How Jackson sold out...

[littlemanpoet]

I'm quoting my brother who at age 16 read to me <I>Riddles in the Dark</I> when I was 8 (34 years ago). It changed my life forever.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> My overall impression: Jackson sold out. <BR> <BR>Not so much on questions of budget, time, and effort (any of which might've been excusable), but on questions of political correctness (my final thoughts on Philppa Boyen's change to Faramir: it's OK for the bad guys to be thoroughly bad - although in Tolkien they weren't, not even the Orcs - but it's not OK for the good guys to be thoroughly good) and dumbing down (for the mass audience).<BR> <BR>And we all know how Tolkien would've reacted to either of those.<BR> <BR>I'm beginning to believe that, after all the hysteria fades, and after people can settle down and get honest about what they've seen, this movie will be recognized for what it is, a virtual travesty. <BR> <BR>Gollum was good, but not all that good (redeeming him, perhaps, is the fact that he's virtually the only character to have remained true to Tolkien's intent). <BR> <BR>And that's not to mention all the changes, the virtual disemboweling, of an incredibly rich depth of story.<BR> <BR>I went back through Tolkien's Letters last night, ransacking them to find some evidence [that] Tolkien himself probably identified most with Faramir.<BR> <BR>I didn't find it. But I *DID* find some very interesting commentary, by Tolkien, on a screenplay written long ago for LOTR. <BR> <BR>What I found most interesting was *NOT* Tolkien's issues with occasional fine points of detail (the most famous, or infamous, of which, probably, and the most ill-used, I suspect, is his complaint about Aragorn pulling out a sword, for example, when everybody knows Narsil, which he was carrying, was broken).<BR> <BR>What *WAS* interesting was his attention to the fine points of thematic development: what it would take to bring an incredibly long novel to the screen, which scenes should go, for example, and which should stay. <BR> <BR>*MOST* interesting, in fact, was his contention that, if there had to be a choice between the Cleansing of Isengard and the Battle of Helm's Deep, then the battle should go, because it was secondary in importance, not just to the themes (and issues) surrounding the Cleansing of Isengard, but also, as a battle, to the *REAL* battles, which were still to come, and for which it was only a foretaste (if not to prove, in fact, an outright distraction).<BR> <BR>The impression one gets from reading Tolkien himself, in other words, is not just that he was a genius with written words - obviously - but that he was also an incredibly visual person (just as obvious from his words themselves, if not additionally from his paintings and drawings), and that, and perhaps above all, he was an artist, a genius artist, a Renaissance Man like few others in the 20th Century (borne out especially in his Letters, where one sees the tremendous depth of thought he brought to his writing), and a Master of Composition, quite capable of moving from one art form to another.<BR> <BR>So I can't buy that the changes that were made had to be made. <BR> <BR>Unless, of course, one felt a pressing need for political correctness, and was afraid that a public that had been dumbed-down by the likes of Star Wars, or Jaws, or Close Encounters, or the Matrix, wouldn't be able to abide something just a bit more intelligent.<P>After watching the Fellowship in the theaters twice, and its extended version at home once, I was still quite willing to forgive the changes that had been made to the books. I didn't mind Tom Bombadil's having been dropped, and I didn't mind Arwen having been substituted for Glorfindel. <BR> <BR>In fact I had to agree with one of the reviewers who'd said that, at precisely the point where Arwen raced the Black Riders to the Ford, that was where a simply great movie transcended itself into epic. And her standing up to the Black Riders at the Ford brought me to tears.<BR> <BR>But I wasn't entirely happy with what they had done to Aragorn. This whole story of being "in exile," of having turned away from the Kingship of Gondor, of *NOT WANTING* the Kingship of Gondor. This was trivializing his character to an unwonted degree.<BR> <BR>One of the greatest parts of the books, at least for me (and for all of my friends), was Aragorn's "sea-green incorruptibility," his having been the greatest Hunter, Tracker, Woodsman, and all around Knight of his age (per Gandalf), his having already served, by the time he was 90 years old, during the War of the Ring, as Thengel's, and later Ecthelion's Captain Thorongil, before having dropped out of site, not to go into exile, but on errands - which may have been Gandalf's - into the East.<BR> <BR>In short, it was his being the last of the Dunedain, the leader of the Rangers of the North, who, in total, were a bunch of guys cooler than almost anything anybody could imagine. Half-elven, Men, Descendents of Elendil, and absolutely incorruptible.<BR> <BR>So far we haven't seen anything of the Dunedain. I doubt that we will. I doubt that we'll see Halbarad, or even Elrohir or Elladen, since their showing up at any point from now on would compromise one of its basic storylines: Aragorn's "filmical" development.<BR> <BR>And this brings us back to Faramir, and, perhaps, back to much of your own point. It's as if they tried to do too much, and, in doing so much, did too little justice to what they did. I thought a lot about the movie last night and this morning, and I was able, finally, to boil my dissatisfaction down to one thing: there was too much in it that was gratuitous.<BR> <BR>The scene with Frodo and the Black Rider in Osgiliath, for example: Utterly gratuitous. Unnecessary. Aragorn's disappearance after the attack of the Wolf-riders. Unnecessary. Again, gratuitous. Most of the Battle of Helm's Deep: overlong, overdeveloped. The appearance of the Elves: absolutely, irredeemably gratuitous (especially in view of what it's such a poor substitute for).<BR> <BR>More than all of that, though, and perhaps worst of all, because it's a sop to the critics for whom Tolkien (rightly) felt such scorn: a finally gratuitous "trivializing" of character, an inability to recognize that character can be more or less static (just as it is in real life), and that True Story can be just as much about the development of inter-character tension (as is so much of the development in the LOTR itself), as about intra-character tension. <P>Is it really right to say that Tolkien "never wrote for the visual medium, not once"? <P>I would suggest that perhaps he did, unconsciously (or maybe even absolutely consciously), since one of the uniquenesses of Tolkien's work, as judged apparently by everyone who's ever actually read it (unlike most of the critics), is that reading his books is like watching a movie in your head.<P>Developing this theme further, one might even argue that one of the reasons LOTR has been so incredibly successful is because it is, in fact (or at least could be considered as), one incredibly long, eminently readable screenplay.<P>There is not, within the nature of things, fundamentally and necessarily a difference between page and screen.<BR>My biggest issue, I think, is that they've changed the story, and they've changed some of the most important characters. Boromir was great. Gandalf and Galadriel were great too, and very close to the way they were presented in the books. And one could even say the same about Arwen.<P>But Elrond, Aragorn, Faramir, and, to a lesser degree, Theoden, are not the characters Tolkien wrote about. They're different people. <P>And this is where I would argue that there is a wonderful amount of material in the books - material practically begging to be developed, material that certainly could have been (cinematically) developed, material that should have been developed, if the intent was really to stay faithful to the spirit of the books - that could have been used to support the people that Tolkien actually wrote about.<P>In the books Aragorn is Elrond's adopted son, to whom Elrond has "granted" his only daughter, on condition that Aragorn rise to the doom before him. Aragorn has served in Gondor, and is known, resented, and feared there, by the Steward whom he would displace. <P>And while the Faramir of the books is certainly the Steward Denethor's loyal son, and like him in shrewdness and foresight, he is even more (and has been for many years) the Wizard Gandalf's loyal pupil, and in this as in many other things displeasing his father.<P>Better material for cinematic treatment (a Kurosawa-like treatment) I can hardly imagine. <P>And here we return to the first and final points of my previous letter. <P>Having just read Shippey's book, JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century, and having encountered there arguments echoing many of my own (more than 25 years ago, while a junior in college, I had the temerity to suggest to some of my friends, who came from a literary background, that Tolkien's work would one day be recognized as the greatest books of the 20th century: they looked at me like I was crazy, and wouldn't even answer me), Philippa Boyen's comments reminded me too much of what too many people (who don't know any better) have been saying about Tolkien for far too long.<P>Hence, perhaps, and in part, the intensity of my reaction, notwithstanding the fact that I know the movies have brought Tolkien's work to many people who might never have otherwise experienced it.<P>But there might be something else, which I just remembered. My brother and I, like many others we know, have "adopted" certain characters in the books. My brother is Imrahil, Prince of Amroth. I'm Faramir. <P>I've always admired and related to his character. In many ways he's the person I would like to be. And I suspect that there are many, many others like me out there, including, if I can be so presumptuous, JRR Tolkien himself. <P>If this (i.e. what I suspect) is correct, then changing his character so fundamentally could certainly be viewed as having been a very, very big mistake, sure to have caused more disappointment than anyone at New Line would ever have wanted (or agreed to, if they had anticipated it). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I realize this was a lot to digest. I'd be interested in your feedback and comments. Blood being thicker than water (or whatever), I find myself agreeing with all of it. Your thoughts, anyone?

[Tar-Palantir]

Imagine if they had only been 2 hour movies... <P>Seriously, I can't tackle all that, and I don't want to because you have some good points, thanks for posting it.<P>But do you really think LotR is "...one incredibly long, eminently readable screenplay." I disagree on all but the "incredibly long, eminently readable" part! Translating JRRT's narrative to screen is a hugely daunting task and should not be so casually tossed aside. Beyond the intensely detailed story, there are the amazing visuals to contend with. I agree about "gratuitous" scenes and feel sad over some (Faramir, etc..) But I also know that some were necessary to cut/switch out because of length, audience knowledge, fluidity, etc... Simply put - most of the people watching this film would be clueless about Arwen's bond with Aragorn had they not tried to add a bit more of her to the film. Such is the necessity of a film, subtlety simply gets lost in favor of a more direct route to the finish. Frodo and Bilbo having the same birthday is tossed out the same as Tom Bombadil is tossed out. For the majority it would simply be confusing/too much info. <P>You make a comparison between the Cleansing of Isengard and the Battle of Helm's Deep, and which one should be disposed of if neccesary - fair enough - except for the fact that you then make it sound like the Attack of the Ents & the Flooding of Isengard never even appeared in the film. Are you actually trying to say that it wasn't up to your standards, or it didn't fulfill some special requirement? That is what it sounds like it. <P>As an example of the exquisite work done take a gander at the detailed sets and mind-blowing backdrops and locations. Many longtime fans (as evidenced in recent threads here), myself included, found these images to jive very well with their own interpretations of Middle Earth, a wonderful reward and treat. That is kudos to the director for going the distance, far from "selling out." To wrap up this point - - For me the 'environment' of ME has an equally profound effect as that of the central story of the destruction of the Ring and the histories of the 'players' involved - Especially when I was younger, so that part sticks with me and is muy importante.<P> *-it doesn't have to be a travesty or boon, black or white, sell-out director or "true-storyteller"-* We just need to admit first that compromises HAD to happen and not EVERY detail would EVER be in ANY film, then realize that you will ALWAYS have your books and no one can take them away from you, then maybe you can stop calling people sellouts when all they did was accomplish a massive, massive task that has vibrantly brought ME to the screen, and exposed hundreds of thousands to the books of ME.

[Liriodendron]

I believe you, littlemanpoet! I can certainly understand why you are not fond of the movie after reading your wonderful post! I see what you are saying, but don't have quite the same emotions as you. I certainly appreciate the "peek" inside your head! ( and I will try not to get too irritated when reading "lots" of movie complaints )I like to look for the good in things, so that's what I try to do when talking about this movie, but I certainly see where you are coming from! Thanks for putting it in such clear words!<p>[ January 18, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Bill Ferny]

In regards to Mr. Jackson’s portrayal of both Aragorn and Faramir, and for that matter Boromir (especially the scene between he and Aragorn in the extended version of FotR), its pretty obvious that Mr. Jackson is dead set on demonstrating the weakness of men. He uses Aragorn’s character to play out an inter-character drama (to use your brother’s words), and I’m sure in the end we will see Aragorn accepting his destiny, but with a woeful heart and a yearning for yesteryear. I agree, that’s over the top and melodramatic, and it is not Professor Tolkien’s Aragorn, but there are hints of it in the LotR, even though it was limited to a few select characters, and not Aragorn. Mr. Jackson even put that theme into Gandalf. Am I the only one to be put off by how Gandalf acted in the presence of Saruman in the movie, FotR, as they walked through the gardens at Isengard? The Gandalf of the books was humble, not weak and kowtowing.<P>As far as gratuitous scenes, I think both pointed out by your brother could be called, with validity, gratuitous. However, every artist attempts to portray some meaning or message with what is presented, and the scene in Osgiliath is obviously conveying Mr. Jackson’s pet theme, the weakness of men. No matter how many arguments I’ve heard to the contrary on this forum, that scene made no logical sense, despite the meaning conveyed or room for artistic license. Seriously! How could the ringwraith miss that perfect opportunity to snatch the ring? Are they all that inept? Now Aragorn going over the cliff and being lost for awhile… that really didn’t make much sense to me either, especially because for the life of me I can’t figure out what Mr. Jackson was trying to convey. Unless, of course, it was only used as an opportunity to get Liv more screen time. (Did anyone else notice the wacky camera action of him taking off on horseback? It reminded me of a spaghetti western.)<P>I don’t think, though, that I would go so far as to call the movies a travesty (so far). Aside from some obvious problems of interpretation on the part of Mr. Jackson and his screen writing crew, for the most part the script honored the spirit of Tolkien. I don’t think there were any themes in the movie completely foreign to the professor. Mr. Jackson may get a C in regards to a comparison to the books, but he gets an A for effort, and an A for making the best action/adventure movie of all time.<P>However, that’s not to say there was a good dose of modern idiom that at least makes me chomp at the bit. It can be argued, quite rightly, that some themes were over-emphasized to a degree that would have perplexed Tolkien. The whole weakness of men thing is in the books, but our modern view of the “our self” in all it’s cultural relativism and self-reprehension, takes the notion to the extreme in the movies. Tolkien loved the Beowulf type character, who was good, strong, noble and courageous right to the very core. Such a character would be ridiculed by today’s masses, and shrugged off as elitist. ‘Tis a shame.

[doug*platypus]

Little Man, thank you very much for posting that. Your brother seems to have an excellent grasp of the movies and the books, and since he doesn't linger around the Downs, I think it's great you were able to share his sage words with us.<P>I also am ready to adhere to the Sellout Theory. However, now that it has come to the verge of apportioning blame, I can't see why 99% of it should be lumped on the round, meaty shoulders of the director. Shouldn't we blame a commercial movie environment that simply wouldn't accept a literal adaptation of LOTR? Such a version would surely be relegated to the Festival category, or perhaps the Foreign (I like your brother's mention of Kurosawa, the movie Ran shows that he has a great appreciation for themes such as those in LOTR). In either case the massive funds required would have been promptly withdrawn. It's sad, but I think that in this day and age, where audiences are (perhaps fairly) vastly underrated, we would have to choose between a Cheesy Version, or a Budget Version.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And her standing up to the Black Riders at the Ford brought me to tears. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yeah, that brought me to tears as well. The book version from Frodo's perspective is so much more dramatic. Let's not forget that in the case of these movies, enlarging any character's part has come at the expense of another. As for enlarging Liv Tyler's character at the expense of <I>the</I> Frodo Baggins? It boils my blood.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> compromises HAD to happen and not EVERY detail would EVER be in ANY film <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As for that <B>theory</B> (i.e. opinion not fact), I don't believe this is an absolute necessity. <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002615" TARGET=_blank>This link</A> talks further about the topic, if you're interested.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thank you littlemanpoet for posting your brother's thought provoking comments. As a long-standing Tolkien fan, I agree with a lot of what he says.<P>But, unfortunately, we all have to face the commercial realities. Making a film for the mass movie going public is a commercial endeavour and will inevitably involve a degree of "selling out". <P>And the mass movie going public (myself included) want their fantasy/sci-fi films to fast-paced and full of action. I dislike "dumbing down", but a certain amount of this is required when making a film like this. It is still an infinately more intelligent "action" film than many that I could mention.<P>To get the kind of big budget treatment that I think the images conveyed by JRRT's words deserved, the films has to be blockbuster successes. As Tar-Palantir points out, the films are visually stunning - the locations, the costumes, the "creatures" (except, of course, the Wargs ), the SFX and the battle scenes. We just wouldn't have had these without the big budget.<P>I was irritated by some of the gratuitous scenes, particularly where they did not make sense (Wormtongue being rendered obsolescent by Saruman's possession of Saruman, for example). But I nevertheless thoroughly enjoyed both films and I am extremely grateful for the visual presentation of a world that looks so much like the one that I had imagined.<P>I don't think that I can really put it better than Bill F:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Mr. Jackson may get a C in regards to a comparison to the books, but he gets an A for effort, and an A for making the best action/adventure movie of all time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>These are film <B>adaptations</B> of the books. They are not the books themselves. They do not take the books away from us - we still have them and can still enjoy them for what they truly are - literary masterpieces.<P>And finally, I would certainly not underestimate the value of both films in bringing JRRT's works to those who had not the fortune of knowing them before - my wife included.

[Aratlithiel]

littlemanpoet, I found myself nodding in agreement throughout your post and thinking to myself, "Fianlly! Someone who understands it completely! Someone who GETS it! Yay! I'm not insane!"<P>Then I read the subsequent posts and I have to say (and here I will probably incur the wrath of Saucepan Man again) that you all are just not getting it. True to the spirit? Sorry, but uh uh. Commercialization and film-budget worries? Dumbing-down to please the masses? Please!<P>How many Tolkien fans do you think there were out there before the movies? And how many of those fans would have sat through FOUR hour movies if they had been true to the real spirit of Tolkien? And how many of those would have gone multiple times? Very close to all of them. With the money they were sure to get from Tolkien fans alone, these films were already assured block-busters before they hit the screens. These guys were going to make their $270 million back plus much, much more based on Tolkien fans alone, so why change fundamental characters for the benefit of non-fans and so anger the very fans they claim to have made them for? I say fundamental and mean it. These movie characters - Faramir, Frodo, Theoden, etc. - these are NOT Tolkien characters. I defy you to find a single character in LotR who resembles any of these people. Each one has been stripped of their nobility and for what? So some yahoo sitting next to me in the theater with his finger up his nose can follow the story a little better? Sorry, but if you don't have the intelligence required to pick up a book until some movie director tells you to, I don't feel like I should have to suffer for it.<P>Am I being a bit selfish? You bet and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I am a Tolkien reader and these films were supposed to have been made for ME. So how come people who haven't read the book can enjoy the films more than I can? No fair!!<P>It's like ordering General Tso's chicken and being handed beef and broccoli and told to like it. Sure, beef and broccoli is good, but it's not what I ordered and I really felt like chicken! How's that for dumbing down? LOL<P>Something else has been bugging me lately, too. OK, I saw the movies, I own the ext. FotR DVD and will probably buy the ext. TTT. I will also go to see RotK and buy that DVD as well. I like them. I don't love them as I hoped I would, but I do like them. I'm disappointed by them but will learn to live with it. So why is it that people are so disturbed by my disappointment and insist upon telling me that I'm wrong to be so? I don't care about budgets and time worries - I only care that these are not the books. So what? Why is that bothering you so much? I'm not forcing my opinion on you, merely expressing it - why am I wrong? No one (that I have seen so far) has told anyone who enjoys these films that they shouldn't, so why are you all so intent that we who are disappointed in them not be?<P>And if one more person tells me to read my book again, I'm going to come over and beat them with it!! And it must weigh a good 5 pounds, so look out! LOL

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Very, very interesting. I totally agree that Jackson should not take all the blame for this situation. The thing is, that's the way the world works. Films for everyone, maximum profit. Regardless of whether every Tolkien fan would have gone to see a 5 hour movie several times and given the same profit worldwide, the suits at the top just do not get it.<P>If I can draw a comparison between this and the WWE (I can hear groans but bear with me!) Now I am a huge WWE fan and the majority of us enjoy watching great wrestling, simple storylines and good entertainment. Vince McMahon (the owner of WWE) cannot realise this, he simply cannot comprehend that a wrestling fan would like to see a normal sized guy who is a good wrestler, over a great big huge guy who can only punch and kick. That, is McMahon's philosophy, and its absolutely ridiculous. For years I have been crying out "It's very, very simple!" but the suits at the top think they know everything and continue the cycle.<P>It's not going to change in the near future. If Time Warner think that we should have a dumbed-down 3 hour movie which deviates substantially from the original plot just because they think that that's what we (the proles, I mean...the public) want and need, then thats just what they're going to give us.<P>Now I personally love the films, its because I don't expect the book, I don't expect anything like the book. Just don't take the films too seriously. Remember that we already have the real treasure in book form, and no film is going to come close to it.

[Diamond18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So why is it that people are so disturbed by my disappointment and insist upon telling me that I'm wrong to be so? I don't care about budgets and time worries - I only care that these are not the books. So what? Why is that bothering you so much? I'm not forcing my opinion on you, merely expressing it - why am I wrong? No one (that I have seen so far) has told anyone who enjoys these films that they shouldn't, so why are you all so intent that we who are disappointed in them not be? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hmmm, are we on the same website? The people who complain about the movie are the vast majority on the Downs, so I think this plea is aimed at the wrong people. By telling Saucepan Man, Tar-Palantir and others that they "don't get it" you are forcing your opinion on them and telling them there is something wrong with them. Just what you said you don't do.<P>PJ did sell out. But when it comes right down to it, it's just unfortunate, and nothing more. It's not the end of the world. I'm in the camp who was rather disappointed in TTT, but after getting over the initial disappointment, I've resigned myself to the fact that in the world of movies we inhabit, the chance for a perfect rendition of LotR was slim to nill.<P>Please don't clobber me with your book, but that really is the upside of it and the optimist's view of life. If you really love the book, you won't let a little thing like a movie disrupt it for you. My view of the situation is that people who get overly emotional or morose about the movie and its many faults, are somehow afraid that PJ changed the book itself and made his "vision" into fact. Be stronger than that, and don't let the sell out upset you so much. In the end, my question is, if you love the book, do you really <I>need</I> the movie to be perfection to be happy?<P>I'm very forgiving, I guess, when it comes to the movie. I've gone through several emotions and viewpoints regarding TTT, and though I haven't changed my mind about the faults (and Faramir still makes me wince) right now I've become resigned to it.<P>I have encountered posts here that make it sound like anyone who liked the movie or forgives the "travesties" should be shunned by "true purists" who think PJ should be taken out and shot. Not very many, of course, but they do make me feel guilty when I consider that I went to see TTT twice and will go again before it's out of the theatres. I will complain about the things I didn't like and thought were wrong, but in the end (sad as this may sound) I'll take what I can get.<P>Doug makes some very good points about where the blame should lie, and I tend to agree that:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's sad, but I think that in this day and age, where audiences are (perhaps fairly) vastly underrated, we would have to choose between a Cheesy Version, or a Budget Version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So does this make me a dumb, nose picking yahoo? I don't think so... Maybe any Tolkien fan who goes to the theatre and watches these movies has also sold out, somewhat. But LotR isn't a religion, so selling out is perhaps not as bad as it may seem.<P>Tar-Palantir states my view very ably:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> *-it doesn't have to be a travesty or boon, black or white, sell-out director or "true-storyteller"-* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>TTT was very grey for me. So I'll forgive the mistakes, crimes, differences of taste and opinion. I was in a funky mood after the first time I watched it. But after I saw it again I liked it better, because I reset my expectations and turned on my selective enjoyment defense.<P>But neither will I condemn people who hated it. I can see why they do. What I don't like is to be told that if I'm a real Tolkien fan I won't settle for anything less than perfection. I don't like that holier-than-thou attitude.<P>I like to think that my imagination is strong enough to read the book, watch the movie, and still have my own view of Middle-earth. In other words, PJ can do something terrible, but it won't hurt me.<p>[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, friends, for the considered responses. All of them. Diamond18, I don't think Aratlithiel's "tirade" was aimed at you at all. Your points are well taken.<P>I do agree that the scenery in the movie was exhiliarating. Not having anything from the book in my imagination to compare Osgiliath against, I can't say for sure if I felt that was the weakest scene. It did seem to fit, as scenery - I guess. Nevertheless, the plot sequence simply didn't make story sense. That alone is a d*mning enough weakness to hold the scene as filmically a failure, nevermind that it was never even in the Book.<P>I also feld that Helm's Deep was over-long and frustrating. I started sighing in exasperation (ask my wife) with each new querulous argument between Theoden and Aragorn, Aragorn and Legolas, et cetera.<P>I forgot another bit my brother sent me, which I think may answer a few rebuttals in terms of directorial blame, and may serve as fodder for continued vigorous debate (nothing wrong with that, eh?) <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I have a number of criticisms of the movie, but they can be summarized into<BR>two:<P>1. Making changes in both characters and events that blunted or even<BR>distorted the real spirit of the story.<P>2. Missing the mark entirely on what was probably the most compelling part<BR>of the books: their unrelenting suspense.<P>My earlier criticisms, [which made up the first post of this thread] were largely<BR>along the lines of the first. This was, after all, the most obvious.<P>The second is more subtle. After all, the movies do keep your attention<BR>undivided for a full three hours, even wanting more.<P>But I think that has less to do with the movies, and a heck of a lot to do<BR>with the story. It's just so amazing. A whole world of suspense, drama, and<BR>action in just three books.<P>If we look at Tolkien and analyze what contributes to his grip on the<BR>reader, we find a whole mix of many different things.<P>What hits me the most, however, is his amazingly light touch: subtlety,<BR>suggestion, hints, implication, intimation; constant, slow, ever-growing<BR>buildups of tension, with sudden, dramatic, and swift release, all against a<BR>background of incredible atmosphere.<P>Jackson took all of this, and changed it into an action movie. Where Tolkien<BR>hinted at something, Jackson hits you over the head.<P>Where Tolkien spent pages and pages, whole chapters, in fact, building up<BR>tension, to release it in just a few paragraphs of incredibly vivid,<BR>evocative action, Jackson does the opposite. He minimizes the buildup, and<BR>he maximizes the action.<P>Now, I can imagine that there are those who would say that Jackson could do<BR>no different, that it was all necessary to take a novel like LOTR and move<BR>it to the screen.<P>I don't buy this, and here's why: There is a director who would've been<BR>perfect for it. His name is Ridley Scott, and his hallmark is precisely what<BR>I've just been describing. If you've not seen his movies - Alien,<BR>Bladerunner, Legend - you really need to.<P>Of late he's moved to different themes (i.e. away from Sci-Fi and Fantasy,<BR>toward history: 1492, Gladiator, etc.). But I insist he would've been<BR>perfect.<BR>H.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There. I could not (and tend not to) say it better. I've seen Blade Runner and Gladiator and Alien. They're full of atmosphere and they do indeed build up the intensity and release it.<P>Jackson made LotR the Movie into an action/adventure film when it could have been an epic/adventure film. That's the nub of it, and it's a disappointment.<P>As I said, I love the scenery. Jackson (or I should say the artists) got that right. The plotting could have been a lot better. Maybe, someday, there will be an LotR movie that functions as a cross between the sheer length and breadth of "I, Claudius", and the atmosphere and story-telling intensity of Blade Runner. Now THAT would be worth seeing.

[Tar-Palantir]

Every director is going to have his own interpretation of the movie, whether they crank up the suspense, the action, the romance, the intrigue - Including Ridley Scott, and I would imagine they would all fall short in one capacity or other with this book. How many characters have to be developed? How many subplots need to be explained? There are so many exposition scenes in this series of books it is scary - Do I really want Pippin & Merry explaining to me what happened with Treebeard and the Ents? Not in a movie I don't, show it to me! <P>In my mind this attempt by Peter Jackson is a fine one, to a point. He made some mistakes and poor judgements along the line, but that is inevitable (IMHO) and it can only be learned from. If another team of film makers decided to give it a go, they would have an excellent jumping off point with this series of movies. Sometimes the severity of a problem in any performance based endeavor (film, literature, music, stage, etc...) just can't be known, at least to it's full extent, until the project hits the public and critics. That may be the downside to having filmed all these pictures at once, they got carried away into their own conception of LotR further than they should have been, taking more 'creative license' than they might have intended at the beginning. Quite possibly they got in over their head, and so may have stunted the work from what it could have been, wrapping it up plots prematurely or deciding that they could only focus on those major themes which they had already begun devloping, rather than making certain all angles were covered, that all characters and intrigues were done justice. Those are all human flaws, and just something to consider.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> How many Tolkien fans do you think there were out there before the movies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Dunno. And neither do you. You also need to consider your definition of "fans". Is a fan someone who read the books as a youngster and who simply has fond memories of Tolkein? Or does a fan need to be someone who can recite the lineage of every character in the books, and has read the books once a year every year, or some such thing? I AM A FAN who devoured the books young (15 -20 years ago), has fond memories, and now has read them again because of the films. So, when I saw Fellowship I forgot that Glorfindel was supposed to be there, I forgot that Strider was supposed to be carrying a broken Narsil, etc..., etc... lots of things I had forgotten. Now I am grateful for the films (hence my defense of them) because they awakened what I had forgotten, my love for Tolkein. I think my case is not uncommon, and honestly it is a boon to Tolkein whether you choose to belive it or not.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So some yahoo sitting next to me in the theater with his finger up his nose can follow the story a little better? Sorry, but if you don't have the intelligence required to pick up a book until some movie director tells you to, I don't feel like I should have to suffer for it.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>ouch. We all have to be exposed to Tolkein, or anything else, in one way or another. I feel so...so....so deflated <P>Just kidding, actually I'm fine with it, but I do feel bad for you and all the other Tolkein followers that are stuck with a sour taste in your mouth because of the films. I can relate to being in that minority in other arenas, believe me.

[Liriodendron]

What are you supposed to do if you go to the movie and find yourself enjoying TTT, slap yourself and feel ashamed for your enjoyment! Nah, If I like em, I like em....If you don't, that's cool, I understand. There's no need to get all bent out of shape though! I very rarely go to movies because I find them boring. Even though they're not perfect, I've ENJOYED watching FoTR and TTT repeatedly. This a surprise and a thrill. (and I need all the fun I can get! )

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I was going to add a wonderful exposition of what it is to be a "Tolkien fan" and still enjoy the films, but I find that Tar-Palantir has done it all for me. I cannot really put it any better.<P>But, I would say (or maybe echo) a few points in particular:<P>First:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So why is it that people are so disturbed by my disappointment and insist upon telling me that I'm wrong to be so? I don't care about budgets and time worries - I only care that these are not the books. So what? Why is that bothering you so much? I'm not forcing my opinion on you, merely expressing it - why am I wrong? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am not "disturbed" by those who are upset or disappointed by the films. I can understand that. I was preoccupied by the changes so much on first viewing that I had to go and see TTT again (something I don't normally do). On second viewing, I was more disturbed by the bits that just don't hold together (there are valid criticisms to be made here, but they do not, for me, "destroy" the film). <P>Everyone is entitled to their view. I am not seeking to change their opinion, just add my own. The degree of trauma, however, that TTT seems to have caused in some quarters intrigues me, and, on <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001698" TARGET=_blank>another thread</A>, I have been trying to explore just why it has had this effect.<P>Secondly. Yes, Ridley Scott may have made a better film. He may have made a worse film. It is difficult to say. What we have, however, is what I consider to be a good film (for the reasons I have stated above and on other threads). Had it been made by another director, we would undoubtedly be seeing the same criticisms, perhaps about different changes or interpretations. I just don't think that it is possible to adapt the marvellous works of JRRT for film without major upsets somewhere along the line.<P>Finally, the films could have been made solely for those who love and revere the works of JRRT (and I include myself here), but (much as I like the idea) there are simply not enough of us out there. Other threads have discussed the possibilities of TV serialisation or "cult" films, but then (and I know I'm repeating myself here), we would not have the wonderful visualisation that the SFX, costume and locations teams provided us with.<P>The films and their makers had to "sell out". And of course, I had to "sell out" (if you want to put it that way) by going to watch them. But, I can (as I, like Tar-Palantir, did after watching FotR) return to the books and enjoy them as much as ever I did before.<p>[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Aratlithiel]

littlemanpoet - was that a tirade? LOL. I didn't know I had it in me. But here goes again...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>By telling Saucepan Man, Tar-Palantir and others that they "don't get it" you are forcing your opinion on them and telling them there is something wrong with them. Just what you said you don't do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Diamond, I expected to really get flamed for this post so I appreciate the "slight singe" you sent my way. However, you are again missing my point. My point was simply that littlemanpoet (or rather his brother) expressed a very well thought out line of reasoning - an opinion based on research and fact and everyone spent paragraphs and paragraphs telling him how wrong he was. Not that his logic was faulty or his facts incorrect - he's just wrong for thinking so. Now, he's certainly capable of defending his own opinion if he felt the need and that's not what I attempted to do then, nor is it what I'm doing now. It just so happens that I agreed with most of what he said and so voiced my own support and opinion. And I don't know whether I agree that those who were disappointed with the film are the vast majority, but I do know that anytime anyone attempts to discuss what they DIDN'T like about TTT, there are at least ten people who point out time constraints or some such and tell us to go back and read our books if we're so in love with them. I know nobody's trying to take my book away from me and I know I can read it whenever I want to so please stop telling me!<P>I don't claim to know if the changes that were made should or should not have been done (although I do feel that several of them were unnecessary) - I'm not in the movie business and it wasn't my $270 million so what does my opinion matter anyway? I don't really care if they were necessary. Even if the changes had to be made under pain of death, I still wouldn't like them. You can give me all the valid budget, time-constraint, flow-of-action reasons you want and I will listen and accept them as valid - that doesn't mean I have to like them.<P>Now, I'm certainly not blaming anyone for defending these movies. There are some movies I'll go to the mat for too (but never for book-to-film movies - I almost always dislike them). But the fact is that this is a 52 chapter novel (not including the appendices) of which only 12 chapters (plus or minus) are devoted to battles. I say plus or minus because some portions of those 12 chapters are devoted not to the battles themselves, but to the build-up to them. Now, if the battles are what you enjoyed from the books (and Diamond, I'm not directing this toward you, or anyone else in particular) then I have no doubt you can be nothing less than thrilled with the movies. And that's great. I wish I could be more like you.<P>However, in my OPINION, this is a character-driven novel and unfortunately, character is exactly what's missing from these movies. These are not Tolkien's characters. That's not just my opinion, that's fact. I'll spare you the chapter-and-verse because I THINK most everyone realizes this. Look, Frodo went down swinging on Weathertop - that's the only reason he was stabbed in the shoulder rather than the heart. He also made a bold stand at Bruinen while clinging to the last of his life. Is this the Frodo you see in the films? And time constraints or not, I don't see the point for this change.<P>I'm asking a serious question, here because I really want to know...can anyone tell me why it was necessary to turn Frodo into a wimp? If I ever had the opportunity to ask Jackson one question, that would be it. But still, even if the reason were that his mother was being held hostage by terrorists and threatened by death unless Frodo turned into a jellyfish, I wouldn't like the change. I'd understand it...but I still wouldn't like it. (Now please re-read the last two sentences so no one misunderstands and thinks I'm wishing death on Peter Jackson's mother!)<P>As I told Saucepan Man on another thread, I actually envy those of you can watch these films and not be distracted by the differences to the novel. You can enjoy them as their own entities and separate them from the books - I simply can't do it. I don't know if it's because I've read them too many times, because the characters are too special to me or if I simply live in my own little world and am entirely hopeless. Whatever the reason, it's a problem I share with others and when I get an opportunity to commiserate with like-minded people, I seize it. And yes, I'm fully aware that it's a problem in my own personal make-up and that no movie director is responsible for it - it's MY problem. But it's nice to know that others have it too - kinda like my own little support group. <P>I hope I'm making this more clear. I respect all the opinions expressed here and each and every one of them has been thought through and written intelligently. I agree with some and don't agree with others...perhaps some of you agree with mine and some of you don't. I can agree to disagree. Well, most of the time. LOL<P>And Tar-Palantir - that wasn't you sitting next me in the theater, was it? LOL. Sorry, I had to do it - you left yourself wide open for that one!

[Gorwingel]

I am not going to get myself deep into this discussion, because I am a farely new fan, who got into the books because of the films (I think it is good to have a point of view from all types of fans). Don't be ashamed if you did not like TTT. Because there was many points where I was like "why did they do this?", "It could have been way better if they would have done it the other way" etc. Like even though I enjoy the movie for what it is, especially during the scenes in Osigiliath, I think Frodo and Sam should not even be there. Though I try to be happy, because if this was not a big Hollywood production, we would not have had all the beautiful imagery, and the amazing sets. But even though most of the film is wonderful, some parts could have been done better. I do think this is the best that people in hollywood could have done (except for the Faramir part, that was totally unecessary)

[Diamond18]

Aratlithiel:<P>Actually, I am aware that your comments weren't aimed at me, but I guess you had the honor of voicing your opinions in just the matter that spoke to the thing I've been mulling over ever since my second viewing of TTT.<P>That being the fact that I ended up enjoying it despite the glaring faults, and that some posts I've read at the Downs (none of which were aimed at me) made me feel guilty because I <I>agree</I> with them that certain changes were rubbish and many great things about the book were discarded rather thoughtlessly. (So much more so than anything in FotR). But I still was able to enjoy it, and did that make me a total sell out? Rather than being ashamed of <I>not</I> liking TTT, I sometimes feel ashamed that, all things taken into consideration, I <I>did</I> like it. (I've never felt the least bit ashamed about loving FotR).<P>I don't go around saying TTT is the best ever and every change was perfect, and Faramir is a really great guy in the movie, and what the heck, it was better than the book, so no, I can still call myself a Tolkienite. I won't worry about it. But making that post allowed me to organize my thoughts on the matter. Didn't mean to sound <I>too</I> insulted. Whoops.<P>About the Frodo change: I don't really know why. Can't think of anything off the top of my head...nope. Well, <I>after</I> he gets stabbed, I thought that the increased severity and quickness of his near decent to the Wraith-world was so that we would worry about him more. He was so stoic in the book that you don't find out what dire straits his was in until after everything's all right. Or at least that's the way it was for me. So maybe that's what they were thinking.<P>But as to why he dropped his sword and fell down instead of striking out...<I>*a blank and puzzled silence*</I><P>By the way, I'm glad you said to read that part about PJ's mother over, because at first I thought that the terrorists were threatening to turn his mother into a jellyfish. Nice mental picture while it lasted. <p>[ January 20, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Liriodendron]

Why was Frodo portrayed as a wimp? I'll take a stab, though I normally average one or two movies a decade and certainly don't know much about them! <P> Hmmmmm, perhaps they wanted to "play it safe" ( sell out! ) and go for the most popular approach, placing the main focus on a human leading man, Aragorn. ( The strong silent type to boot!) They might have thought the public really wouldn't "care" all that much about hobbits. (especially those who haven't read the books) Hobbits are small, have no magic powers, no exciting lineage, not particularly beautiful or sexy, you get the idea. <P>So far, I've had the feeling that these movies have been about Aragorn's story more than anything else. Making Frodo a hero (or leading man)would be a gamble. Having Aragorn fufills his destiny. (with lot's of angst and action) is pretty bankable. <P>Frodo's "strength" is somewhat slow and subtle in the making. They might have thought the movies too short of a vechicle to portray such a complex characterization. Aghhh! I don't know! <p>[ January 20, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> My point was simply that littlemanpoet (or rather his brother) expressed a very well thought out line of reasoning - an opinion based on research and fact and everyone spent paragraphs and paragraphs telling him how wrong he was. Not that his logic was faulty or his facts incorrect - he's just wrong for thinking so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree that his post was thoughtful, and most definitely worthy of perusal - I even mentioned that I agree with some of it, and I don't believe I ever said he was wrong for thinking so. The points I addressed were ones in which he painted with too broad a stroke. Like his comments about Helm's Deep vs. Cleansing of Isengard, like his comments about LotR being an "eminently readable screenplay", like intimating that choice of directors was the key, like not adding details of costume, set, location and music into the equation. The rest of my commentary was mostly directed at issues you raised, Aratlithiel. And I didn't call you wrong either, I just debated the way you chose to word some things - and you raised a point that I wanted to see addressed - what constitutes being a fan. By the way, it probably was me next to you in the theater, I thought it was dark enough for me to slip by unnoticed... I had no idea such judgemental eyes were upon me ... <P>Anywho, about the Frodo change - Frodo's weak backbone and far from nimble feet seem to be an effort of the writers to show us, in a more dramatic fashion, the struggle he is having with the One Ring, and the perilous/vulnerable/exposed nature of his quest. jmo of course... Also, they might simply be trying to "save" his heroic moments for the end. Whatever they are doing that is one change I struggle to accept. <P>I would like to thank Aratlithiel, Diamond18, littlemanpoet, Doug*Platypus, Bill Ferny and Saucepan Man for typing such thoughtful, eloquent words in this and other threads. The BarrowDowns seems to be blessed with a number of articulate (though occasionaly long-winded ) individuals.<p>[ January 20, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[littlemanpoet]

By way of a general comment, shame need not adhere to anyone who enjoys or does not enjoy the TTT movie. The same must (against my will) be said of the Books as a whole. Though I think someone wrongheaded for not liking LotR, there is no shame in it. I don't think I'm telling anyone something they don't already know, I'm just hoping to bring this particular of the debate to a close.<P><B>Tar Palantir:</B><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The points I addressed were ones in which he painted with too broad a stroke. Like his comments about Helm's Deep vs. Cleansing of Isengard, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I must point out that H. had been researching Tolkien's letters, and was using Tolkien's words in this regard; hence, to argue against choosing to include the Cleansing of Isengard and exclude the battle of Helm's Deep is to argue against Tolkien.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... like his comments about LotR being an "eminently readable screenplay", like intimating that choice of directors was the key, like not adding details of costume, set, location and music into the equation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The quoted points are, of course, worthy of debate, and could stand support, as could the stance against the points.<P>What does it mean to be an "eminently readable screenplay"? In terms of drama, I suppose it would mean that the scenery, stage directions, and dialogue, as well as all that is necessary to make a believable dramatic presentation, are contained in the text itself. Does that serve as a fair description of "eminently readable screenplay"?<P>Choice of directors is inevitably going to affect the nature of a movie. The director is THE key creative decision maker.<P>By the way, there are things I really enjoyed about the TTT movie. The central theme of this thread is: <B>The changes Jackson made to the story from book to film, resulted in the film being unworthy of the book Tolkien wrote.</B>

[Gryphon Hall]

<B>Disclaimer:</B> I've read the first half of the posts and skimmed through the rest, so I may have missed a few issues that were discussed beyond those originally posted by Littlemanpoet. Furthermore, my time is limited, yet I want terribly to respond, for this issue comes close to my heart as well.<P>I find myself agreeing with most of you, especially those that agree with Littlemanpoet's brother, so I will not repeat your excellent observations. PJ did sell out, probably not what he wanted, maybe because he did not have the skill to make an accurate (I don't say literal, for reasons I shall discuss shortly) rendition of LotR, or because this movie based on the best book of the 20th Century (it should be unanimous, right?) must somehow appeal to the people who may not get the story, who for years have not gotten the story, and scorned and detested those who have gotten the story as geeks, nerds and wierdos. Maybe, it cannot be avoided; how many idealists have been dashed down and made to sell out, or appear to sell out because the mob outnumbers them.<P>However, with my humblest apologies to those who differ, I will most strongly react against the idea that the LotR cannot be put on the screen as it actually appears on print. Notwithstanding the choice of directors (I most heartily agree with Littlemanpoet's bro about Ridley Scott, though I really like Peter Jackson and still believe that he could have done a 'Scott') makes for different interpretations, the only reason I believe that there is still contention over this is because by and large people still see the LotR as just fiction. Just fiction! And therefore can be rewritten, re-'adapted', re-done, re-made. Notwithstanding that a lot of people feel for the characters in the entire mythos of Middle Earth as if they really existed (gosh, how nerdy!) since the LotR is, after all JUST and will always be JUST fiction.<P>Of course, fiction or not, I have always believed and held as the only honest and most artistic recourse to stick to accuracy.<P>But we need to make the 'cool' people see that the LotR is great. We have to make them see the Tolkien was not just some Brit wierdo with escapist fantasies. We need to make them see what we see! And some do see, some do see the point, and get the story. Thanks to the movies. They do see it.<P>But the only ones, at least in my experience, who continue to see it, those whose vision does not fade with the nth time the movie is watched, are those who go <I>back to the books</I>. Back to the books! Those of you on the barrowdowns, particularly those who have read through all these long, lengthly posts actually, well, read. Most don't. They see the point, for a while, until the next installment of Harry Potter comes along, or Star Wars. Then they just remember Frodo as a wimp, they will remember Aragorn as one who didn't wish with all his heart to be king, braved dangers for decades alone just so he can finally be with Arwen, or the subtle nobility of Theoden, Faramir and Eomer. They won't, those who see no need to actually read through Tolkien's 'boring' texts (I knew someone who was thankful that PJ made LotR interesting enough to warrant his attention).<P>I have intimated that somehow the LotR can be put on the screen which is accurate to that put on print. I do not mean, of course, that it will be economically viable to record every scene and every word, though this, too, I believe is possible if money is not a concern. But if it is a concern, still we can come up with something that we do not have to 'cook' up. Not just Ridley Scott, but Kurosawa would have done wonderfully. Perhaps Ang Lee as well. Anyone who watched Kurosawa's <I>Kagemusha</I> would not have known that they were watching very accurate history. A lot of the intervening years were, of course, cut out and not shown, but the characters, historical characters at that, were never changed to become more acceptable to those 'who would not have gotten it'. Probably did not do well at the box office, but it remains a gem, a treasure, like a Silmaril, never to be remade. Not so this version of the LotR.<P>I have already mentioned that maybe because the LotR is merely fiction to those who we may want to please. Fiction, fictional history, but history nonetheless. I have seen how Hollywood and Disney (which, I deem, to be the more serious transgressor) change history, nay, show another alternate universe when creating something 'historical' just to make it cute for the kids or those who may not 'get it'. All in the hopes that they may later want to see 'what really happened'.<P>But what's wrong with getting people to appreciate Tolkien? These movies have made people readers, haven't they? Well, how many of you, having watched the movie first then read the book, complained about Tolkien's treatment, criticized him for not having made it like they saw in the movie? How many of you were more disappointed with the book rather than the movie? I am not talking here about the Star Wars or other movie adaptations, mind you. Yet what is wrong with making a movie adaptation for those who would not have gotten it otherwise?<P>For one thing, it would be dishonest. Another, it compromises artistry. It is dishonest because, in our effort to give Tolkien who 'would not have gotten it' we don't, we give Peter Jackson, et al. So those who try to read get discouraged by the long, slow early chapters of the Fellowship of the Ring on print, then stop reading. Like those who would rather have the watered-down <I>Magnificent Seven</I> over the original Kurosawa's <I>Seven Samurai</I> because they couldn't sit through an hour of development with no action. Yet in the end, those with the courage and the smarts to sit through benefit more, and get the treasure. The same is true for those who not only read through the LotR, but explores the Silmarillion and the other books. To test this, try imagining The Battle of Gettysburg made as an action movie. Give it more explosions, give it more hand-to-hand fights, make it more like Braveheart, but ultimately value is lost. Truth is lost.<P>It compromises artistry because, inspite of the beautiful and lush sets (which I still love), it could have been more beautiful. Not understandable to most, to be sure, but more beautiful, on more than just the visual level. I was amazed, as were most of you, to be sure, by the accuracy of Helm's Deep and Isengard in the movie. Well and good. But what about Dunharrow? What about Aglarond? What about Mirrormere? Too many beautiful things were left out.<P>Yet, when all is said and done, I must agree with reality. To portray a made-up world to look real needs resources. Resources no one was willing to provide at first because they thought that the LotR-as-movie would conk out like most fantasy-related movies to date (there was no Harry Potter yet, so there was no precedent). So even though I know that storywise, scriptwise, and screenplay-wise LotR could have been done justice, the sets would not have. One avenue is left open, the avenue that was tried once before but is reviled because it failed: animation. Not Disneyfied, Hollywood, cutesy animation, but Anime. Not the Sailormoon/Pokemon anime, but anime like that of the <I>Record of Lodoss War</I> or the <I>Hakkenden</I>. And a series can take as long as it must.<P>Well, so much for what should have been a short post; it is past midnight here where I write. I apologize for my long-windedness, but as I said, it touches my heart and I had been writing from the top of my head and straight from the heart. I may edit this post later to clean it up.<P><B>Littlemanpoet:</B> I'm sorry for not replying yet to your PM. I didn't intend this to be very long to begin with, either.<P><B>P.S.</B> It is interesting to note that even the watered-down version of the TTT was still too deep for some of my friends and I have had to explain the <I>real</I> story ultimately, which made more sense to them and gave them more respect for all the characters. Those others amongst them who were not interested in the <I>real story</I> saw TTT as just the latest cool movie: a fad.<P>To we really want to cater to them?<P>Again, I apologize for anyone I may have been offended.<P><I>Pax</I><p>[ January 20, 2003: Message edited by: Gryphon Hall ]

[Blue Elf]

Regarding the very first long comment especially;<P>I thought I was the only one in the world who didn't LOVE TTT. I thought they had mangled Faramir, the battle of Helm's Deep was much too long, and the whole Aragorn and Warg thing was stupid (except that they related Arwen to a horse).<P>My favorite character is Gollum (actually, my friends and teacher call me Gollum, so I'm pretty obsessed), and for me, he was a dissapointment, prob'ly because I always pitied him, and never pictured him so laughable and....dog like...frankly. But he came out good enough for the audiences, everyone pictures him differently.<P>I am so pleased to find out though that I am not the only person who doesn't LOVE TTT. My friends where telling me I was over critical, so i said I'd judge it as a movie then, not as a book to movie. As a movie, it was still not good. Since Helm's Deep was a good chunk of the movie, the battle scenes were very important, you'd think they'd be shot well. Only the crane shots were good, and everything else, I sat there wondering who was killing who, and what in the world was going on.<P>When I went with my friend, though, we had a lot of fun with commentary, and turned the whole movie funny. After a few times, all that extra drama is just plain funny!!<P>And I like the scene with the Black rider and Frodo in Osgiliath, but that's just cause I put words into the Nazgul's mouth, and because I want a pet thing-that-Nazgul-ride.

[dunadan_aragorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I want a pet thing-that-Nazgul-ride. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Fell Beast.

[Tar-Palantir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> The points I addressed were ones in which he painted with too broad a stroke. Like his comments about Helm's Deep vs. Cleansing of Isengard, <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>I must point out that H. had been researching Tolkien's letters, and was using Tolkien's words in this regard; hence, to argue against choosing to include the Cleansing of Isengard and exclude the battle of Helm's Deep is to argue against Tolkien.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That was my point if you had read it more carefully. PJ did NOT exclude the Cleansing of Isengard as your first post intimated, so the original comment was misleading.<P>I am not a film major and so cannot argue screenplays. I do know that a screenplay is a finished product, polished. That these novels are not, polished for screen that is. I should qualify that by saying that if you want a 100 hour film maybe it is. Even then changes would have to made regarding dialogue to get all the details across, unless you could put up with narration, which in large quantity is always an intrusion.

[Lush]

As much as I "feel yer pain," dearest littleman, I the very title of this thread over-dramatic, nevermind the content. <P>Some of you people ought to develop a bit of a sense of humour about these things. I can only imagine how far <I>gone</I> I would be if I reacted in the same fashion every time that Hollywood adapted a beloved Russian classic to suit a popcorn-chewing public.<P>As for the suggestion that Ridley Scott would have done a better job on the LOTR films, I don't know whether to snort in derision or start weeping for such a misinformed congregation of members. You think Peter Jackson's dialogue is cheesy? Have you <I>seen</I> "Gladiator"? There wasn't even half a script to that movie. Russell Crowe was making up his own lines, and I'm not even going to go into "Black Hawk Down," (Not a bad film actually, but how can you envision a director of such a film helimg a project such as LOTR?) or that other cinemtaic gem known as "Hannibal." <P>Ridley Scott has made some great contributions in the past, but frankly, his latest efforts are starting to suggest to me that he is senile. <P>And I am sorry, but it makes my skin crawl to read about how other people, Jackson included, have "sold out." You can question Jackson's artistic choices all you want, I'll even join you on that one, but this righteous attitude toward a freaking movie director is just beyond me. <P>What? He was supposed to make these films without major studio support? Who was going to support him then? All of you guys? Alright, let's go, let's pull out our pocketbooks and finance a "real" version of LOTR, the way it "should" have been done, and let's try not to kill each other over whether or not the Balrog ought to have wings while we're at it.

[Aratlithiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Some of you people ought to develop a bit of a sense of humour about these things. I can only imagine how far gone I would be if I reacted in the same fashion every time that Hollywood adapted a beloved Russian classic to suit a popcorn-chewing public. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is what I was talking about. Why can't someone who is not entirely happy with this movie express an opinion (in a thread expressly begun for this purpose) without risking derision?

[davem]

Don't want to get into the main theme of this thread, agreeing (sadly) with the negative comments regarding the movie. Basically, Christopher Tolkien was right, & the book is unfilmable. You can't put the book on screen. But you can make a better job than this. As far as another director is concerned? No, Not Ridley Scott. But for any one who hasn't seen it, I'd recomend Christophe Gans' Brotherhood of the Wolf. What he could have done with LotR!

[littlemanpoet]

<B>Tar Palantir:</B><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PJ did NOT exclude the Cleansing of Isengard as your first post intimated, so the original comment was misleading.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ah. Sorry to further confuse. I nor H. (I am quite certain) had any intention of intimating that the Cleansing of Isengard was discluded from the movie. Clearly, it is there.<P><B>Lush:</B> It's always great to get your pov on things. Colorful analogies galore. Please, however, do allow us with a slightly more muted sense of humor (at times) to express seriously held opinions, whether we like Jackson or Scott or Spielberg (who's aliens are really elves in disguise, didja ever notice?).<P><B>Gryphon Hall:</B> Considering how long it took for me to answer your PM, I wasn't in doubt. <P>I found your analogy to the Battle of Gettysburg particularly revealing. Tolkien meant his history to be appreciated as real (although feigned) history.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Lush, you are the feelgood saviour of this site, and I have yet to disagree with you.<P>I hate the term "sell-out". It's so vague and half the people who use the term don't even understand it. I sure as hell don't understand it.<P>Now, littlemanpoet, I am not suggesting that you're brother does not understand it. However, I would like to hear your definition of what a sell-out is. (Please don't slate me if you have already listed one which I have missed!)<P>To me, the term sell-out is used by teenie-metallers who get annoyed everytime their favourite band gets into the Top 40. And I think they're really pathetic. So guys, don't let me think that you're pathetic and give me a good definition of a "sell out"<P>Thanks.

[Tar-Palantir]

A sell-out according to Websters is a "betrayal". In the common, comtemporary usage I believe it means to compromise the artistic or creative vein of an endeavour for the purpose of making money or becoming popular. If a band sells out, it can be simply writing one or two "catchy" tunes to get some airplay, an easy way to get people interested in your record.<P>Perhaps Henneth Annun/Osgiliath is one of PJ's "catchy" tunes, something the tone deaf can hum along to....

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

"Yeah, we just wanted to write a ballad, y'know? We call it 'Osgiliath'. We think it compliments our other ballad that was on our last album, 'Arwen'."<P>I don't exactly feel betrayed by Jackson. I didn't expect too much to start with so that left me to be very happy with the end-product.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The changes Jackson made to the story from book to film, resulted in the film being unworthy of the book Tolkien wrote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hmm, I see what you're getting at. It probably is, in the sense that Tolkien gave us one of the all time greats of literature while, at the same time, telling a darn good story that is accessible to more than just your average literary scholar. The films are just fantasy/action films commercially made for the mass film-going public (among which I include myself).<P>But this is just was I was trying to get at. I agree with almost everything that Gryphon Hall says. There is scope in the books to make an absolutely wondrous film. But that is an ideal. In reality, there had to be a compromise - either on the storyline/emphasis (more action/less dialogue etc) or on the visualisation. And that is what "sell out" means - it means compromising values for the commercial realities. Like "alternative" comedians who go mainstream and end up doing adverts for banks or West End shows with Andrew Lloyd-Webber, because that puts more bread on the table than "alternative" comedy. They are criticised, but I can understand why they do it.<P>So, no, the films most certainly do not do the books that JRRT wrote full justice. But it is difficult to imagine how, in the real world, any film ever could. (I take Gryph's point about "anime", although I actually think that this would be far better suited to the Silmarillion.)<P>In my view, the films are great fantasy/action films, marginally blighted by a few holes in the plot and some rather unfortunate editing errors. That is all they are. Nothing more. And that for me is not a problem. If people who watch the film and enjoy it choose not to read the books, then than that is their loss. If they do read the books and love them, then so much the better.<P>That is my view, and I can understand why others feel diiferent. It is not a question of shame. I am unabashedly unashamed of enjoying the films. We are all different. But, what we do have in common is our love for the books, the cultural value of which clearly and considerably outeweighs that of the films. <p>[ January 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Aratlithiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> By the way, it probably was me next to you in the theater, I thought it was dark enough for me to slip by unnoticed... I had no idea such judgemental eyes were upon me ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Bwa ha ha ha! The Shadow is EVERYWHERE!!

[Gryphon Hall]

Still busy; still nothing personal. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ridley Scott has made some great contributions in the past, but frankly, his latest efforts are starting to suggest to me that he is senile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Or maybe, he is selling out, too. Whatyathink? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> So guys, don't let me think that you're pathetic and give me a good definition of a "sell out" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And that is what "sell out" means - it means compromising values for the commercial realities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>More literally, it also means doing something other than what one should, ought or even want to be doing for the sake of money. So sometimes it can be betrayal (like when Judas told Jesus' enemies where to find him alone for thirty pieces of silver) to something like 'bribery' ('Look, son, I'll give you a penny if you stop making a racket, ok?'). So when people say that PJ 'sold out' it doesn't necessarily mean betrayal (though some feel betrayed).<P>Let me just repeat what I said before: some people think that it is okay to change the LotR for film because it is <I>just</I> fiction, it is not real. If we can change history to make the screenplay more fabuluous and get an Oscar nomination, why not the mere imaginings of just one man? Who says that Tolkien has the monopoly of how the history of the War of the Ring <I>really</I> happened? FYI: sarcasm, but not personal, 'kay.<P>It still boils down to how people see integrity (I am not talking about the virtue, but the adjective; let's be clear about that) and respect for authorial intent.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> . . . this would be far better suited to the Silmarillion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think so, too. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In my view, the films are great fantasy/action films, marginally blighted by a few holes in the plot and some rather unfortunate editing errors. That is all they are. Nothing more. And that for me is not a problem. If people who watch the film and enjoy it choose not to read the books, then than that is their loss. If they do read the books and love them, then so much the better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with you on this as well as well. <P>I did enjoy watching the films as well, was even moved to tears very often, and loved the way they were portraying Gimli. If I never read the books, this would have been great. I also still think that they are greater than any of the films of the same genre that were EVER made.<P>Still, some of it is inexcusable. I mean, was it really artistically necessary, for instance, to make Faramir less noble than Boromir? Theoden mad at Gondor? Yes, a great film that I enjoyed inspite of the dire warnings posted on the Barrowdowns about it being a total travesty. A beautiful film.<P>BUT STILL NOT TOLKIEN.