Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Of course, it's not like you actually care about having a discussion based on the relative merits of the picture vs. the book. You've already made up your mind, presented your position, and decided that anyone who holds a separate opinion has an invalid argument, merely because they must be against dramatization, or some kind of "purist".

That's utter nonsense. I have attempted on many occasions in this thread to illustrate my points and the only responses I get back are snide comments from posters like Blackheart that never really take on the points raised.

I will try one more time...

I believe the Jackson's Breaking of the Fellowship is superior to Tolkien's. (Yes, I said that.) Now for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that both the book's and the movie's versions were presented to you without the weight of one being an adaption of the other. If you had to choose between the two based solely on the merits of how the two scenes play out and how they impacted the overall storyline and its characters, which would you choose?

I think most objective people would choose Jackson's. Why? Because it gives every character in the Fellowship (especially Merry and Pippen) the chance to contribute directly to Frodo's quest. Rather than having Frodo 'run away' after his confrontation with Boromir, it gave him a chance to say good-bye to Merry, Pippen, and Aragorn. Rather than leaving Aragorn without a word, Frodo is able to say good-bye to Aragorn and to leave with him understanding why Frodo was making the decision to go alone. It gives the first third of the story a better all-round sense of closure, IMHO.

Now, rather than simply telling me what a loudmouth jerk I am, please DEFEND Tolkien's version, thank you.

[Cirdan]

B1C1 A Long Expected Party
PJ does a real number one this one. While the set is well done the story and characters are axed right away. Merry and Pippin begin their transformation into drunken, stealing stumblebums. Bilbo's disappearance is not masked by Gandlaf's pyrotechnics so the disappearing act is now no longer secret. Pointless changes to the original story that don't enhance it.

B1C2 The Shadow of the Past
This chapter is sliced into the party in the film. Lost is the passage of time, the departure of Gandalf and the time needed for the threat from Mordor to grow as oppossed to Gandalf seeming oblivious to the threat. The dialog in the chapter was better preserved in the film than in most others. Lost is the greater detail and history of the ring. The depiction of Gandalf as wild-eyed and fearful came too early in the film. It wasn't neccessary to ramp up the pace. The subtlety of the steadily rising danger is given over to a car chase pace.

B1C3 Three is Company
Here again the pace of the movie is off. The joining of the three is left to dumb coincidence instead of friendship and loyalty. The trip to the Brandywine is compressed and the visit with the elves is sqeezed out. The sense of just missing danger and not quite understandiing it fully is cut out.

B1C4 A Shortcut to Mushrooms
Farmer Maggot is scaled back from a man who knows more than he let's on into a sickle. Merry stumbles in early an Pippin late, again they are stealing and have very little concern for Frodo. The casting of the two stooges is almost complete, but it fails to reach the humor level of fantasy film adaptations such as "Willow". I don't love her she kicked me in the face!. Lost too is the concept of safe havens. JRRT understood that it was ridiculous for hobbits on foot to elude mounted pursuers. The scene with the Black Rider just prior to the crossing at the ferry was absurd. One minute Frodo is dancing around at the feet of the Rider and the next he is outpacing it to the ferry.

B1C5 A Conspiracy Unmasked
This chapter was totally deleted in the film so there is little to compare. In the book it serves to reveal deeper character aspects of Merry, Pippin, and Sam. They are there because of a deep friendship with Frodo and not dumb luck. Again the steal, the safe havens, and the planning are thrown out for the sake of action, laughs (hardly), covenience.

B1C6 The Old Forest
The difficulty of the journey in the physical sense is cut out here as well. Lots of good Shire history tossed out. The bravery and clever strategy to avoid the riders is gone. While this chapter is one of the less useful in the book, it does add to the building sense that there is more to fear in the world than a few black riders. The beginnings of Frodo's heroic streak begins to show in the dealings with the Willow.

[

[Cirdan]

B1C7 In the House of Tom Bombadil
Important to the creation of the fastasy is Tom B. and Goldberry. Unexpected allies are critical to the thread of the story. It is not one hobbit and his posse against the world. The enigmatic pair lend a bit of mystery to the story.

B1C8 Fog on the Barrow-Downs
A terrible loss to the story. The struggle against evil spirits allows the character to prepare for the future dealings. We see, in the book, the protagonist's growth as a leader. The aquisition of the barrow-wights swords must be changed to Strider carrying around a buch of extra swords.

B1C8 At the Sign of the Prancing Pony
This chapter got more attention from the screenwriter. Most is well done except Pippin must step up once again to play the buffoon. Frodo must remain, in the film, the upright igenue. The bit with the ring following the string onto Frodo's finger was weak even by film standards.

B1C9 Strider
The elimination of Gandalf's letter also deletes the lead in of Strider as a fellow to be trusted. Instead of the rising phobia of the hobbits being allayed by and introduction from Gandalf, the hobbit's must take his word at the end of the sword.

B1C10 A Knife in the Dark
Excised for brevity are the valor of Fatty Bolger, the beauty and history of the Tale of Beren and Luthien, the beaning of Bill Ferny, and the stealthy approach to weathertop. Again, the difficulty of the weeks long journey is crammed into a theme park scale of existence. "Quick let's go from the inn over to wraith mountain." This is the point were in the book the character development is set and the story begins to expand. At this point the film needs to cut more and more from the story.

B1C11 Flight to the Ford
Oh dear, the film is so bad here in so many ways. Yes the killing of of Glorfindel was over-the-top political correctness at it's most nauseating. Where were the stunt riders in the tree weaving scenes? Frodo's bravery falls victim as well. Elrond and Gandlaf's participation is gone as well. The elves that are abroad are no more, so there is little help in delaying the riders. Frodo's wound is absurdly grotesque, looking like some alien infestation. Lunch by the stone trolls is a great link to the Hobbit that is lost.

If one stops forgiving the screenplay for excising chunks of the story for the purposes of brevity, then there is no comparison; the book outstrips the movie at every turn. If you have diffculty with the English language or prefer the comic book or reader's digest versions of stories, then the movie may be better for you. Those could be the only reasons for preferring an abreviated, thinner, and simplistic version of the tale.

Stay tuned for book two.

[Lizra]

I certainly appreciate all the effort you guys are putting into this, but I really don't want the movie torn to shreds! I'm gonna have to pass on book two! It's last word or die , I guess.

[LuthienTinuviel]

thank you cirdan. if i ever call you lazy, feel free to belittle me as much as you please!

as for BB, grr grr double grr.
im never posting on this thread again...

[BeardofPants]

Two things:

1. BB, you are a loudmouthed jerk.
2. I thought we weren't supposed to be comparing the movie to the book, hmmm?

A question: how can PJ enhance, or improve the movie to make it superior to the book, when you are talking about two very different mediums (film and book)? When you are talking about the original, and an adaption?

LT:
im never posting on this thread again...

Yeah, I remember saying that as well...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
...A question: how can PJ enhance, or improve the movie to make it superior to the book, when you are talking about two very different mediums (film and book)? When you are talking about the original, and an adaption?

Well, the book is black and white and the movie has pretty colors.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
thank you cirdan. if i ever call you lazy, feel free to belittle me as much as you please!

Never! I have watched the movie several times recently thanks to my son and we are reading the book so it is fresh in my mind. I am pretty lazy most of the time.

[Entlover]

Not to belabor the obvious, but these are 2 different mediums. The movie that would satisfy Cirdan would be about 6 hours long, and would lack the box office appeal that New Line needed. I'm with Lizra, I just enjoy the movie because it's as close as we'll get this century to seeing the book come to life.
Lost on a desert island, I'd choose the book. But I hope I'm still allowed to enjoy the movie.

[crickhollow]

Cirdan, my friend, you forgot one.

Lost too is the concept of safe havens. JRRT understood that it was ridiculous for hobbits on foot to elude mounted pursuers. The scene with the Black Rider just prior to the crossing at the ferry was absurd. One minute Frodo is dancing around at the feet of the Rider and the next he is outpacing it to the ferry.

Not only this, but by excising Gildor Inglorion, another reason for the Black Rider not discovering them had to be contrived. I suppose this in itself would not have been so unforgivable, except they settled on Merry tossing a rock so as to distract it while the hobbits made a quick getaway on foot.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Entlover
Not to belabor the obvious, but these are 2 different mediums. The movie that would satisfy Cirdan would be about 6 hours long, and would lack the box office appeal that New Line needed. I'm with Lizra, I just enjoy the movie because it's as close as we'll get this century to seeing the book come to life.
Lost on a desert island, I'd choose the book. But I hope I'm still allowed to enjoy the movie.

I'm satisfied with the movie, having watched it at least a dozen times now, but yes mine would be more the length of a Ken Burns effort. There are ways to show time lapsing. The trip through Moria was ddescribed as taking four days but they were still able to stick to the critical events. The changes in the plot didn't change the length. I agreed with the choice of much of the deleted material. Doesn't make it improved, however.

I would still cast Arwen the same way, but she wouldn't say or do the same things. Liv looked the most elf-like to me.

I mostly have a problem with improved. I just doesn't fly.

Crickhollow, of course I (and you)thought of Gildor (the safe havens aspect), but yes I did forget to include it. Another of the many magic moments lost on the cutting room floor. It was one of my favorites as well. It shows Frodo's knowledge of the elves as well. Your right, the riders switch from rentless hunters to incompetents too often in the film. Throwing a rock. That never works.

[Dunadan]

Wow, Cirdan, that's some analysis, and really useful reference for all film v book talk. Thanks for the hard labour.

There's one issue I'd like to take up, and that is the implicit assumption that the film ought to follow the book exactly, also queried by others. I think most people agree that different media require different narrative; the question is really how much it should be changed.

I agree with you re: cutting Gildor, Three is Company, Flight to the Ford, black riders. Key scenes which underpin the plot elsewhere.

However, I think they were right to cut the Old Forest and Bombadil. They should have cut more from the start to leave room for character development on the way to Weathertop. They should also have cut more from Moria (which collapsed for no apparent reason).

If we want to address the issue of "improvement", I think there are two things to consider:
1) how successfully did the film portray the vision of the book?
2) how successfully did the film tell the story?

In terms of 1) I think it was both faithful and an improvement. I think that to understand the elves you have to read the Silmarillion and the Appendices, whereas the film conveyed much of their tragedy very effectively. It succeeded in this in such a way that there is still so much more to get from the books. So what I really mean is: "The film lived up to Tolkien's vision, therefore it improved it."

In terms of 2) I think it was not very effective. Many of the best bits were lost and the subtleties of character were poor (Gandalf, hobbits, Gimli). The narrative made little sense to non-readers, and just seemed like a series of action set-pieces.

cheers

D

PS - I wondered where he got the swords from too. Does this have implications for how Merry vs Nazgul at the Pelennor Fields?

[crickhollow]

I guess cutting Gildor was a necessity. He doesn't come into the story again. and it means keeping track of (yet another) character that seemingly has no relevance to the plot. (tho' I agree with you, Cirdan, that it means eliminating another safe haven)

my complaint is that he chose to replace Gildor with a rock.

the great servant of sauron, the Nazgul, was distracted from his prey by a rock, and then they ran away from him on their little hobbit feets.

[Blackheart]

That's utter nonsense. I have attempted on many occasions in this thread to illustrate my points and the only responses I get back are snide comments from posters like Blackheart that never really take on the points raised.

I know you are but what am I?

If you state an opinion, with no supporting points, then why fash yeself when someone replies with no supporting points?

I believe the Jackson's Breaking of the Fellowship is superior to Tolkien's. (Yes, I said that.)

Yes, but I don't really see anywhere where you've said why. Other than I liked this, or I liked that. I find it reasonable to reply with I don't like this, or I don't like that. What? I'm not allowed to dislike things? Are you arbitrating my tastes and opinions?

Help Help! I'mbeing repressed!

Now for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that both the book's and the movie's versions were presented to you without the weight of one being an adaption of the other.

Whoa, and actual thesis! Unfortunately I'll have to disagree on the grounds that it departs from reality. The movie is an adaptation of the book. It cannot escape from that. Furthermore it's absolutely silly to travel on this tangent, when you are in the process of comparing the original version (BOOK) to Jackson's interpretation (MOVIE) and state that the interpretation is superior to the original version. Superior in what way? It has pictures? A better explication of the plot? It skips by all those "boring" parts with character development?

I fail to see any of your points, UNLESS, you are trying to say in some shape, form, or otherwise totally misinterpreted fashion, that the movie can be used as a visual supplement. Hey, that's ok, my book has pictures in it. I like pictures. That's why I enjoyed the movie, it's a great picture book. As an adaptation of the story it totally failed for me. If you want to know why, I can give you my OPINIONS, but that's completely subjective, which as I pointed out, so are yours.

If you had to choose between the two based solely on the merits of how the two scenes play out and how they impacted the overall storyline and its characters, which would you choose?

Sheesh. The Book. Easily. Oh wait, which two scenes? The scenes in the book that impacted the overal storyline in a subtle manner the movie could never approach (mostly through the limitations of the media, but also through ham-handed editing)? or The extra scenes in the movie that were an addition? I certainly won't say that I didn't enjoy the cave troll fight. However, I can't say that it really added a damn thing to the overall story.

I think most objective people would choose Jackson's. Why? Because it gives every character in the Fellowship (especially Merry and Pippen) the chance to contribute directly to Frodo's quest.

I think otherwise. Merry and pippin's roles were completely GUTTED. Nowhere does it mention that they conspired to keep an eye on Frodo, planned ahead, made arrangements for a secret departure, etc etc. They were reduced to a couple of juvinile goons, too stupid to know or understand the gravity of the situation. Merry know about "Bilbo's" ring for many years, and probably had an understanding of the gravity of the situation, if Pippin didn't.

Rather than having Frodo 'run away' after his confrontation with Boromir, it gave him a chance to say good-bye to Merry, Pippen, and Aragorn. Rather than leaving Aragorn without a word, Frodo is able to say good-bye to Aragorn and to leave with him understanding why Frodo was making the decision to go alone. It gives the first third of the story a better all-round sense of closure, IMHO.

And quite removes the element of suspense, and confusion important to the breaking of the fellowship. AND, it completely leaves out another line of reasoning Frodo was following, the fact that he knew he was on a likely suicide mission, and didn't want to endanger his freinds.

COnt. in part two

[Blackheart]

part 2 (silly rant limits)


The movie makes his seperation seem like an act calculated to protect the others from the influence of the ring, but leaves out the fact that Frodo was at that point more concerned about leading the others into Mordor and likely death.

I find the change less than appealing, not to mention it makes Frodo look like he was willing to sacrifice his freinds to the uruks in order to escape. In the book, if you REMEMBER, Frodo had no knowledge that the Uruk were attacking his friends. Likely he wouldn't have left either if he had known. I find the change in character unappealing.

Which seems to be a recurring theme in Jackson's montage of pictures. (The fight scene with Borimir WAS good however, but they didn't need to change all the other stuff to include it. It was already IN there!)

Now, rather than simply telling me what a loudmouth jerk I am, please DEFEND Tolkien's version, thank you.

HAHA. Shall I do it in a complex manner? Tolkien doesn't need a defense. It's not a VERSION, it's the original vision. I would venture that it's the other way around. It's Jacksons version, or interpretation, that needs defending, explicating, and probably, some revision.

You can SAY that you like Jackson's version better, if you like, but that is an opinion, and you can give reasons for your opinions, if you like, but those are also subjective. I, of course, have perfectly sound subjective reasons for thinking the entire plot of the film was reduced to utter drivel and trash, and disagreeing with many of the visual effects for similar reasons.

But as for defending the original version, that's just plain ol silly. It doesn't need a defense, it's the source material. If Tolkien had never published the books, Jackson would still be making muppet monstrosities.

[Black Breathalizer]

People continue to whine here about the stuff PJ didn't include in the film. Please repeat after me: [i]"Making a film is different than writing a book."

Now on to Blackheart's defense of the Tolkien version of the Breaking of the Fellowship...

Originally posted by Blackheart
The movie makes (Frodo's) seperation seem like an act calculated to protect the others from the influence of the ring, but leaves out the fact that Frodo was at that point more concerned about leading the others into Mordor and likely death.

I find the change less than appealing, not to mention it makes Frodo look like he was willing to sacrifice his freinds to the uruks in order to escape. In the book, if you REMEMBER, Frodo had no knowledge that the Uruk were attacking his friends. Likely he wouldn't have left either if he had known. I find the change in character unappealing.

I, of course, have perfectly sound subjective reasons for thinking the entire plot of the film was reduced to utter drivel and trash, and disagreeing with many of the visual effects for similar reasons.

It makes more sense - and adds a greater sense of realism to the story - to believe that Frodo's actions were based on his concerns over the influence of the ring. Let's face facts here. Frodo is a little hobbit who doesn't even know the way to Mordor. He's already been saved numerous times by his non-hobbit colleagues. Why suddenly decide he's going on without them NOW? In both the book and the movie, Frodo knew Aragorn would choose to stay with him to the end regardless of his desires to go to Minas Tirith. Why leave Aragorn when he's about to need him the most? As the ringbearer, Frodo had to consider what was best for his mission, first and foremost.

So Jackson's increased emphasis on the corrupting power of the ring on the Fellowship was an inspired way to illustrate that Frodo really had no choice if he wanted the mission to succeed. Although he would likely need the combat skills of Aragorn and the others, he knew he had to go on alone. Contrary to Blackheart's view, I see Frodo's decision to depart alone in the movie as the others fought the Uruk-kai as the ultimate act of bravery. It was DESPITE his heartfelt friendships, DESPITE his self-doubt and DESPITE his fear that Frodo chose to walk away from his dear friends and go on alone. PJ MAGNIFIED this selfless act...and enhanced this part of the story IMHO.

[bropous]

BB, son, you just don't get it.

Defend Tolkien's original? Hogwash, bladerdash and male oxen in pairs. Tolkien's original is an incredibly nuanced, subtle piece of scholarship, literary artistry and linguistic creation. Jackson's film is a facile, surface-impression Silly Putty ruboff. Lacking the multilevel complexity of Tolkien's works, Jackson's film reduces an intricately woven tapestry of many-hued story lines and characterization into a dull, lifeless, monochrome sheet of Saran Wrap with a picture of Liv Tyler emblazoned thereupon.

It is impossible to improve Tolkien. Period. tolkien's books are the greatest works of literature penned during the Twentieth Century. Joyce and Hemingway are pale shadows of writers compared to the Master.

The utter hubris of Jackson and Pippa Boyens in actually remaking the story line in places galls folks who have actually READ the books, BB, and therefore your constant shrill yip that Jackson improved Tolkien demonstrates:

a. You have never actually read the books all the way through;

b. You have a feeble imagination, just like so many hypnotized by the One-Eyed Glowing God, comic books and video games, and are therefore utterly and unmitigatedly incapable of visualizing mentally for yourself what Tolkien describes in such livid detail; or

c. You are so addicted to Instant Gratification that you cannot patiently read a book, much less other peoples' posts, to fully determine the writer's intent.

These are only three possibilities.

I can understand how someone of limited imagination and restricted ability to build mental images from verbal descriptions has to have everything painted out for you like the latest episode of Transformers, and how someone of glancing acquaintance with the books might actually prefer the easier path to Tolkien by watching a movie which removes all those bothersome little details which you found so detracting and yet which the rest of us found so alluring.

Others with far greater education and responsibilities than I have laid out for you clearly how you have pathetically attempted to slander those with whom you disagree. They have also reasserted my point that you do not present ANY evidence to back up your original claim, that your blithering near-tourretticisms launched in attempt to scuttle your opponents rather than address their points only underscores your inability to debate constructively, and that ad hominem attack simply is out of place with a group of folks like us who know how to argue, and argue effectively, especially about a subject so near and dear to our hearts. I guess it takes actually reading the books to make one care enough to be a purist, n'est-ce pas?

I have noted many, many cultural literacy-relevant terms have slipped right past you, so I'll reiterate one: Sophistry. Your claim that Jackson improved Tolkien is uncut hot air and nothing more, and you have offered not ONE shred of evidence in defense of your position. Your arguing style may also be summed up in two words used in my neck of the woods to describe non-female bovine excrement. You ought to go into politics.

[Black Breathalizer]

Well, bropous, at least Blackheart is trying to defend your side's position on this issue.

You, on the other hand, write a post that only serves to provide us all with yet another shining example of the type of smug "we are better than you unimaginative and illiterate movie-lovers" attitude that deserves to be challenged on this board. I'm afraid that simply calling me names and saying Tolkien is God isn't gonna win your side any debate brownie points, bub.

If Tolkien is so doggone perfect, then it should be easy for you to share with us why Tolkien's version of the breaking of the fellowship is so structurally superior to Jackson's.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If Tolkien is so doggone perfect, then it should be easy for you to share with us why Tolkien's version of the breaking of the fellowship is so structurally superior to Jackson's.

So it comes to this.

It is not Tolkien's version, mate. He invented it. It is his creation.

And again, how can you possibly compare film with literature? How can you possibly draw conclusions as to which is 'structurally superior'?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
So it comes to this.

It is not Tolkien's version, mate. He invented it. It is his creation.

And again, how can you possibly compare film with literature? How can you possibly draw conclusions as to which is 'structurally superior'?

My money is on brain tumor.

Other "great" film versions for BB:

A Very Smurfy Hamlet

The Brady Bunch: A Long Days Journey into Night

Riverdance presents James Joyce's Ulysses