RotK: a successful adaptation?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
However, there's a third element to the general "adaptation" issue, and that's "telling the story well" as a film; that's what they didn't do, in my view. The jumpiness of script editing, and the orphaned sub-plots made it feel, to me, like a clumsy and arbitrary piece of story-telling.

I agree. Too many of the sub plots were addressed and then miraculously dropped - the big one being Saruman.

As for the Extended Editions - why should we wait until then to see if they "fixed" anything they screwed up in the movies. They should have gotten it right in the movies - period. A GOOD director - just doesn't introduce plot lines and then drop them half way through, or have a key character and plot being followed and then just whitewash the conclusion later on. The three films flow very poorly and the plot is extremely jumpy.

I don't care if Jackson puts some closure to Saruman in the Extended Edition - it DOES NOT appear in the film - which is what matters.

Jackson has in the TT about Pippin and Merry growing - but in RotK isn't even addressed. Even in the RotK EE it can not be addressed because at the Grey Havens - Pippin is shorter than Sam. This is the type of stuff that indicates such poor film making in my eyes. The action, special effects are great - but not much else.

As for the adaptation - don't forget - Arwen WAS at Helm's Deep FIGHTING - Jackson just changed that because of the outcry against Arwen in FotR and brought her back to more of what she was in the books.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I would say that the EE of the Two Towers certainly does help, and I continue to be optimistic about the Return of the King. . .but I think you're right about the storytelling thing. I mean, they got the main story arc, the destruction of the Ring fine, but they ended up ignoring and/or cutting short other important pieces of the story, i.e. Saruman, Eowyn and Faramir. . .and while they may redeem themselves later on with the DVDs they put out, should not the point be getting the story across well in the theatrical versions and the DVDs should just have the extra stuff? Alas. . .it's especially troubling because I think they did such a good job with the things they did include (well, for the most part) that I am fairly certain they did well with the things they cut. Just have to wait 'til November. . .

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
However, there's a third element to the general "adaptation" issue, and that's "telling the story well" as a film; that's what they didn't do, in my view. The jumpiness of script editing, and the orphaned sub-plots made it feel, to me, like a clumsy and arbitrary piece of story-telling.

To add to this point.

Just enough of the LOTR book was added to the film to easily permit one who has read the books to be able to mentally fill-in (usually done subconsciously) any gaps and omissions from the film presentation of LOTR. When one pays closer attention to see if the film actually has a logical progression, many things are either not clear, not there, or not logical/inconsistent looking.

(one example I can think of off the top of my head are the ENTS. From the movie alone they are inconsistent. First they state they are not hasty and decide not to fight. Then at a moments notice notice -- Its war.)

In this respect, If one never read the book it is better. They will have an easier time in criticizing the film if it is internally consistent and makes sense without their subconscience filling in the blanks for them.

[Thorin II]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I agree. Too many of the sub plots were addressed and then miraculously dropped - the big one being Saruman.

I see your point about the EE not solving the problem; if the theatrical version is incomplete, then the theatrical version isn't very good.

That said, do you agree that PJ had to cut some material out of the books for the sake of time? In my opinion, he was forced to do so by logistical constraints. Therefore, for everything he cut that you think he should've kept, I'd be interested to know what you think he should've cut.

Personally, I don't agree with all of his decisions, but I think most of them made sense. I would've loved to see more of Saruman any many other things, but most of them were cut in favor of more important material. I'm curious what you think.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Thorin II
That said, do you agree that PJ had to cut some material out of the books for the sake of time? In my opinion, he was forced to do so by logistical constraints. Therefore, for everything he cut that you think he should've kept, I'd be interested to know what you think he should've cut.

Yes - i qagree that things needed to be cut - but the problem is - he added enough of his junk that made no sense really and wasn't needed - that a lot of the dropped ploits could have been resolved. It's like he suffered from laziness or had these ideas of what he wanted and just "oh I'll just cut that out - because I really want Pelenor Fields to look like this" without any regard to how the movie flowed. The movie is extremely jumpy.

Personally, I don't agree with all of his decisions, but I think most of them made sense. I would've loved to see more of Saruman any many other things, but most of them were cut in favor of more important material. I'm curious what you think.

What more important material? Don't you think that a lead evil wizard that he built up during FotR and TT deserved a little more than "oh - he's trapped in his tower now" without eve a shot of him? It's like Saruman really didn't serve any purpose really - because he was - in regards to the theatrical version so easy to defeat. It's like he built him up - and then it was just a big let down in the end. What was there - like 5 minutes of the destruction of Isengard?

He could have cut out some of the action sequences - and put the time into other things. He didn't have to add so much of his own garbage. But why would he do that - he owns WETA and the things he increased dealt with special effects. Ultimately - by concentrating more on the special effects and the action sequences - it put more money into his pocket through WETA.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Just enough of the LOTR book was added to the film to easily permit one who has read the books to be able to mentally fill-in (usually done subconsciously) any gaps and omissions from the film presentation of LOTR. When one pays closer attention to see if the film actually has a logical progression, many things are either not clear, not there, or not logical/inconsistent looking.

I agree - I have looked at the movies from that stand point - that's why so much of them seem jumpy and not to make sense. Too many readers, as I said back in FotR - fill in the blanks with their knowledge of the books.

(one example I can think of off the top of my head are the ENTS. From the movie alone they are inconsistent. First they state they are not hasty and decide not to fight. Then at a moments notice notice -- Its war.)

Another example is Galadriel's Gifts. The only one that is shown in theatrical version is Frodo's. The rope, the cloaks, the Lembas, is sort of explained later - but no one who hasn't read the books knows why Gollum is screaming when he has the robe around his neck in TT. But I KNOW many book fans have filled in that information. But then it doesn't matter because Jackson then has Gollum touching the Lembas bread with no problem - except for a look of disgust.

In this respect, If one never read the book it is better. They will have an easier time in criticizing the film if it is internally consistent and makes sense without their subconscience filling in the blanks for them.

I think one can criticize it either way. Even if they have read the books. I think it's not the ones who have problems with it that can't seperate it from the books - I think it's a lot of time the who give it such incredible praise are the ones who don't seperate the books and movies - they are the ones who fill in the blanks of missing information, the missing characterization, finish the plots that get started and then dropped.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As for the adaptation - don't forget - Arwen WAS at Helm's Deep FIGHTING - Jackson just changed that because of the outcry against Arwen in FotR and brought her back to more of what she was in the books.

I give Jackson credit for correcting this awful mistake, so that Arwen did NOT fight at Helm's Deep. *shudders at the horror that could have been*

I agree with you on the plot holes/missing scenes you pointed out, like Merry and Pippin and the Ent draughts, and Galadriel's gifts.

All scenes important to the plot (such as the above) should be included in the theatrical version, and continued in sequels. The Extended Edition should be reserved for bonus scenes that are not critical to the plot, rather than making up for the shortcomings of the theatrical version.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I give Jackson credit for correcting this awful mistake, so that Arwen did NOT fight at Helm's Deep. *shudders at the horror that could have been*

You give him credit for correcting something he knows based on the reaction of the fans to Arwen at the Ford? I don't - it was purely financial. Why should I give him credit for correcting something only after there was such an outcry from the book fans? There should have required no correction He knew after FotR came out - that if she was at Helm's Deep, he had just eliminated more than half the fans of the films. He shouldn't have even thought about it or had it written OR filmed that way to begin with.

I wish he had the brains not to change Flight to the Ford so much - but he didn't.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You give him credit for correcting something he knows based on the reaction of the fans to Arwen at the Ford?

My point with that was, the mistake was not in the movie, so I have no problem with it. Flight to the Ford, of course, is deservedly slammed. It is a mistake that made the final cut. Whatever his reasons, I don't think it's fair to criticize him for something that's on the cutting room floor.

[Lady Ravyn]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I mean how, especially in ROTK, the film makers simply fail to resolve sub-plots.

Take the Eowyn/Aragorn/Faramir love triangle. There are several scenes in TTT dedicated to setting up this story. As we know from the book, Eowyn's heartbreak is resolved in her courage in battle, Eomer's brotherly love, and some good, old-fashioned wooing by Faramir. In ROTK, we get a millisecond glance between the two of them and that's that.

okay, ya got me there; i was a little upset about that...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
My point with that was, the mistake was not in the movie, so I have no problem with it. Flight to the Ford, of course, is deservedly slammed. It is a mistake that made the final cut. Whatever his reasons, I don't think it's fair to criticize him for something that's on the cutting room floor.

I criticize him for even thinking it - it proves that he didn't really care about the story or the books that much. The only way it ended up on the cutting room floor was the backlash against Arwen byt the book fans. If he did it on his own - that would be one thing - but the only reaosn he changed it was because he saw more than half the movie goers being pissed - as I said.

It's like not criticizing someone for planning and thinking to rob a store - but then only stop because a police officer walks by. The person deserves criticism for even thinking about robbing a store. It isn't like they changed their mind on their own and had a change of heart - they just knew that they would be in deep trouble if they went ahead with their plan and ideas at that time.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't completely agree with you, but you do have a point.

I will amend my statement to:
Whatever his reasons, he can be fogiven for thinking about a mistake because it's on the cutting room floor.

We can give him the benefit of the doubt, since we can't prove he wouldn't have cut the scene anyway, without influence. There's a lot of material actually in the movie worth criticizing, so I can't be bothered with something that he (thankfully) cut.

Imagining more Xena-Arwen scenes is bad, but it's not that bad. To continue your analogy, I don't condone it, but it's not illegal to think about robbing a store.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I criticize him for even thinking it - it proves that he didn't really care about the story or the books that much. The only way it ended up on the cutting room floor was the backlash against Arwen byt the book fans. If he did it on his own - that would be one thing - but the only reaosn he changed it was because he saw more than half the movie goers being pissed - as I said.

Not everyone may interpret things in the book, or the overall themes of the story (and the way they play out), the same way you do, Jerseydevil. Viewpoints are different, depending on the person. It is a good thing to remember.

I respect Peter Jackson and his works, even though he did make a few mistakes. Humans are, after all, falliable.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Not everyone may interpret things in the book, or the overall themes of the story (and the way they play out), the same way you do, Jerseydevil. Viewpoints are different, depending on the person. It is a good thing to remember.

I respect Peter Jackson and his works, even though he did make a few mistakes. Humans are, after all, falliable.

So you thikknk that Arwen's fate was tied to the Ring and she was dying in the book? Do you think Aragorn was running from his heritage in the book - while at the same time carrying around Narsil with him as a reminder of his heritage?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Imagining more Xena-Arwen scenes is bad, but it's not that bad. To continue your analogy, I don't condone it, but it's not illegal to think about robbing a store.

It's not illegal - neither is it illegal for Jackson to put that attrocity he calls Lord of the Rings on the screen. But I can criticize both the person who plans out to rob a bank and I can criticize Jackson for having Arwen at Helm's Deep in the first cut.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So you thikknk that Arwen's fate was tied to the Ring and she was dying in the book? Do you think Aragorn was running from his heritage in the book - while at the same time carrying around Narsil with him as a reminder of his heritage?

The other point about adaptations is making the story work as a movie. And while this may be a change from the book, I thought it worked for the film. The Lord of the Rings movies are not the book. They are not the same thing, and that was never the intention. While I think the thing with Arwen was a little overdone, I am not as bound to the strict adherence to the books in their interpretation; rather I am looking for a good movie. There are mistakes that Jackson made that took away from it being a good movie in some places, certainly, but I think when you're making a movie from a book you can take some liberties to make it work in cinema. It's such a different medium.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So you thikknk that Arwen's fate was tied to the Ring and she was dying in the book? Do you think Aragorn was running from his heritage in the book - while at the same time carrying around Narsil with him as a reminder of his heritage?

Maybe that's why they left Narsil out until Return of the King. Not one mistake, but two! Bonus.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
The other point about adaptations is making the story work as a movie. And while this may be a change from the book, I thought it worked for the film.

There was no need to change them. You see - you only NEED to change things when the other thing won't work in film. The other plot line - with Aragorn binding his time was perfectly fine for movie version.

You make changes like - replacing Glorfindel with Arwen - because in Lord of the Rings - Glorfindel is a minor character and you don't want to introduce too many character that don't mean anything. You don't rape the whole Flight to the Ford scene.

The Lord of the Rings movies are not the book. They are not the same thing, and that was never the intention.

See - that isn't what Jackson FIRST was saying before FotR came out. he kept saying how CLOSELY they were staying and how if he changed this or that - the book fans would have his head.

While I think the thing with Arwen was a little overdone, I am not as bound to the strict adherence to the books in their interpretation; rather I am looking for a good movie.

What interpretation? There is NO interpretation -0 HE CHANGED THE CHARACTERS. Interpretation is how they might say something, the mood of the scene, not changing plot lines.

There are mistakes that Jackson made that took away from it being a good movie in some places, certainly, but I think when you're making a movie from a book you can take some liberties to make it work in cinema. It's such a different medium.

It isn't a matter of it being a different medium - it is a matter of changing things that don't need to be changed - in the movie version. YOu have really fallen for it hook line and sinker if you thihk that he really needed to make the changes because it's a "different medium" I';m really tired of that excuse being used. I heard it used on why the Nazgul were made less terrorizing psychologically - whereas there are numerous examples in movies with psychological terror. It could have been done - but it would take a BETTER director than Jackson to bring it to the screen. He is a pure action freak.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There was no need to change them. You see - you only NEED to change things when the other thing won't work in film. The other plot line - with Aragorn binding his time was perfectly fine for movie version.

Maybe you and a lot of us book fans didn't need it to be changed, but we're not his only audience. He had to make it work for people who haven't read the books, but not only that, as a movie, Arwen needed to be a character that had more screentime else everyone would have forgotten about her--much like you do in the book, in my opinion. I admit I didn't like the way they did it, but I think they needed to do something so she wasn't forgotten. They had to make her a more interesting character.

You make changes like - replacing Glorfindel with Arwen - because in Lord of the Rings - Glorfindel is a minor character and you don't want to introduce too many character that don't mean anything. You don't rape the whole Flight to the Ford scene.

Again, they're not perfect. I agree with you that what they did to that scene was unnecessary, and it could have been better. They made a few mistakes. I'm okay with that. I'm not attached to some great and holy vision of the books, that cannot be altered in any way. If they make a few mistakes that's okay. They're human.

See - that isn't what Jackson FIRST was saying before FotR came out. he kept saying how CLOSELY they were staying and how if he changed this or that - the book fans would have his head.

His conception of what is close to the book may not be the same as yours. NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME OPINIONS, INTERPRETATIONS AND VIEWPOINTS. GET OVER IT.

What interpretation? There is NO interpretation -0 HE CHANGED THE CHARACTERS. Interpretation is how they might say something, the mood of the scene, not changing plot lines.

So he made some changes to the characters. I don't believe he made them completely new and different, though, despite those changes. To me, Arwen was much the same in the last scene with her in Return of the King. I think that scene, with her behind the banner, captures the essence of her character from the book quite nicely.

It isn't a matter of it being a different medium - it is a matter of changing things that don't need to be changed - in the movie version. YOu have really fallen for it hook line and sinker if you thihk that he really needed to make the changes because it's a "different medium" I';m really tired of that excuse being used. I heard it used on why the Nazgul were made less terrorizing psychologically - whereas there are numerous examples in movies with psychological terror. It could have been done - but it would take a BETTER director than Jackson to bring it to the screen. He is a pure action freak.

I don't think all the changes he made were necessary. He could have made the Nazgul better, and much more terrifying. He could have kept up storylines without letting them drop entirely. The list goes on. But I don't discount the movies as a whole just because he made some mistakes. He did very well with some things. And while some of the changes were not necessary, some were, because it bloody well is a different medium, and it's not just some lame excuse. It's a valid reason for some of the changes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Maybe you and a lot of us book fans didn't need it to be changed, but we're not his only audience. He had to make it work for people who haven't read the books, but not only that, as a movie, Arwen needed to be a character that had more screentime else everyone would have forgotten about her--much like you do in the book, in my opinion. I admit I didn't like the way they did it, but I think they needed to do something so she wasn't forgotten. They had to make her a more interesting character.

Expanding her role is one thing - showing her love for Aragorn is one thing - changing her role at the Flight to the Ford is something completely different. The original version was fine for the movies and WOULD have worked.

Again, they're not perfect. I agree with you that what they did to that scene was unnecessary, and it could have been better. They made a few mistakes. I'm okay with that. I'm not attached to some great and holy vision of the books, that cannot be altered in any way. If they make a few mistakes that's okay. They're human.

Can you please show me where I said the movies could NOT alter anything from the books?

His conception of what is close to the book may not be the same as yours. NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME OPINIONS, INTERPRETATIONS AND VIEWPOINTS. GET OVER IT.

You see - I don't have to get over it - they're my opinions. Why don't you just get over it? Just because he may not have the same idea with what is staying close to the book is - way too much was changed for him to even claim it was close to the book.

So he made some changes to the characters. I don't believe he made them completely new and different, though, despite those changes. To me, Arwen was much the same in the last scene with her in Return of the King. I think that scene, with her behind the banner, captures the essence of her character from the book quite nicely.

Yeah - he brought Arwen back to the way she was in book in the end because he had to. Initially as is demonstrated in FotR - she was going to be Xen-Elf going off to Helm's Deep. With the outcry from BOOK fans - he had to bring her back closer to the books.

Pippin and Merry were strictly brain dead comic relief and Gimli was mostly comic relief. Gandalf was a dottering old fool - I have said all this aobut the characters - and yes - I do have a problem with them. Come on - Gandalf pushing the gates of Moria inward when he KNOWS the only open outward. Why did he do that in the movies? Because Jackson wanted the cliched cheap laugh. Ha ha - gandalf just tried pushing the stone in - duh duh.

I don't think all the changes he made were necessary. He could have made the Nazgul better, and much more terrifying. He could have kept up storylines without letting them drop entirely. The list goes on. But I don't discount the movies as a whole just because he made some mistakes. He did very well with some things. And while some of the changes were not necessary, some were, because it bloody well is a different medium, and it's not just some lame excuse. It's a valid reason for some of the changes.

it's avalid reason for SOME changes - not the MAJORITY of the changes. And he made MANY mistakes - not minor mistakes.