RotK: a successful adaptation?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Ooh. . .sad. Very sad. I can see what you mean. . .I think I'm beginning to get a much better idea of why you are quite so negative about the movies. *poor JerseyDevil*

I can watch movies that are solely eye candy - like the godzilla remake and many other films. It just wasn't what I was wanting for my favorite books. I generally like substance along with my eye candy.

Check out my DVD collection you will see many eye candy movies there.

Oh dear. Now I'm feeling all negative about the movies. I feel disillusioned. Alas. Oh well, I can still enjoy the eye-candy. *dreams of the Rohirrim charge* sooo pretty. . .*drool*

You'll get used to it - but you have to let me know whether in two years if you are still watching Boromir's death or the Rohirrim charge. For some reason I don't think so.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I can watch movies that are solely eye candy - like the godzilla remake and many other films. It just wasn't what I was wanting for my favorite books. I generally like substance along with my eye candy.

Check out my DVD collection you will see many eye candy movies there.

Wow. . .that's quite a collection. . .
I still maintain there was some substance, but, eh. . .

You'll get used to it - but you have to let me know whether in two years if you are still watching Boromir's death or the Rohirrim charge. For some reason I don't think so.

Apparently I'm doomed. . .
Betcha I will!

[Curufinwe]

I had the pleasure to watch Peter Jackson's take on Return of the King last evening and decided to post my feelings in this thread first rather than the "mooters ROTK reviews". The decision was an easy one since I have read the literature so many times it is quite impossible to try and separate the two works at first viewing, and because I suspect most everyone posting here fell in love with the literature prior to seeing the films and are therefore are in good position to offer a critique of both the movie and this review.

The Return of the King was very spot on in its plot line vis-a-vis the literature - moreso than I had dared hope it would be after seeing The Two Towers. The development of the story has our characters in the proper settings with the proper sequential order. Again, the settings were brilliant, Jackson's greatest success in terms of adaption is the recreation of the many diverse, detailed, and enormous sites in Middle-Earth. The film quickly takes us to Isengard, where we are presented with the beautiful recreation of Isengard in all its ruined glory. We are swept off to Edoras which is again perfect and painstakingly detailed. Minas Tirith rising over the fields of Pelennor was breathtaking, the attention to detail was again phenominal. The city is recreated from Tolkien's description to the letter. The citadel was stunning, as was the interior of the White Tower, just brilliant. I was dissapointed that the Rammas Echor was omitted. I'm not sure why this decision was made however, adding yet more to the battle of the Pelennor may have felt tedious for the viewer. The beacons were thoroughly enjoyable - although one beacon was atop a mountain that would have been unmanable, but that is one small nit to pick. Dunharrow and Harrowdale were perfect. The paths of the dead were appropriately macabre. Minas Morgul impressed me as well, I felt the dead city looked appropriately ghastly while retaining its heritage as a construction of the dunedain. Cirith Ungol was a good match for the literature, and I particuarly enjoyed its red light in the top turret peeking over the pass. The Black Gate was faithful as well done. The cracks of doom were effective yet I had always pictured them as winding deeper into the volcano. The Grey Havens were my least favorite setting. Tolkien did not give much in the way of description of it yet I felt there was too much stone at the Havens.

As for the plot overall I thought it was a good adaption of the story. The vast majority of events that occur in the film are drawn directly from the literature. The plots are so similar that I hardly need draw out their similarities here so I will note the differences. Firstly chronology is a large sticking point. We are told it is a three day ride to Minas Tirith and that then Elrond tells us the Corsairs are two days from the city - while Theoden and Rohan are still in Harrowdale. Aragorn evidently flies to the ships before landing at the Pelennor. This was a sloppy error in a series of films otherwise renown for attention to details. It could easily have been avoided simply by drawing out the chronology properly or simply not mentioning how far the ships were from the city. Then we have Pippin lighting the beacons, which, even in light of Denethor's exaggerated insanity, makes no logical sense. Some have commented that the charge of the knights of Gondor was a deviation, I think this is hardly the case. The suicidal aspects of it are emphasized yet it is basically are re rendering of the defense of the causeway forts. We have Denethor's decision to take a flaming leap rather than clutch the Palantir, a silly decision, but hardly a major plot point by any stretch. Most greviously we have loyal Samwise banished by equally loving Master Frodo. As an adaption it fails. I thought that Jackson was using a plot device to bring Sam back in time to save Frodo - which he did - but without us seeing his decision to turn back on screen. As it is, it serves no purpose, and robs Sam of giving Gollum a good what for in the tunnel, which was both called for and I thought what he was leading up to with their interaction. Aragorn's army of the dead did not show up where we find it in Tolkien's work, yet I did not feel this to be a grevious change and thought it was rather necessary. Another battle at Pelargir would have drawn the film to unsustainable lengths and would have left an already battle weary audiences' heads spinning. The Houses of Healing is omitted with good result. The action is rising rapidly at that point, and its inclusion would not have done much for rising tension. The last battle and ascent of the mountain were just amazing, the last bit with Frodo's fate in doubt was an extraneous and gratuitous last bit of unnecessary drama. I give Jackson enormous credit for extended goodbyes and farewells towards the end of the film. It takes real courage for a filmaker to keep his audience in their seats for 3 hours and then spend half and hour wrapping it up - excellent work.

more to come

[Curufinwe]

I will end with a discussion of the characters. Having seen the characters now fully arched I believe Jackson did a superb job with most of them. Merry and Pippin were nearly fulled redeemed from earlier foolishness. I was thoroughly impressed by their development - although I wish Merry swearing fealty to Theoden was included in the film, I have hopes it will be in the director's cut. Frodo and Sam were just about perfect, early dismissal aside. Gollum was excellent, and I thought Jackson's decision to show Smeagol and Deagol to open the film was inspired. It demonstrates the immensity of the burden that Frodo carries just before bringing us back to his story line, just excellent. Aragorn's full arch was entirely satisfying, as was that of his bride, the lovely Arwen. I do hope that after seeing Jackson's last two installments the term Xena-elf can slumber peacefully in the dustbin of ridiculous characterizations. I thought the treatment of Legolas and Gimli was well done, to some degree their friendship is even more drawn out than in the literature. Overall I was not thrilled with Gandalf, and have not been from the start. Some of the quiet moments with Pippin were brilliant, others were less than good. I've never been thrilled with Sir Ian's portrayal which seems to put me at odds with the majority of the fans. Denethor essentially is butchered. The first scene with Gandalf and Pippin I felt was quite good, after that it was all downhill. I've always had a soft spot for Tolkien's conflicted characters - possibly because he wrote so few of them, and as an adaption Denethor is a disgrace. However, Denethor's adject madness and cruelty do somewhat explain Faramir's behavior in the Two Towers. Faramir I thought was adapted well from the book to film, and his character redeemed. Elrond was simply miscast, his written lines are not great but could have been delivered more effectively. Eowyn was perfect, to a degree none of the other characters achieved. Theoden was excellent and Bernard Hill brilliant. Eomer's character was underdeveloped which was a dissappointment. I felt he was a bright spot of the Two Towers. Overall Jackson's ability to tell a story on film with over ten major characters is an achievement unto itself.

If you've read through this somewhat cumbersome review I need not tell you that I believe overall Jackson's movies are a major achievement. When I first heard they were filmed The Lord of the Rings I identified two major obstacles; firstly could the scope and majesty of Middle-Earth be created on film especially with the almost Egyptian scale constructions of the Argonath, Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, Isengaurd, Barad-Dur, and the Black Gate. Not only were these done brilliantly, but the less imposing settings such as the Shire and Rivendell were littered with enriching detail. The second major obstacle would be finding room to develop the vast array of characters in Tolkien's tome. He was not as successful in this endevour, I felt that Merry and Pippin were essentially combined in the first movie, Eomer was left somewhat undeveloped, Denethor was simply badly done, Treebeard was severely truncated, and yet so many characters were brought to life in a real and meaningful way; Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Aragorn, Arwen, Boromir, Faramir, Eowyn, Theoden, Gollum, Legolas, Gimli, even wormtongue were all real breathing charcters with hopes, wants, desires, and pain. Jackson's Lord of the Rings leaves some things to be desired, there may be a director who could have provided the completeness of the vision in its entirety better, but I doubt it.

[Thorin II]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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.

Wow. To me, "atrocities" are things like genocide, war, and the like. I can't imagine using the same term to describe an interpretation of a book. I respect your opinions and I think you make some good points, but I'm surprised at the degree of your passion. I'm sure PJ hopes he never runs into you in a dark alley.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Thorin II
Wow. To me, "atrocities" are things like genocide, war, and the like. I can't imagine using the same term to describe an interpretation of a book. I respect your opinions and I think you make some good points, but I'm surprised at the degree of your passion. I'm sure PJ hopes he never runs into you in a dark alley.

Atrocity can be used in many ways.

[Nurvingiel]

Great review Curufinwe, you clearly put a lot of thought into it. I agree with you on a few points, but you have given Jackson a fairly large 'fudge factor'. I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, and of course, you can give him as big a fudge factor as you want to.

I agree that the scenery was beautiful, stunning, and mostly appropriate in the movies. Except for Rohan, Middle-earth was adapted amazingly well. I just wish Jackson had paid as much attention to detail and accuracy with the plot and characters as he did with special effects, scenery, and props.

Treebeard was severely truncated

Hahaha Curufinwe!

I agree with your final analysis: success on scenery etc., failure of characterization. To me, the latter is the most important, and since he did not do it properly, the adaptation is half-decent at best.

I do appreciate the wonderful scenery and props. Without them, I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the movies at all. And even though they weren't great adaptations, they were highly enjoyable movies.

[Curufinwe]

Thank you for the compliment Nurvingel and thank you for reading my rather windy point by point review. I'm glad you picked up on my little wordplay with Treebeard, thought that might get lost among the wordiness. I agree that Rohan was not perfectly rendered, the terrain was obviously rockier than described by Tolkien. I give him a pass beacause the steppe described by Tolkien simply doesn't exist in New Zealand, and he used rather clever shots to disguise the terrain making it more representative of the text. I believe you have somewhat mischaracterized my description of the characterization. While I feel it was not a complete success I do think he captured many of the characters well - most importantly Frodo and Samwise. As I wrote I felt the most difficult task before Jackson was portraying over ten main characters and making them real - living and breathing with hopes, dreams, fears, and deeds.

Perhaps most significantly for myself, which I did not touch upon in my review, is the overall capture of the thematic content. Most importantly the value of sacrifice, friendship, the resistance of domination by other wills, and most basically good vs. evil.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
I agree that Rohan was not perfectly rendered, the terrain was obviously rockier than described by Tolkien. I give him a pass beacause the steppe described by Tolkien simply doesn't exist in New Zealand, and he used rather clever shots to disguise the terrain making it more representative of the text.

Did I say that? I do think Rohan was the only mistake, simply because it was too mountainous.

I believe you have somewhat mischaracterized my description of the characterization. While I feel it was not a complete success I do think he captured many of the characters well - most importantly Frodo and Samwise. As I wrote I felt the most difficult task before Jackson was portraying over ten main characters and making them real - living and breathing with hopes, dreams, fears, and deeds.

I misunderstood there.

Perhaps most significantly for myself, which I did not touch upon in my review, is the overall capture of the thematic content. Most importantly the value of sacrifice, friendship, the resistance of domination by other wills, and most basically good vs. evil.

I feel they skimmed these themes, especially relative to the book. But maybe I misunderstand you again.

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by Curufinwe I give him a pass beacause the steppe described by Tolkien simply doesn't exist in New Zealand, and he used rather clever shots to disguise the terrain making it more representative of the text.

It's extremely common in the film world to change locations from country to country if you can't find what you are looking for. It's just PJ being self-centered again. His love of NZ vs proper scenery.

While I feel it was not a complete success I do think he captured many of the characters well - most importantly Frodo and Samwise. As I wrote I felt the most difficult task before Jackson was portraying over ten main characters and making them real - living and breathing with hopes, dreams, fears, and deeds.

Maybe, but he had 9 and a half hours to do it in, roughly 5 times longer than most films get, and they can usually churn out 3 or 4 characters we know (if they are any good). PJ just hasn't got the ability to create a screenplay that allows us to feel for them all. It's almost like he concentrated on Frodo, Sam and Gollum, and was just 'to hell with the rest' - particularly noticable in Gandalf in RotK who is little more than an idiotic bully.
I also feel sorry for Viggo, he played PJ's Aragorn to the best of his abilities, and from what I read really got into the role. Now one of these days he's going to pick up and read LotR and wonder who the hell he was playing...

Perhaps most significantly for myself, which I did not touch upon in my review, is the overall capture of the thematic content. Most importantly the value of sacrifice, friendship, the resistance of domination by other wills, and most basically good vs. evil.

In all that time he could have explored them a bit more. Or at least not so detrimentally. Frodo telling Sam to bugger off was hardly the friendship coming through. Sacrifice was not really shown, apart from by Faramir, who to be honest plays well, but ONLY if I imagine he's been talking to the book Denethor. The film Denethor is, of course, one step away from the loony bin, and no-one would ride to their deaths so obviously.

Oh well, I'm off to see if I can spot the walls around the Pelennor fields at all. I don't recall them so if anyone HAS seen 'em let me know which scene

[Lalaith_Elf]

is it just me or do the grey havens look a bit TOO much like gondor???
and why did they cut galadriel out of aragorn and arwens wedding???

[Gerbil]

Ever since Gladiator came out, people making films have assumed that something old made by powerful people must be tall. Just one of those things. The Havens weren't exactly what I expected, I must admit.

Possibly he's working on the assumption that the people who made Minas Tirith learnt from the Elves who built the Havens, but that's rubbish, people may learn skills but they would have their own style.

[Lalaith_Elf]

thats one of the worst bits.... thank god ive got my own idea of it still in my head!
at first i thought it WAS gondor, then i clicked.

[Twista]

lol, yea i imagined it being more bland, not with all the towers and not what.

[Lalaith_Elf]

a bit more elvish.... it looks far too human

[Nurvingiel]

Apart from the crumbling masonry, I thought Gondor was excellent. The White Tree was cool.

[Lalaith_Elf]

yea gondor was good. and the beacon system was brill.
like i said the grey havens looked too much like gondor... and not the grey havens

[azalea]

I'm releasing this thread now, too. (be free, be free! )

[Tuor of Gondolin]

ROTK is certainly a successful $$$$$ adaptation.
On http://www.the-numbers.com/

"Lord Returns to the Top
The Japanese opening finally happened for Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and the wait was well worth it. $14.7 million, (including previews) was the boost the film needed to regain top spot on the international box office charts. Overall, its take nearly doubled from last weekend with $21.7 million. That was enough to push its international total past $600 million, only the fourth film to do so. Worldwide, Return of the King climbed into second spot with $975 million and should cross the $1 billion mark by the weekend. Also worth noting, the film crossed $100 million in the U.K., only the second film to do so, (the other being Titanic.)"

Well, as JRRT once observed about LOTR income:
"In the meanwhile Tolkien's income from his books remained high. 'I am afraid', he said, 'I cannot help feeling there is a lot to be said for "the grosser forms of literary success" as a sneering critic recently called it.' "
p. 226, Tolkien, by Humphrey Carpenter.

[kennebecc]

**"In the meanwhile Tolkien's income from his books remained high. 'I am afraid', he said, 'I cannot help feeling there is a lot to be said for "the grosser forms of literary success" as a sneering critic recently called it.'**

Tolkien's also hoped he could sell the rights to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit for a quick cash deal, rather than retaining artistic control just for arts sake.

"But it looks as if business might be done. Stanley U. & I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author's veto on objectionable features or alterations." Letter 202 to Christopher Tolkien, 1957.

Of course, the deal fell through, and 10 years later, Tolkien ended up selling the film rights for a paltry $10,000 to United Artist.