Was Christopher Tolkien right?

[Child of the 7th Age]

I have just returned from seeing TTT, and, although I enjoyed it, I was a tad disappointed. Apparently, I'm not the only one. Take a look in the "overall impression thread" within the Movies forum (but beware of spoilers). Some folk were extremely pleased, while others were vehemently unhappy. I'm somewhere in the middle, but was definitely expecting a film with more soul in it.

But I wanted to raise a question that goes far beyond PJ, and this particular movie. On several occasions, we have heard Christopher Tolkien say that the Lord of the Rings can never be successfully adapted to film. When I first heard this, I dismissed it, and thought it was sour grapes since the family is not reaping any direct financial reward from the film (just an indirect reward from the sale of the books).

But as I walked away from the theater this afternoon, I began to wonder if Christopher was right. The book is marvelously complex. It not only has action and suspense, but poetry and insights on human behavior that reach down to the insides of your heart. We can talk endlessly about the Christian influences on the author's ideas or the epic source material that JRRT loved. This list of topics could go on and on (as it generally does on the Downs).

The question is this--Can a book become so rich and complex that it can never be successfully adapted to the format of a movie, which must necessarily simplify? And, if so, does LotR fall into this category, with any film adaptation inevitably falling short, and failing to capture the richness of Middle-earth?

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Galorme]

That is a very good question. I don't think that any film can stay perfectly close to a book, unless you were to take the book as a script. Maybe if every character in the movie had used all the lines from LoTRs, and everything was followed to the letter, you would have

a) A film as good as the book
b) A very, very long film.

So yeah it could be done, but not in a format that would be releasable in a cinema. Maybe as a series of hour-long episodes (like 100 of them, one a week for two years).

What I do think is possible is to make movies that are good based on the book. They do not have to be as good as the book, but they can be good films. And I think what PJ has made is basically a set of good movies, but the books set something so great that they cannot really be made up to.

[TolkienGurl]

When it comes to any film based on a book, there definitely is a need for simplication. In my mind, LotR will never be successfully adapted to film. The beauty of Tolkien's life work is not in seeing which is what film is all about. It is in imagination and thought.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[Legolas]

I do think it's possible.

I doubt anyone will ever put the effort and money into it though.

[Diamond18]

The thing I just realized today is that the parallel journeys of Frodo/Sam Merry/Pippin Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli are really hard to mesh in a movie format. Most movies will have a subplot or two that they may cut to, but none to this extent.

I assumed when reading the book that a movie would have to make more immediate cuts instead of the way it runs in the book, but I'm afraid that turns out to be a disadvantage.

Maybe it's just too hard to chronicle all these different characters with the depth they deserve the way movies are made today. As hard as FotR seemed to be to make into a movie, it may be a piece of cake compared to TTT and RotK, when all these main characters are split up. Could you make a movie in which you dwelled on one set of adventures at length and then go back in time and cover something else that was going on at the same time? It would help the flow of each individual story, but perhaps that only works in a book. No one has ever tried it in the movies, so we don't really know.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!
I haven't seen TTT as yet but i'll be seeing it tomorrow however it was a good sign that you were a little dissapointed because that means that you use your wonderful imagination. that is the greatest thing you have when it comes to reading....Tolkein himself used the very own imaginative realms of his brain and created a magical world that is so valid in todays world. i believe tolkein wanted his readers to use their imagination too, afterall he believed a great deal in the atr of creativity.....it usually feels great to just read aloud some passages from his books and act them out!! all i can do is Congratulate you on your vivid sense of imagination as i believe you do have alot!!

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, I must go to Movies to rant on my situation getting to see them. I must laud the film, for bringing me back to Tolkien, not that I was lost, but in the 1980s, I slowed down and stopped re-reading. I liked UT lots, but wasn't sure about HoME. But then the hype, reading it to my daughter, wasti.. (hmm..) spending time here, and plowing through HoMe.

But think of the LoTR: is it a great book? Beyond Barrow-downers and so forth, I've heard of folks who've read the book and at best found them O.K.! I know, it just doesn't seem possible.

But I imagine book reviewers and literaturists, and the like would have plenty to say that would merely put LoTR down as competent novel-writing, or premiere (sniff) fantasy, but not great literature. Yada, yada, yada. But that would all miss the point. The genius of the LoTR goes much deeper than even the written word, or being a book. It's molded peoples souls, changed their Weltanshaunung, and done much more. I know many adherents are also great lovers (if not on the same level) of other fantasy, as well as science fiction. But not really all. I for one have read some but really very little; I like Star Wars, etc. So, Tolkien, while the inspiration of the Fantasy genre, was not in his view written to be good Fantasy, but rather real myth & legend, if that oxymoron is properly understood.

Films have their own challenges, whether these works of Peter Jackson's are great in the critic's eye or will go down in time like other immortal films will have nothing to do with the books. But it may be as good an adaption of the books as possible. But it should be judged only by the measure of other films, irrespective of the source of its content.

The only adaption that might really be successful for the son of the author, or for any of us (even if we like the current films) would be forty hours of at times dull footage with the casting of real immortals to play certain parts.

You really cannot make such a successful film that could be shown for an audience, which must be assumed not to have read the books, or perhaps any books. Maybe someday technology and what not will allow something of a mere 15-20 hours to be done, for which the script is predicated on everyone having recent read the books two or three times, but don't count on it.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[Airehiriel]

I agree with the belief that no one could make that perfect film. Even if you could take the book and use it as the script, it still wouldn't be quiet right. I think it has to do with the preconcieved notions we are all carrying around about how things should look, how characters should act, even down to the particular way a line should be said. And the difficult thing is, none of us carry the exact same notion. So while I may love every second of it, another would complain that Sam didn't say that one line quiet right, Lothlorien didn't have quiet the rightfeel, Aragorn didn't walk quiet right...and so on and so on.
Christopher would have his own set of notions as well, they, perhaps, being closest to what JRRT really meant. But I think even if Tolkien himself had turned the whole thing into movies, we might sit back and scratch our head, thinking, "THAT'S not what I pictured."
There never will be that perfection, there never can be. So we all have to either sit back and enjoy or simply endure the ride we are taken for by someone else's imagination.

[Lush]

I have to disagree with Chris Tolkien here, Child, because I believe that movies and books must use different means of impacting the viewer/reader, as well as to make a commercially viable venture.

Basically, what makes a book successful is not necessarily what makes a movie succesful.

And, Legalos is right, nobody will put in the money and effort to make the kind of version to satisfy the Tolkien estate, as well as the many demands of the many hard-nosed readers, because it would end up costing half a billion, lasting twenty hours, and flopping spectacularly at the box office-installments or no installments.

Does that necessarily mean that a book should be "left alone"? Nope, I still think that the pros outweigh the cons. There is still a great story in there that audiences across the world should be able to enjoy.

There were other great "un-filmable" books out there, whose cinematic interpreations have yielded some interesting (not necessarily good) results. "Lolita" comes to mind. Was Nabokov's literary genius translated on-screen by Kubrick? Uh, no. But we still ended up with a cool, cool movie. I think it was worth it.

[lindil]

I will give PJ full and total credit for capturing the 'feel' of M-E most of the time.

And many of the characters are amazing in FotR especially.

If he had stuck to the book more [ only deletions no changes] it would have been really amazing and i prob would have watched it 20 times on my DVD player instead of 3 or so.

So yes it can be done very well, not perfectly. or at least the odds of doing it perfectly are slim,.

That would mean: perfect casting, [PJ gets an B+ in my book] perfect scenery and background [ he gets an A] perfect storyline [ he gets a B in FotR and a Cin TT] and perfect effects and directing and stellar performances.

There are so many nuances that the odds are really against anyone making a movie as good as the book.

What PJ could now do [ and still make buku$ is to go back an film the barrow downs, Bombadil, Gildor etc, and thenm reinsert all of these, and then eliminate the easily changed discrepancies [ like Arwen = Glorfindel].

PJ came very close with the hardest parts, the feel of it all, largely I think because he got Howe and Lee to do the sets and such instead of relying onm people with a fraction of the talent and love for the books.

[Kuruharan]

I think that a degree of condensation of the story could be done and a series of movies could still be true to the books.

What gets me is some of the alterations in the movie. Most of them struck me as a little...odd. Aside from the fact that you want more screen time of the Elves, why in the world would you...well, anyway. (I mean Elves! BAH! We needed more screen time of Dwarves! That's what we needed! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

I think that PJ could have done a better job if he had kept more to the tone and character (or in some cases, characters) of the books. He clearly could not include everything.

I also think that the success (looked at from the perspective of staying true to the book) of a film depends on the personality of the individual making it. Not to mention the differing goals of a author and a film-maker.

Example: (This may be clouded by personal opinion) I believe that Tolkien would have objected strongly to Bombadil's unfortunate axing from the film. Tom is (partially) a statement on Tolkien's view of power, an important theme in the Trilogy. PJ canned that part in order to get the plot moving.

In this particular instance there was a difference between the goals of the writer and the goals of the director. The trueness to the books suffered for it.

However, that's just an example. I still manage to believe that a truer version could be out there. Alas, I'm not likely to see it.

[Thingol1000]

So yeah it could be done, but not in a format that would be releasable in a cinema. Maybe as a series of hour-long episodes (like 100 of them, one a week for two years).

That pretty much sums it up. PJ made some damm good movies. But a comercial success ($, thats why they make movies, remember?)is not possible for LOTR if made with a purist in mind.

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure I would accept Christopher Tolkien's criterion, Child, that LOTR is too complex and rich a work to be translated to screen.

After all, we have seen some plausible or at least relatively successful adaptations of those very solid paperweight tomes, the nineteenth century novels of realism. And the movie Tom Jones was wildly successful at capturing the boisterous tone and actions of Henry Fielding's novel, certainly not one any shorter than Tolkien's.

I think the question is really one of audience. Peter Jackson has conceived of his audience as one fed by film rather than by book, particularly the swashbuckling Star Wars adventures, and so Lucas' films are touchstones by which PJ connects with audiences today.

There are, of course, other issues involved in recognizing the differences between novel and film, but certainly this concept of audience stands out to me as one reason why PJ calls down upon himself the wrath of the Tolkien readers, despite the accomplishments of the films.

Bethberry

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[TolkienGurl]

My problem is that producers, directors, and screenwriters (or whoever) unnecessarily change concepts, characters (ahem, Faramir), etc. That's why they will never make 'the perfect film.' Besides, perfection is unattainable, right? Right!

[Arwen Imladris]

Well, I think that you can have a good movie, even when it is based on the books. It is very rare though, to have a movie that is exactly the same as the books. Books allow each individual person to have a different picture in their mind, movies don't. In LOTR, the movies are very good, but they are different than the books. Which one is better? I don't know, it is like comparing apples and orages. I personally like apples better, but that doesn't mean that oranges aren't as good.

[Gralin Silverspear]

I haven't seen TT, but FoTR was good. I wish, though, that they would have kept Tom Bombadil. The worst part was that the scene at Lothlorien was almost completely skipped!

[greyhavener]

I think the books will always be better than any movie. So much that happens to each of the characters is interior in thought and motivation and personal growth. So much that makes the story so rich is in the details and layering of history and poetry and relationships. Those sorts of things do not translate well to screen.

I think that Peter Jackson has done as well as anyone could in creating a visual depiction of Middle Earth.

The casting has been remarkable. The translation of the personality of most of the characters has been amazing. I have real problems with Faramir. I think Treebeard and Theoden deserved better. The extended version of FotR did Galadriel justice but the theatre version did not. I also think Merry and Pippin were hardly distinguishable in FotR though I think they are emerge more as individuals in TTT.

I think Jackson did okay with editing the storyline for time. I simply don't see the point in changing the storyline. If you have a great story to start with why not remain true to it? That alone would have made the movies almost as good as the books.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thanks so much to everyone who has responded to this question. There are many good ideas here, too many for me to comment on all of them, but let me point to just a few.

So much that makes the story so rich is in the details and layering of history and poetry and relationships. Those sorts of things do not translate well to screen

Greyhavener, I totally agree. In my heart of hearts, I have begun to think that CT is right. Certain things transfer more easily to cinema than others. To me JRRT and his writings are rich with layer upon layer of meaning, and that is just not easy to transfer to the medium of film.

PJ came very close with the hardest parts, the feel of it all, largely I think because he got Howe and Lee to do the sets and such instead of relying onm people with a fraction of the talent and love for the books.

Yes, I ended up going to TTT several times the weekend because each member of my family elected to drag me along when they went! And I finally decided that the right way to watch this movie was to plug my ears, and focus instead on the visual feast in front of me. Once I did that, the movie came as close to Middle-earth as I am likely to get on this planet.

I think the question is really one of audience. Peter Jackson has conceived of his audience as one fed by film rather than by book, particularly the swashbuckling Star Wars adventures, and so Lucas' films are touchstones by which PJ connects with audiences today.

Bethberry--This is an interesting point, although I'm not sure if I agree with your most optomistic overall assessment. But I think you make a good point that this particular adaptation was heavily influenced by PJ's conception of his audience as coming to him via Star Wars. In commercial terms, he is undoubtedly right.

I would add just one more point. The background of the filmaker also plays a critical role. I used to get very frustrated every time I saw Frodo the "victim" come on screen. Now I keep reminding myself that this director has prior background in horror films. So we are actually looking at characters like Frodo and Theoden through the eyes of someone who sees them through that particular prism.

sharon

[Nenya]

A good question, as always, Child.

I strongly think that a good book can be transformed to a good movie.

Can a book become so rich and complex that it can never be successfully adapted to the format of a movie, which must necessarily simplify?

Yes, when filming a movie about a book, some things a bound to be lost. You can never have that kind of depth in charcters as you can in books, or complexity of storyline, or even the poetical language. But remeber that books and movies are two different kinds of artforms, not meant to be copying each other. I think that losing all those things while making a book-based movie doesn't make the movie bad or unfilmable one. For me the most important thing is to capture the essence of the books, the thing that the author wanted to say, and display it with the best cinematographic means. And while movies may not have the same strongnesses as books, they sertainly have their own ones.
What I'm trying to say, is: a movie can be as good as the book it is based on, just in a different kind of way.

My problem is that producers, directors, and screenwriters (or whoever) unnecessarily change concepts, characters (ahem, Faramir), etc. That's why they will never make 'the perfect film.

But what is the perfect film? Does staying compleately true to a book make the film excellent? Hardly. Just look at Harry Potter 1. And why should the perfect LotR-movies be meant for only die-hard fans?
I totally agree with you, lindil, about the "feel" of ME, the most important thing in my humble opinion. Yes, there are things I don't like, but thank god the feel is there.

[Bêthberry]

I haven't seen anything else Jackson has done, Child. Should I? That he comes out of the horror sub-genre is interesting. I wonder what that foretells about ROTK, if anything.

My optimism in the face of Christopher Tolkien's pessimism derives from my respect for artists, from my knowledge that there are those who speak for beauty and imagination. Some film-makers have that gift.

One difficulty with LOTR is that so many different characters play significant parts in the defeat, that they all must be developed adequately for their role to be meaningful. I shudder to see a ROTK which will play out much like Return of the Jedi, with each plotline inching closer to resolution but waiting for Gollem's climactic fall into the electric depths. I want to see Frodo's moral growth given adequate, due weight. If TTT gives any sign, I fear we will not.

Bethberry

[Bill Ferny]

I suppose if you take your question as can one imitate a book perfectly on screen, then no, that would be impossible. Can someone imitate a book adequately on screen to still be considered worthy of bearing the same title? I think there are enough examples out there that have. The problem with LotR and Christopher Tolkien resides in the fact that someone like Mr. Tolkien couldn’t seriously, after all his work and research and dedication, conceive of a film adaptation adequate enough to capture all he knows of Middle-Earth. A quick look at the movies section bears this out in regard to many Barrow Downers. Simply put, we, like Christopher Tolkien, know too much about Middle-Earth for the likes of Peter Jackson.

So, what can we do? Well, first, the movie in its own right was pretty darn good, especially for its visual potrayal. What I did was suspend all my knowledge of Middle-Earth and Tolkienology, and sat there and enjoyed a good story, albeit familiar, but not the same.

[Cúdae]

Part of the problem of making a complex book into a film is the subconscious symbolism, suggestions, and mind-triggers that an author uses either knowing it or not. Part of the reason why the Lord of the Rings is so complex are the suggestions that Tolkien wrote (he might not even have known he was doing it) that say to your subconscious mind, "Hey, this is human nature, that's why it makes sense, that's why this evil versus good thing isn't just evil versus good." When someone wants to make a complex book into a film, he has to find the subconscious suggestions and translate them from the word-imagery of the author into the visual imagery necessary in film. Sometimes, the symbolism and suggestions are missed or are shifted around or are over-emphasized. An example of the shifting around may be Legolas's moment of despair. That was shifted from everyone in the book to him directly to bring it out. An example of over-emphasizing would be Faramir. His want for the Ring was brought out in clarity that was a little too clear.

In answer to the actual question... My own opinion would be that anything is possible. Whether it is realistic is another story.

[tangerine]

I think the film was very well done, considering. probably the only time that a film can be as good as the book is when the book is being written at the same time that the film is being made, like Arthuer C. Clarke did for 2001: a space odyssey.
like it was said earlier, we know too much about LotR. Last year I was glued to the screen during FotR. This year I was picking the whole thing apart while I was watching it:
'Wasn't Aragorn's horse GREY? And Arod is supposed to be red!'
'Why is Shadowfax white? What's with this slow-motion entrance?'
'They did not just send ELVES to Helm's Deep. No.' (Actually, they had built up to that quite nicely, but come ON!)

And so on. And so on. you all know what I mean. I liked the movie, but it was fairly warped, in my own personal opinion.
But what about the person who has had their head under a rock for the past year and has still never picked up the book? They would be watching it, going "COOL." If they happened to pick up the book later, they might notice some differences, but it wouldn't matter as much. Besides, the movie was actually quite accurate on the little details (except for the above mentioned), and I was, on the most part, impressed. They managed to fit in whole monologues from the book into the movie, like Sam's talk about being put into songs. (I did notice that alot of these monologues were moved to different places in the plot, however.)
PJ did take a bit overmuch creative license than most of us would like with the plot in general, but he was just trying to make make it a bit more dramatic on-screen. But he did a very good job with what he didn't change, and I suppose the other parts were alright too (I was getting MAD though when they had Faramir not being able to make up his mind-GRRRR)

[Nenya]

PLEASE let's not turn this thread to a yet another "I hate TTT - I love TTT" -battle...! No offense, Tangerine.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Nenya,

I agree. I am posing this question in the abstract rather than exlicitly tying it into PJ. I understand folks are bound to use some things from TTT for examples.

What I'm asking is this: Can anyone do this successfully? This is considerably wider that the question of whether PJ was successful in his two films.

sharon

Perhaps this ight be better adapted as a miniseries? The small screen could create weekly episodes that delve further indepth into the complexities of Tolkein's character's interactions. Many wonderful stories have been broken down into smaller segments for television. Might this one not also have that possibility? We need to not thumb our noses at the telelvision format. It can reach millions and allow a greater flexibility to develop the rest of the characters.

[Bruce MacCulloch]

Perhaps this ight be better adapted as a miniseries?

I think that this is an excellent idea. Take a look at Frank Herbert's Dune, for example. While the movie was great, it left out and changed too much. The recent miniseries, however, managed to capture the much more of the characters and story and left much less unexplained.

[Lush]

A miniseries though will not have the same scope and budget though.

Per Bethberry's question:

I haven't seen anything else Jackson has done, Child. Should I?

Yes. Peter Jackson's "Heavenly Creatures" is a wonderful, twisted, bizarre sort of movie. You may not necessarily enjoy it, but you will not easily forget it.

In the overall context of the thread, I think that everyone answers Child's question for themselves. For me, the case on Peter Jackson is pretty much closed; as in, yes, his adaptation satisfies me so far.

As for Christopher Tolkien, well, he is biased. There's nothing wrong with that, but we ought to keep that in mind.

[Nenya]

A miniseries...? Yes, that would be nice to see also. (ok, I would love to see practically anything based on LotR. Err, except that Bakshi-cartoon.) But I still much prefer the story being filmed to a movie. Let's face it, television just hasn't got that grandieur that Middle Earth deserves. For me, walking into a movie theater to see a Lotr-movie is almost like walking into ME itself. And I don't think I could feel like that just by sitting on a couch watching an episode of a weekly series.

And Bethberry, you definetly should see Heavenly Creatures, as Lush recommended. Kate Winslet is excellent (as usual), and the whole movie is just wonderful.

[ December 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nenya ]

[Bêthberry]

Thanks, Lush (and Nenya). I'll look for Heavenly Creatures.

Child, I've found a most interesting quotation from Shippey which could go far towards explaining why Tolkien could not be adapted to film as easily as other tomes. (I have no problem with deconstructing my own argument--or at least part of it. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

What it [the plot of LOTR] does is make each of the characters feel lonely and isolated, while in the broader view you can see that everyone's story is a part of everyone else's: much more like reality than the plot of a conventional novel. It works laterally as well as linearly.

HerenIstarion provided the link to an interview with Tom Shippey, which I have shamelessly copied.

Bethberry

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry,

The quotation you take from Shippey is indeed of interest. Now, look at the sentence just before yours, which I also think may shed some light on this question of successful adaptation:

The Lord of the Rings is very tightly controlled, with multiple plots integrated by a day-to-day chronology, which you really need to follow.

The preservation of the chronology would also be impossible in the standard cinema format.

I do think PJ's visual interpretation of Middle-earth is absolutely stunning and, except for certain minor details, very close to the spirit of JRRT (even if it is filmed in New Zeeland!). Lindil has made this point before and credited much of this success to the minds and eyes of Howe and Lee. There are points in the film where I just want to keep the physical picture and blank out PJ's particular dialogue and substitute the words of the book. I am not sure, however, that even this would get around the problem that Shippey refers to in his interview.

Lush--

I agree that the miniseries would not have the same budget or scope. For this reason, it would probably not be as visually true to the spirit of Middle-earth as PJ's own adaptation.

A good miniseries might, however, hit closer to the mark with dialogue and character development.

That means you gain in one area and lose in another.

I hate to say this, but maybe this question truly boils down to that elusive matter of 'expectations'. Some readers with more realistic expectations indeed find that PJ has produced a successful adaptation. Others, with a stricter set of standards (some might even say 'unreasonable'), will never be satisfied because there will always be something not quite right!

sharon

[Lush]

there will always be something not quite right!

Well, that is true of most of our endeavors under the sun. I think I have made my peace with imperfection. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[doug*platypus]

7Child, I thank you for opening up an excellent thread, or most probably re-opening. First of all I'd have to say that by making the statement:

a movie, which must necessarily simplify?

You've already decided the argument, at least from your point of view. If your original assumption is flawed, then there is little hope for anything which comes afterwards. Why must a movie necessarily simplify? I believe that the perfect LOTR movie can be made, but not in the current stagnant climate where filmmakers are so strictly bound. Even by making his films three hours long, PJ is pushing at the boundaries of film company practice. To do justice to Tolkien's work would take three very long movies.

I am also a great believer in the imagination of everyone here. If you didn't have an active imagination, you wouldn't be so drawn to Tolkien. And if the world did not have people with imagination, Arts and Science wouldn't have gotten very far. But not many of you seem to be able to imagine a perect LOTR film, and I can't understand why not! Tolkien's writing was very descriptive, in a style that would lend itself well to visual format. In fact, in this respect a film would be greatly superior to a book, able to show the background, details such as carved buildings, and the characters themselves all at once as they should be, and not treated piecemeal in separate paragraphs. True, there are a lot of cases in LOTR where we have to read characters' thoughts, but there are many devices to overcome this. Shakespeare used a lot of monologues. A lot of modern movies don't, but if you don't choose to conform to this then LOTR can definitely translate flawlessly to the screen. A narrator could be used. And actors themselves bring to life the emotions that their characters are described as feeling.

Even a tricky line such as the one where Gollum is compared to an old Hobbit in Cirith Ungol is easily dealt with. He can visually be shown to look similar, maybe even by showing a similar shot of Bilbo earlier on in the movie, at Rivendell. Movies also have the advantage of flashbacks, for example when Strider is telling the tale of Beren and Luthien.

I think the appeal for books is in the words themselves, in pleasing structure and rhythm of sentences. Tolkien was a master of this in my opinion. It's not just what he's writing about that is enjoyable, but the way he is writing about it, the exact words and sentences he is using.

The major difficulty that PJ has encountered has been ruining peoples' misconceptions. While many things are described in detail and careful research can find the objective truth about them, a lot are open to interpretation. Look at the armour of the Easterlings, for example, I'm sure we all had different ideas of what that would be like. This problem only exists because JRRT is no longer among us. If he were alive today, he could simply be consulted at every point. As the creator of the books, anything he said would go, and any differing misconceptions people had would simply be wrong.

So, apart from the aesthetic qualities of the written words themselves, I don't think there's a book written that is too "rich and complex" to be translated faithfully into film. The ONLY two things stopping the perfect LOTR film are:

• 1. Having to conform to current movie standards.
• 2. The author is not alive to provide guidance.

[greyhavener]

I actually liked the movies, with some reservations and certainly some battered preconceptions. That said, I do not think there exists a medium at present that replaces the experience of reading this particular book. That is not true of all books.

I think a movie can be enjoyed as an interpretation in the way Shakespeare has been subject to interpretation by actors, directors, set artisans, etc. thoughout the years. We may see several people play Hamlet or Othello in a variety of settings and enjoy all of them on some level. We may read Shakespeare then read a modern retelling and enjoy both.

Seeing the movies has enhanced some things about the story for me. Reading it aloud changed the experience as well. Reading it at 40 was different than reading it at 16 or 25. It is a great story and I'm happy to see it made accessible to those who aren't up to reading the book.

[ December 31, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[VanimaEdhel]

I, personally, loved the movies. But the reason that I loved them as I did was because I went into the theaters prepared to not compare them in regards to the exact book, but more to see, firstly, whether the movies were good movies and, secondly, whether they kept the major themes that appeared in the books. And, within that criteria, the movies were amazing.

I think that, if a cast had about five years of free time to shoot a movie and the director spent about fifteen years beforehand setting up the script, sets, props, costumes, and everything else that goes into a movie, then they might be able to recreate the movies perfectly. Then, they would need to release it in three-hour episodes once a month for a few years, maybe, in order to get it all seen. So, basically, in other words, while it is technically possible to do such a thing, it will most certainly not happen, at least not within our lifetimes.

However, there is also the problem with physical appearance. Everyone has their own picture of what each location and character looks like, so no one will ever be satisfied with that. Look at how much debate there still is over Legolas's haircolor! There will never be anyone completely satisfied.

So, I guess that while the technology is present to make such a production work, there are too many variables and problems, preventing there to ever be a "perfect" movie.

[Lush]

This problem only exists because JRRT is no longer among us. If he were alive today, he could simply be consulted at every point.

Actually, I doubt that the absence of JRRT is a problem (I'm not saying I'm glad he's dead, you know what I mean?). Look at the Harry Potter films: the presence of JK Rowling is a problem in of itself (once again, I am not proposing that the filmmakers arrange an "accident." I want to read what happens next first!). The Potter books are not allowed to be "butchered" and the end result is dull.

This is a matter of taste, of course, but personally, I feel that the LOTR films have, so far, lived up to their full potential, whereas the two Harry Potter films lack the luster, magic, and oomph of Rowling's writing.

Peter Jackson has created big-budget "popcorn" pictures that are fun to watch; I suppose that a great deal of Tolkien readers were expecting something else. I wasn't. Not when I went to see "The Two Towers" anyway. I can understand Chris Tolkien's complaining, but he has a very personal involvement with the issue, and that makes a difference.

[Airedae]

Child,

This is a wonderful question to ask. I don't think theirs one answer to it though. You will receive so many different perspectives that maybe it would be impossible to really know the true answer. I can really only say what how i look at it. Hearing you say you were disappointed makes me want to tell you that I was too, somewhat, just alittle though....i left the theather to very quiet and very unsure about how i felt about what i had just saw. but a few days past and i finally let my mind rest. i had for days thought and thought about it. after having a cup of coffee and sitting down and reading two towers again, i realized that i am going to have to be two kinds of fan: A fan of the movies and a fan of the books. However, the books will always remain fond to me and nothing will ever take that away yet finally seeing the first two installments has moved me in a way that the books has too. frodo has been a very important character in my life, ive carried him in my heart since i was a child. i found him very early on and hes remained with me through all my hardships and happy times. seeing elizah wood play frodo has been a really interesting journey. though he is so young, i do see frodo in elizahs portrayal of him. scenes are different but hes still there. the way i deal with the changes is to know that the book frodo is still in my heart. hes never left and thats why i want to give elizah a chance to see this task through. we have to have faith...i hope that doesnt sound corny...i just wanted to say to you child, that i understand some disappointments in the movie. for me in general my most disappointments were with things that i was most fond of. everything cant be in the movie or like someone in their post said, the movies would be soooooo long. but i do think its okay to be upset with the movie and to be disappointed. but trust me, like fellowship, it gets better every time you see it again. i have seen two towers 4 times and i like it alittle more everytime i see it.

as for your question about christopher being right or wrong...i think maybe its somewhat impossible to bring the whole story to film. so many people are angry at peter jackson for doing the things he's done to the movies but look at it this way, had peter not took on these tacks, we would have never had any movies at all. not alot of people wanted to take on the material because it clearly is a wide spectrum of things that came from one amazing mans mind. in my opinion, only JRR tolkien himself could of captured the true story on film. its very hard to even begin to imagine how amazing a film would be if the actual writer could direct the film. i dont think peter jackson meant any harm to tolkien and i certainly agree with the person that said that tolkien wants us to use our imaginations. peter used his mind and made two great movies. but no i dont think its possible to capture the true story. thats the case for any movie though. tolkien himself would of had to be the one doing it. but peter jackson did a wonderful job and im proud of what he has accomplished. it must of been so hard but he has succeeded and bringing his imaginations, which i know tolkien inspired, to film. so my answer is yes and no i guess..hehe...thats a great question and i tend to ramble at trying to answer questions this good....lol..

[ January 01, 2003: Message edited by: Airedae ]

[doug*platypus]

...the two Harry Potter films lack the luster, magic, and oomph of Rowling's writing.

Very true, Lush, and I for one don't think it's inappropriate to bring Harry Potter up. In the Harry Potter films we see a good example of strict authorial control. And you're absolutely right, on a certain level the movie is not as enjoyable as the book. I'm eagerly awaiting the next book, but I don't really want to see even the second movie. But I think this is more because of the children acting in the movie than anything else. The children in the book are far more believable, it's really hard to find good actors so young. So my idea of the perfect movie from LOTR (or any book) being possible is pretty much located in an ideal world, which we don't live in. I think that realistically, at this point in time, it may not be possible.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Lush, I couldn't agree with you more.

If Tolkien were alive to micro-manage Peter Jackson's movie, it would not improve matters. It is quite obvious that Rowling in the Harry Potter films even went so far as to give line readings, specifically to the actors who played Vernon Dursley and Molly Weasley, with horrid results. I enjoyed both films, but the writer's presence has not been beneficial, no, no, no, not at all.

Art of any kind is a living thing, and you have to let it go and choose its own life so-to-speak, understanding the media in which you are working. A writer just doesn't understand film.

Even the question 'can a book like the Lord of the Rings be captured on film' misses the point. If one copies an oil painting into water color, one can make it look like a poor copy of the oil painting. But then you miss all the strengths and qualities of water color.

Man-of-the-Wold said it best: you can only judge the films in relation to other films.

One is not capturing the book, but creating a separate work in which the flavor and characteristics depicted in the book can be given play.

-Maril

PS: and on the subject of judging the films, I'd say the FOTR was brilliant as a movie and TTT was weak.

[Rimbaud]

The question is more truly constituted thus: what comprises 'a film'/'a movie'?

Some have argued that a book may be accurately represented on film, a viewpoint that I, with my customary thousand qualifiers, tend towards. This project however would be unlike any definition of 'film' propounded by Hollywood et al in the modern era. It would necessarily be very greatly long. It would need to contain numerous and probably distinct voice-overs and faintly laborious expository scenes.

An accurate translation onto film would not create a good piece of art, in my opinion, although I think it might be possible.

A book, or at least a good one, cannot be made into 'a film' however, as defined (as earlier described, it may be rendered onto film). A 'mini-series'...would have a better chance but no truly accurate rendering of a book onto film would be shown by any television network on this planet.

A screen-play can be good however and a good film made from a good screenplay can be good art.

Once one has ascertained that a good film cannot be made from a book, one asks - can a good screenplay be derived from a good book? Well, yes, and it has been done before and maybe it will be done again, but I consider this not to be either a translation or a rendering of the book. Any similarities are likely to be mainly superficial.

In short, I should have remained true to my beliefs, and not seen a film whose profits go to AOL Time Warner, a truly horrendous monster if there ever was one, especially not one with source material close to me. My naivete surprises me, but I'll allow I got a little carried away in my hatred of the film. My dislike should have nothing to do with the books, but be directed purely at the film's poorness as a screenplay and as a work of art.