Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Cirdan]

Well, considering it was 17 years before the growning evil of the ring was realized, oh, and that the ring was on a chain when Gandalf handled it, it's not at all inappropriate.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Cirdan
it was 17 years before the growning evil of the ring was realized

That's a really good point, and also is a reason why Jackson did it the way he did, because it was happening right then in the movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Well, considering it was 17 years before the growning evil of the ring was realized, oh, and that the ring was on a chain when Gandalf handled it, it's not at all inappropriate.

This is a good point and I guess I would agree with the comments that simply touching or holding it wouldn't corrupt a maia.

But I still question that Gandalf would have intentionally handled a ring that he thought might be The One Ring that included Sauron's own blood and part of his life force.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like something that should have it's own topic, probably in the Book forum, as it debates the actions of Gandalf in the book. I think it is an interesting thought, and one that could be delved into more in what could be an interesting debate. Although, of course, Cirdan might have just finalized it by mentioning the chain, but if not, I think this could be an interesting topic.

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

But once the story was retold on radio, then in Bakshi's movie, and now PJ's movies, the story became our modern-day version of mythic storytelling. Just like there are numerous "versions" of King Arthur's tale or the Greek and Roman myths, there are now variations on "what really happened" long ago in the lands of Middle Earth.

Mythology isn't about copyright ownership, it's about the mindset of the story's fans. Yes, the Tolkien estate OWNS the novels, but they don't own the imaginations of LOTR fans around the world.

Related to this, there's an article here that discusses how, in the absence of an oral literature, sometimes modern literature, TV and other art are "taken over" by the masses (that's us) in an attempt to make them their own. The relevant comments are in the middle of the article.
(warning: links to some garbage that's not PG rated.)

[mithrand1r]

Here are the excerpts if you do not wish to read the entire article.

. . .

But this condescension misses the point. In his superb Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture, MIT's Jenkins argues that fanfic represents a flowering of modern folk culture. For thousands of years, we have shared stories about mythical popular heroes, from Prometheus to Paul Bunyan to Brer Rabbit. Each storyteller embellished the tale, inventing characters, adding details, rewriting the ending. In the 20th century, however, folk culture has been privatized. The characters we share today are TV icons and movie heroes. Paul Bunyan has been supplanted by Xena. These characters don't belong to the public. They are literally owned by studios and producers, who run the character's "life" and expect us to accept their decisions gratefully.

Fan fiction rebels against the private folk culture, Jenkins argues. Writers reclaim folk heroes by creating new stories about them. They embellish the myth. Viewed through Jenkins' lens, a fanfic writer keen on Capt. Jean Luc Picard is no different from a 19th-century folksinger who paid tribute to John Henry. Fanfic writers assert control over a pop culture designed to be passively consumed. "I wanted to make the show mine," explains Kat of her Friends fanfics, echoing the battle cry of fan writers. By writing fics about Monica and Chandler, Kat is insisting that they belong to her as much as to NBC. Fan fiction puts the pop back in popular culture.

Writing fanfic, Jenkins argues, is an act of "fascination and frustration." Writers are fascinated by the characters but frustrated at the cavalier way producers treat them. Fanfic is a "way of repairing the damage done to the core mythology by producers who mess up. The fanfic folk culture pulls it back into realignment." When producers make a beloved character disappear or end a love affair that should continue, fanfic restores the mythology. "Even though I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there are times when the show doesn't go my way. So I use fanfic to create the outcome I want," says Buffy fanfic writer Carrie Cook. The actor George Clooney has left ER for a movie career, but fanfic writers adore his character, Doug Ross. They also know that Doug and Nurse Carol Hathaway belong together. So they write story after story about the characters' continuing romance. (The Clooney/Ross split highlights the first commandment of fanfic: Thou shalt not write about real people. Click here for why.)

. . .

But fear is mounting among fans that the studios are getting too pushy. Lucasfilm lit a brushfire last month when it offered fans free pages on its cherished www.starwars.com site. Fans would be allowed to post all their Star Wars hagiography there, including stories, songs, messages to other fans, and essays. But the small print says that Lucasfilm retains all copyright to anything placed on the site. If I were to write a great story about how Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader and post it on my starwars.com fan page, George Lucas would own my idea.

Lucasfilm is flexing this muscle for obvious reasons. It fears a lawsuit by some fan claiming that Lucas stole her plot for his next movie. But fans believe Lucas has gone too far and have launched an online rebellion. Their complaints resonate. They adore Lucas and his movies. But Star Wars is theirs, too. After all, they think about it, write about it, talk about it, and care about it as much as Lucas does. "Legally, it's theirs. But emotionally we feel we have a right to participate in the story," says Elizabeth Durack, a fanfic writer who is leading the starwars.com protest. Lucas jury-rigged Star Wars from a hundred myths that he heisted from Joseph Campbell. Fanfic writers are borrowing it back. They don't want a dime in return. They just want to be left alone to write their own, very modern myths.

It is interesting to say the least.

[Black Breathalizer]

I've recently been reading about November's Expanded TTT DVD. From what I'm hearing, the extended version will put to rest the complaints that some people expressed here about the theatrical version:

Examples:

"Faramir was too mean" = Faramir gets more screen time and comes off much more like the Faramir from the books.

"Where the heck did Aragorn's rescue horse come from?" = The backstory regarding the horse Brego that rescues Aragorn is told in the extended version.

"The end story felt rushed." = The ending will be greatly expanded.

"How did Frodo, Sam, & Faramir's company get on the WEST side of the city?" = we'll actually see the hobbits leave the city through ancient storm sewers.

"What happened to Gimli and Legolas's competition?" = The conclusion will be shown in the extended DVD.

[justaregularguy]

My first post.

After tracking this thread stealthily for longer than I care to admit, I finally registered specifically to say to you, BB - you go, Bro!

Somehow you've managed to stay focused and level in the face of considerable criticism, some of it inarguably over the top. That's one definition of class; I respect that.

At the risk of sounding like some sort of Buddha, so much of our suffering in life is nothing more than us wishing that what we've been given could have been something else, and therefore taking no joy in what is.

FWIW, had I directed LOTR, like so many others here, I'd also have choosen to adhere more closely to the books. But I didn't.

The movies are what they are. They please my family and me greatly. I move effortlessly between the books and the movies, digging each yet more for the other.

[Black Breathalizer]

You rock, justaregularguy! Any guy who notices how classy I am is obviously a very intelligent and incredibly observant guy!

Part of my love of the LOTR films comes from being disappointed with so many movies in the past. Say what you will, these films have actually lived up to their hype. When the ROTK comes out and blows people away, this trilogy is going to go down as one of the best film series in the history of cinema.

[IronParrot]

Part of my love of the LOTR films comes from being disappointed with so many movies in the past. Say what you will, these films have actually lived up to their hype. When the ROTK comes out and blows people away, this trilogy is going to go down as one of the best film series in the history of cinema.

If you look at cinematic qualities alone, without any regard for the source novel, this trilogy is already going down as one of the best film series in the history of cinema.

You'll notice that all the debate circulates around whether or not the films are faithful to the source. As far as filmmaking values go, the praise for LOTR has insofar been near unanimous - I cite scores little shy of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes as my evidence.

On the other hand, I don't think people are going to be unanimously blown away by ROTK, because the stumbling block of adaptation remains. The people who aren't happy now with what's changed are still going to be unhappy when they see the absence of what happens to the Shire.

I do not think this debate here - on the faithfulness of the films to the book - is directly connected to the LOTR films' inherent cinematic virtues.

[Black Breathalizer]

We already know that the Scouring of the Shire is not part of ROTK. Tolkien fans who understand screenwriting and movie-making will give PJ a pass on it. Of course, we'll have some purists who will not.

But the scouring aside, Jackson has said that ROTK is the most faithful adaptation of all three films. If this is true, then it is hard to imagine even the most die-hard purist not at least acknowledging that this film series captured the spirit of Tolkien's great work.

Some people are going to always whine that Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel should have been included, but no adaptation could have pleased everybody. Frankly, it is hard for me to imagine any group of artists who could have produced a movie series adaptation of the LOTR better than Peter Jackson and company have.

Just think about it....PJ got Alan Lee and John Howe....he had a team that made models more lifelike than anything we've ever seen before....he had WETA put their hearts and souls into designing lifelike weapons, sets, and monsters.....he captured the magic of Middle-Earth through Howard Shore's amazing score....he brought together a near-perfect cast.....he filmed it in the perfect Middle-Earth, New Zealand. Now can anyone with a straight face really sit here and tell us that this film series wasn't true to Tolkien!?!?!? If you honestly believe these film-makers weren't passionate about being true to Tolkien's vision, then I'd love to see what your version of truth would be.

[Entlover]

Re the Scouring of the Shire, there's an interesting discussion of that in Orson Scott Card's excellent book "Characters and Viewpoint", where he writes that there are 4 kinds of books, Milieu, Idea, Character and Event. LOTR is a milieu story. "It is the world itself that Tolkien cared most about, and so the audience for the story is going to be those readers who also come to love the world of Middle Earth."
"All the MICE factors are present in the LOTR, but it is the milieu structure that predominates, as it should. It would be absurd to criticize LOTR for not having plot unity and integrity, because it is not an event story. Likewise . . it is not a character story. . . .We should probably praise Tolkien for having done such a good job of working creditable story lines and the occasional identifiable character into a story that was, after all, about Something Else."
But PJ has turned it into an event story, which he had to do to meet his obligations I guess, so leaving out the Scouring makes sense -- it takes place after the main events have concluded.

[azalea]

I really like that take on the matter.
The discussion of what kind of story LotR is reminds me of the talk about Boromir in the thread in the books forum. The argument is that Boromir could have been fleshed out better. But of course the defense is that with so many characters, fleshing them all out would cloud the storyline, what the tale is about. IMO, if a character needed to be fleshed out more, I would have chosen Aragorn over Boromir, but again, as you say, it's about something greater than any particular character (not to mention that the hobbits are the most important characters, so his focus is rightly on their development).

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Entlover
LOTR is a milieu story. "It is the world itself that Tolkien cared most about, and so the audience for the story is going to be those readers who also come to love the world of Middle Earth."
... it is not a character story. . . .We should probably praise Tolkien for having done such a good job of working creditable story lines and the occasional identifiable character into a story that was, after all, about Something Else."

Expanding on these thoughts a little further --- while I agree that Tolkien cared most about the world itself, especially its history and language, he also cared deeply about its people. But I suspect Tolkien viewed his characters more from a sociological perspective than a psychological one. He was more interested in group dynamics.

One of Tolkien's central themes was that peoples of different races, languages, and cultures who have historically been distrustful of one another can find fellowship if they will only open up their hearts. It's gratifying to see that Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens understood and completely embraced this in their screenplays. The absence of this essential theme would have been much more troublesome than the expected omission of the Scouring of the Shire events.

It's already apparent from the trailer that it will be one of the central, underlying themes of the final act. IMHO, it is why Return of the King will go down in film history as the crown jewel in the greatest film trilogy of all time.

[Entlover]

"One of Tolkien's central themes was that peoples of different races, languages, and cultures who have historically been distrustful of one another can find fellowship if they will only open up their hearts."

True.
But it would be impossible to make these movies without recognizing that theme. You couldn't get away from all these dwarves, elves, etc being flung together in adversity.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Entlover
But it would be impossible to make these movies without recognizing that theme. You couldn't get away from all these dwarves, elves, etc being flung together in adversity.

Entlover, you underestimate the ability of Hollywood to screw up anything. The fantasy film genre is littered with incompetent productions. It is one of the reasons why LOTR stands out from the crowd.

[Black Breathalizer]

The screenwriters and Viggo have done an incredible job of bringing Tolkien's character of Aragorn to life.

As is ususual around here, some of the literal interpretationists confuse plot deviations for the sake of filmmaking with changes to Aragorn's personality. It is true that changes were made to Aragorn's backstory for the film. But these alterations did not change the type of man that Aragorn was.

Aragorn was a very unassuming man who lived in the shadows. He led his fellow rangers and inspired loyalty among his friends by his example, not by openly "acting" as a leader. One of the things that I've hated about earlier movie and radio adaptations of the LOTR is that Aragorn was portrayed as the typical, upfront, "I'm the hero"-kind of guy. It seemed to me that Tolkien made it clear from Aragorn's backstory that it was drilled into him since he was a young man living in Rivendell that he should stay in the background because his life was in danger if the Dark Lord were do learn he lived.

Tolkien was not big on 'fleshing out' his characters in the traditional sense. This is not meant as a criticism, just an observation. It could be argued that Eowyn is the most fully realized character he wrote in LOTR. Having said this, I do believe that the self-doubt that film Aragorn exhibited in FOTR and TTT was true to Tolkien. I find it amusing that in one breath some people here criticize Peter Jackson for making "typical action fantasy flicks" and in the next breath say that a less one dimensional and more fully realized and human Aragorn "isn't true to Tolkien." Once again, the literalists want to have it both ways.

[Draken]

BB mate, they're nice films. They're good films. They're very watchable films. And maybe, as far as the MTV generation goes, they're classic films. But at the end of the day, they're just films.

You're sounding like someone who goes around the Tate and then enthuses about the postcards in the gift shop.

[Nazgul King Squirrel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Now can anyone with a straight face really sit here and tell us that this film series wasn't true to Tolkien!?!?!? If you honestly believe these film-makers weren't passionate about being true to Tolkien's vision, then I'd love to see what your version of truth would be.

Sure, the opposite would be what I would find difficult.

The first two movies weren’t true to Tolkien. Further, they weren’t supposed to be. That was never the intention of PJ, so why don’t you give PJ his credits?

He wanted to make an action movie based on the LotR, not make THE LotR into a movie, that is clear, why do you have such a problem with that? Do you think that, by itself, PJ’s tale becomes shallow, or loses quality?

Personally I liked the movies. They weren’t classics, but they were for the most part enjoyable. Stop being such a purist, BB, see the movies, enjoy them, and give PJ his dues and Tolkien his.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Nazgul King Squirrel
Stop being such a purist, BB

I'm sorry but for some reason I find this rather hilarious.

Originally posted by Draken
You're sounding like someone who goes around the Tate and then enthuses about the postcards in the gift shop.

What's the 'Tate'?