[Sauron the White]

from lettlemanpoet

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

Where did Jacksons films improve from the book version of LOTR?

I would have to sit down and watch each of the three films - some 11+ hours to give you a thorough answer. But off the top of my head..... and this is just my opinion based on a recent viewing of FOTR and reading that portion of the book...

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

-- Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep. For me, it worked. The blowing of the horn announcing their arrival, their march through the gates, that great pivot and turn, their bravery in battle... it all worked for me. I thought that was an improvement. I did not so much see this as a Jackson complete new invention as much as combining a story element that he did not have time to show with one that he was showcasing. ( I realize this is from TTT and not FOTR but it was a subject in your post)

-- Putting more emphasis on the character of Arwen was an advancement. With the exception of Eowyn, its pretty much a male "let me save you" story. Thats probably fine it is day. But in these times women and girls need something more to relate to. Giving them a female character in a leading role who is more than just arm candy was a wise move.

-- Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film. I only wish JRRT had done the same. To this day I see no value in the dancing hippie with the doggerel sing-songs. The idea of introducing the Ring and how its power corrupts everyone, and then you showcase a being who is beyond its power, and THEN DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH IT was not the strongest part of the story. To me its pointless. Even if you get rid of the silly clothes and screwball songs its still pointless. For Jackson, this was addition by subtraction.

-- Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film. In the 21st century, we are used to the anti-hero, the figure who is not comfortable in his own skin and the role he has been cast into. It also makes for a significant character arc as Aragorn can build up his resolve and comfort level with his savior role over thre films. I am sure that Cecil B. DeMille would have had Aragorn as the penultimate HERO from minute one of the film and he would have never had a doubt about anything. That was fine for the first half of the 20th century but there is too much water under that dam to go completely back now. So I looked upon the character developemnt of Aragorn as a positive and more interesting than the Aragorn of the books.

-- And then there is the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth that was near perfection. From the Shire to Isengard to Minas Tirith and everything included. You have to give the Jackson team credit for bringing ME to life.

And thats just from FOTR. Please give me more time to watch the others.

Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did.

Obviously you care about this deeply and it means something to you. Speaking for myself, I could not care less what Jackson said in an interview, press release, or any other bit of pre-release information. All I wanted was a great film. That is what I felt I got. Further, I do think that Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly. But I view this as just part of the film business and its means nothing to me or my feelings. Its the final product that counts. Like Shakespeare said "the plays the thing"... not how it was written or the anguish of getting it right.

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think this is a complete 100% cut and dry situation. Every reader is free to read and bring to the table what they have in themselves. Every reader closes those 1200 pages and internalizes and interprets what they read for themselves. But I would bet that Jackson feels that he was as faithful as he could possible be given the change of medium from a book to three films. You and he would probably never agree, but I guess he feels he was true to the books as much as possible.

In these discussions, it seems that there may be a difference in priorities. Many people I would characterize as Purists, seem to place a very high priority - maybe their highest priority - on being as faithful as possible to the books. I do not know of any filmmaker who would agree with that as their highest priority. Their priorities would include
-- making a good or great film
-- making a profit for the studio so they can keep on working
-- making a film that is praised and will advance their career

I recall the admonition that Ernest Hemingway gave to other authors when selling their work for adaption as a film. Hemingway said there was only one way to do it. The author and producer meet on a deserted beach late at night. The author tosses the book to the producer. The producer tosses a briefcase filled with money to the author. And they never bother each other again.

I think Hemingway had it right and understood the realites of the film business.

Tolkien himself said he did not think the book was filmable. Christopher is still clinging to that fiction. But he went ahead and sold the film rights anyways (and you have to wonder about the ethics of that... "sure I will sell you the rights to build a high rise on this marshy swamp land" hahaha) thinking he could have it both ways keeping the cash without having to see a film made. He may have been right in his time ... but technology caught up with the process.

But Hemingway was right then and Tolkien should have read about it.

I hope this post is more in the spirit of a honest debate and intellectual exchange without name calling or meanness.