pass off changes from the book as "dumbing down" the source material, think hard about what Jackson did and why he did it. What you call "hollywood cliched crap" is "Basic Screenwriting 101" for most informed cinemaphiles.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Is there LESS characterization in the movies than the books? YES.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Novels can do so much more to communicate emotions and motivations to its readers than films can for its audiences.

By writing that you do realise that you just admitted that the movies cannot be richer than the books?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
By writing that you do realise that you just admitted that the movies cannot be richer than the books?

Of course.

I've said the movies are wonderful adaptations. I've said the films enhance the books. I've said Jackson improved upon some of the plotlines. But I would never say the movies are richer than the books.

[Baby-K]

But if you are comparing Jackson's movies to other fantasy or action/adventure films, there is definitely MORE characterization than one would normally see.

Do you have any specific examples in mind? And how / where does Jackson incorporate more character development?

Before you pass off changes from the book as "dumbing down" the source material, think hard about what Jackson did and why he did it. What you call "hollywood cliched crap" is "Basic Screenwriting 101" for most informed cinemaphiles.

I don't necessarily agree with you there - it remains profitable because it is tried & tested - true it has worked in the past & would most likely continue to do so, but truth be told, for the more discerning flick bof it is tiresome to have to continuously be bombarded with the same old style of film making and expected to enjoy it just because the masses do.

And I doubt that you'd get a favourable response from JD if you implore him to 'think hard about what Jackson did & why' - JD has already made it clear that he despised what Jakson did, so IMO the two of you will reach completely different conclusions on that one.

Oh, btw all - my humble opinion: will have to wait 'til tomorrow (gotta go)

[Curufinwe]

It is impossible to have deep characterization of over a dozen characters in a movie. To put it simply how can there be as much characterization in a 3 hour movie as a 500 page book. I would someone to write a script for me that brings us from the last alliance through the hill of Amon Hen in three hours with all the plot that involves while bringing as much characterization as PJ did and make an entertaining film. Any takers? I suspect I'll hear more baseless gut reaction criticism.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

"Watchable" and "purely action" are NOT the same thing, you know.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
It is impossible to have deep characterization of over a dozen characters in a movie. To put it simply how can there be as much characterization in a 3 hour movie as a 500 page book. I would someone to write a script for me that brings us from the last alliance through the hill of Amon Hen in three hours with all the plot that involves while bringing as much characterization as PJ did and make an entertaining film. Any takers? I suspect I'll hear more baseless gut reaction criticism.

There was no characterization in the film - except for the ridiculous character changes Jackson made.

Hint - if you read the books you'd know that Aragorn is not a wimp running from his heritage. Elrond isn't a complete asshole, Galadriel isn't some ice queen, merry and Pippin aren't imbeciles, Gandalf isn't a whimpering dottering old fool running after Saruman - begging for foregiveness. If jackson had kept the characterization that Tolkien had - then there wouldn't be as many problems or complaints with the movie. Instead he turned them into hollywood cliches. That I have a PROBLEM WITH. He turned Lord of the Rings into a 2 bit action flick. The only thing really good about it - which I have said repeatedly is the Scenary, special affects, and costumes.

[Curufinwe]

If PJs Lord of the Rings is an action flick then what is Rambo III? There is characterization especially in the EE and he obviously wanted to include this material but could not due to what his constrained him to in terms of time alloted to the release. Bilbo's characterization is perfect, Frodo and Sam quite good. Merry and Pippen were basically reduced to a single character this will hurt later on. Gimli is funny in the books but not a purely comic character. Legolas is fairly well done I believe. Aragorn's character is very close. Let's not be silly he is as courageous and empathetic as he is in the literature - but he is unsure why? Because PJ had to think of some reason that Aragorn the rightful king was not king so he abdicates or something there is NO TIME in that movie to explain the sons of Elendil how they split the high kingship and how to southern line eventually failed and the North Kingdom is destroyed there is no way to put this smoothly and effetively into film. Gandalf is also a strong character the scene with Saruman is ineffective and out of the character of our beloved Gandalf, why? To demonstrate, and that is a crital word in making movies, his postion as Gandalf's superior in the order of the Istari and on the Council. Elrond is just wrong I agree - really miscast there, his dialogue isnt too too bad but the presentation is all wrong. Just think people how many movies have over 10 developed characters? Think of why that is these are different forms of art. PJ's movie is not an action movie, how much action is there that is added to the plot? We have the last alliance a short scene, he cuts the orc attack on Isildur at the Gladden fields, he embelishes Aragorn and the wraiths, He then skips over the wolf attack at the foot of Caradharas, embelishes the battle in moria. And takes us into the first chapter of book III with the defense of the hobbits by Boromir - which needed to be SHOWN not explained as far as film or theater are concerned. Then we have a very short battle between the Eomer's company and the Orcs, a very short battle between the Rangers of Ithilien and the Haradrim. A worg-cavalry battle, Helm's Deep and The Ents. He's added one battle subtracted another, enlonged a few and truncated others. Helm's Deep you had to know was going to be long its easily the point ot highest action and tension in book III. I mean what did you think the climax would be? The Lord of the Rings is epic adventure, it is not a novel it does not address the human condition, Tolkien understood that he wrote high adventure in the old english-scandanavian tradition - so is the film.