A 'darker' Hobbit

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Again, you seem to impart JRRT with superhuman almost god-like qualities that no other single human could ever hope to match. If JRRT did not do it then no one can. Nonsense. There are many type of creativity and talent. Some is evidenced in writing of books, others in making of films. To say that one is "far more creative" and to use a phrase like "lesser minds" is simply silly.

JRRT himself felt that LOTR was not a filmable book. Other creative minds proved him wrong.

Well, first of all, as far as I'm concerned PJ's production was not a film of LotR. The depth, mood & 90% of the backstory were all sacrificed to sfx, gore & puerile jokes about dwarf tossing.

However, that aside, Tolkien was a greater writer than Jackson, Boyens & the other one. Tolkien knew his world better than them, & was a deal more insightful when it came to what works & what doesn't. Tolkien couldn't make a more 'realistic' (ie in the form of LotR) Hobbit work. And the reason for that is clear when you read Tolkien's attempt. This is not a matter of a 'better' writer being able to do what Tolkien couldn't. Its a matter of the nature of the story itself. TH is a fairy story, not an 'epic romance'. You can't make a fairy story into an epic romance & have it retain its essence & spirit. It becomes something else. When you read Tolkien's attempt at revising TH what you notice is how much is lost. However annoying or 'twee' you find the narrator you realise that he is necessary to TH - certainly at the start. Even little 'jokes' being removed (like the reference to the origin of Golf in the killing of Golfimbul are lost because they wouldn't fit the more 'serious' tone, but you miss them. As you read you're constantly aware of what's been lost. The revised version is not 'comfortable'.

[Sauron the White]

as far as I'm concerned

So then we are not discussing reality but only your perceptions on the skewed opinions which result from your perceptions. That makes it a whole lot easier to justify any position you may take.

You do not consider the Jackson LOTR films to be film versions of LOTR books. It seems the rest of the world has spoken on this issue --- and has spoken rather loudly.

Reminds me a bit of the old story about the proud mother who watched as her son marched by woefully out of step in a parade proclaiming loudly "everyone is out of step but my Johnny".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You do not consider the Jackson LOTR films to be film versions of LOTR books. It seems the rest of the world has spoken on this issue --- and has spoken rather loudly.

And what percentage of the movie audience has actually read LotR?

[Sauron the White]

I do not know ---- do you? And what would that prove anyways? That only persons like yourself have the true believers inside and holy knowledge to talk about such things?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I do not know ---- do you? And what would that prove anyways? That only persons like yourself have the true believers inside and holy knowledge to talk about such things?

Your argument seemed to be that 'the rest of the world' had spoken & declared that the movies were faithful representations of the books. I'm not disputing the popularity of the movies, I'm just pointing out that the fact that lots of people liked the movies does not prove that they are faithful representations of the books in style or content. Given the amount of money the movies made I'd suggest that many, many more people have seen the movies than have (or will) read the books. They cannot therefore add anything to a discussion on whether the movies are faithful to the books.

[Sauron the White]

Yet again we have the use of value loaded words intended to win the day with their decisive implications. Now its FAITHFUL. The fact is this and its fairly simple. JRRT said he did not feel a filmmaker could film LOTR. That was partly his motivation for selling the rights. Why not put some money in your pocket to pay the taxman when you also feel that nothing will come of the rights you are selling away? Very clever of the Professor. Sure, I will sell you the rights to something but I feel you cannot do it anyways.

But someone did. Once rather poorly in the case of Bakshi and three times rather successfully. I am not talking about your opinion - or my opinion - but in the opinion of the ticket buying public, the professional critics, and the industry insiders who lavished the films with awards of excellence.

Again --- a book is one thing - a film is another thing. They are not the same.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Yet again we have the use of value loaded words intended to win the day with their decisive implications. Now its FAITHFUL. The fact is this and its fairly simple. JRRT said he did not feel a filmmaker could film LOTR. That was partly his motivation for selling the rights. Why not put some money in your pocket to pay the taxman when you also feel that nothing will come of the rights you are selling away? Very clever of the Professor. Sure, I will sell you the rights to something but I feel you cannot do it anyways.

But someone did. Once rather poorly in the case of Bakshi and three times rather successfully. I am not talking about your opinion - or my opinion - but in the opinion of the ticket buying public, the professional critics, and the industry insiders who lavished the films with awards of excellence.

Again --- a book is one thing - a film is another thing. They are not the same.

Which is all very well & good - except I stated clearly & unambiguously in my last post that the movies were successful. I didn't care for them & now find them merely irritating - but that is neither here nor there. All I was saying was that most of those who have seen the films have not read the books (given audience size against numbers of books sold) & therefore cannot comment on whether the movies were faithful adaptations or not.

[Sir Kohran]

The depth, mood & 90% of the backstory were all sacrificed to sfx, gore & puerile jokes about dwarf tossing.

90% of the backstory was not sacrificed. Some of it was, but certainly not 90%. That's just a ridiculous statement.

SFX? How else are you going to show the grand scale of Middle-Earth?

Gore? There wasn't much gore compared to other action movies, and Tolkien himself was quite bloody - at one point Sam walked down a tunnel in Cirith Ungol and we are told of severed and scattered heads and limbs. If that's not gore I don't know what is.

I didn't like the dwarf jokes either but this is a movie and it needs comedy, even if this wasn't the best way to do it.

[Sauron the White]

I am writing this from memory - so I could be in error - but I recall that JRRT himself said he had two choices when it came to film rights sales. The choice he made was quick money up front as opposed to small money attached to his involvement with the film. One could say that JRRT himself realized his sale of the film rights meant changes in any eventual film. He knew that and accepted that. he knew that any definition about being "FAITHFUL" was simply not in the cards given how he sold the rights of his own free will.

For anyone to then use a word like "faithful" to discredit the films as not an adaption of the books is simply not fair given that JRRT himself went into the deal with both eyes opened, his mind sound and his hands outstretched.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

For anyone to then use a word like "faithful" to discredit the films as not an adaption of the books is simply not fair given that JRRT himself went into the deal with both eyes opened, his mind sound and his hands outstretched.

I wasn't using 'faithful' to discredit the films. I was merely pointing out that they weren't faithful to the books.

[Sir Kohran]

And anyway, I think Tolkien would have understood the need for changes. He didn't just sit down one day and right it all out and say that was exactly how it was. He was often making changes and alterations to the story and characters.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

And anyway, I think Tolkien would have understood the need for changes. He didn't just sit down one day and right it all out and say that was exactly how it was. He was often making changes and alterations to the story and characters.

Yes, but he made good changes in the main, & for good reasons.

[Sauron the White]

But to argue that a film - any film - is not "faithful" to the book is simply like arguing that today is not like yesterday. Its obvious and irrelevant. The transfer of the written word on a large number of pages is going to render a different product when it is placed on film - a totally different artistic medium.

I have read LOTR at least six times cover to cover and have reread many passages more times than that. That does not make me an expert or anything close. But in my humble opinion, it was a very good adaption that in many ways was far better than I had ever hoped. Was it perfect. Of course not. But then what is?
Korhan has hit upon something. JRRT himself understand that when he sold the book as a film there would be changes. He understood that as an important part of the process of turning a book into a film. And good reasons for those changes abounded and were explained regardless of how anyone accepted them or rejected them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

But to argue that a film - any film - is not "faithful" to the book is simply like arguing that today is not like yesterday. Its obvious and irrelevant. The transfer of the written word on a large number of pages is going to render a different product when it is placed on film - a totally different artistic medium.

. . .

Korhan has hit upon something. JRRT himself understand that when he sold the book as a film there would be changes. He understood that as an important part of the process of turning a book into a film. And good reasons for those changes abounded and were explained regardless of how anyone accepted them or rejected them.

Wait a sec and hold on! Let's consider this point generally.

I don't think it is necessarily or automatically irrelevant to consider how well a movie adapts a novel. For every film adaptation I've ever seen of a major novel, part of the discussion has always involved the nature of the adaptation. It is part of understanding how movies differ from novels and what the two different art forms need to engage their particular kind of art. We can learn more about a book if we understand what parts lend themselves well to cinematic reproduction and what parts don't. We can also learn more about films.

Frankly, to me, in seeing how and where PJ's films differ from LotR, we can see that PJ was working with two inspirations, his love of Tolkien and his love of Lucas. Those two inspirations worked to create the films.

Just as it is well to consider what Tolkien's expectations were when he sold the film rights. But that does not limit anyone from examining the question himself. It's all in the nature of discussion and there's no reason to bound our expectations by those Tolkien might have had.

By the way, are we discussing a film that hasn't been made yet? And a book of revisions previously unpublished that some of us haven't read yet? Now there's proof positive of the nature of human conversation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Korhan has hit upon something. JRRT himself understand that when he sold the book as a film there would be changes. He understood that as an important part of the process of turning a book into a film. And good reasons for those changes abounded and were explained regardless of how anyone accepted them or rejected them.

But you misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing there shouldn't have been changes. I'm arguing they were bad films & the changes were bad changes.

[Sauron the White]

I do feel that this is the type of discussion which flourished a few years ago, ran its course and proved to be a rather dry riverbed. It really makes no difference how any of us feel about things like a "faithful adaption" or if the changes were good or for bad. Why?

In the end it is rather simple. The book is one thing. The films are quite another. Yes, the 3 films are based on the book. Yes, the films are an adaption of the book. But these discussion always come down to exactly the same thing over and over again. That being - somebodys opinion if they liked it or not. I really do not think so high and mighty of my own opinion as to place it in exalted place to hold dominion over all others. One can stand on the shores where the ocean meets the land and plant their two legs firmly in the sand and attempt to hold back the incoming waves...... but with what success? You can not hold back the tides.

In the end the film is judged as to the quality it possesses as a film. Consider the following that does not depend on my individual opinion or the individual opinion of anyone else no matter how learned, well read or knowledgable.

A film is often judged on its financial success. The three LOTR films all broke into the All Time Worldwide Box Office Top Ten. TTT reached number four and ROTK is still at number two. In fact, ROTK became only the second film in history to reachthe $1 billion dollar gross figure (US dollars). Including other rights, the three films took in over $4 billion dollars. From an initial investment of about $400 million, that is success in spades.

But there are many films which are of low quality but take in money and are profitable. Some people prefer to judge a film by the educated collective opinion of the community of critics that are paid to judge the cinematic quality of such things. All three films were very well reviewed with ROTK being one of the best reviewed films ever. Several internet sites will report on this if you want to look at them. Again, wild success by this measurement.

But some say that the opinion of film critics, even that of several hundred trained film critics does not mean much. What about the opinion of the film industry itself? The various 3 films won many awards of excellence from various countries and branches of the film industry. This was climaxed by the Academy Awards given the film including the eleven won by ROTK including Best Film of the Year.

The combination of all three of these categories - box office returns from the masses, collective praise from the professional critics, and industry awards has never occured before in history in three films made by the same filmmaker.

Again, I do not exalt my lone opinion upon the altar of the world to think that I know more than it does. But it seems that these type of discussions - or better yet, this ongoing six year plus discussion, always come down to somebody thinking that they are blessed to be some sort of TRUE BELIEVER who has been blessed with a special knowledge that elevates their opinion in both quality and substance over that of the rest of the world.

In the end it always comes down to "yes, but you do not know about it as much as I do". And in the end, what you think you know did not make a damn bit of difference in the film. It was irrelevant.

This is why I say that anyones opinion about the "faithfulness" of the films to the books is irrelevant. It does not matter. Attempting to throw a loaded term like "faithfulness" into the discussion merely is a distraction or attempting to set up a strawman which only serves your opinion. I can measure financial success by box office returns. I can measure critical success by the collective opinions of the community of professional critics. I can measure success by the level of awards given out withing the film community. All three say something by themselves. Together they are the tide of world opinion on these films.

Now plant your feet firmly on the shore and scream about "faithfullness" into the oncoming tide.

[Morthoron]

Looking strictly at Jackson's LotR films from an objective manner, if one compares it to a truly great film adaptation (David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia or Zinneman's A Man for all Seasons, for instance) one finds that Jackson removed much of the subtlety and nuance from Tolkien's original plot, opting for fireworks over substance (and this could be, as Bêthberry inferred, Jackson's 'Lucasization' of Middle-earth). Much of the acting is wooden and trivial, and this is due in part to Jackson's insistence on taking artistic license decidedly too far. The dialogue that works the best is indeed taken directly from Tolkien's original storyline, and those sequences which are universally panned are invariably of Jackson's devising.

Do not get me wrong, I own all three extended versions of the DVD's, and I believe Jackson's trilogy is cinematographically superb. The spirit of Middle-earth does indeed reside in the wonderful ambience of the film's versions of the Shire, Minas Tirith, Moria and Edoras, but there is an infuriating undercurrent that runs throughout the films of Jackson's heavy-handed scripting that is bitter to the palate, and for the most part totally unnecessary. I am not speaking of time compression and omissions (like the deletion of Tom Bombadil or the wholesale elimination of the 'Scouring of the Shire'), I understand fully the need for brevity and compactness in film making; however, I do take issue with the many oddities Jackson threw in that neither added to the dimensions of the movies nor improved upon the original plot.

Sorry for adding to a digression, but as I have yet to read the 'Darker Hobbit', I can't rightly comment on it in context. I only know that as it was originally published (as a children's story), I cherish it immensely and so does my young daughter. I am not certain that the changes mentioned are altogether good or necessary, given the endearing impression of the orignal reading.

[Nogrod]

I think that one of the problems resides in this bussiness of drawing lines of faithfulness between movies and books in the first place. Cinema is a different media from literature.

Not to talk of rendering an epos like LotR into a different media. You're never going to accomplish that and thence dicussing about faithfulness isn't exactly to the point?

But that does not mean that the value-meters you Sauron brought forwards are any good either. There are reasons (a lot of them) to say PJ's movies were beautiful to look at but shallow. But these reasons need not tie themselves to the "faithfulness" aspect. They were shallow as cinema.

The box-office ratings? Quite a many people went to see "The Independence Day" as well... Remember, most people go to see a movie once so they have not known what crap it was but the marketing hype was loud enough to lure them into the theaters. I'd believe more any "after-movie polls" than just pure attendance numbers. And anyhow quality and quantity are different things after all?

Collective praise by the critics? I'm not sure about the U.S. if every critic is fed by the big movie-corporations but at least in Europe I think most of the critics had a long list of reservations and some even scorned the whole project. So at least here it was not a "collective praise"...

The industry awards? Well what else could they have done after the popular phenomena the movies made? What would have been the Oscar-committee's credibility rate after the third box-office hit? If they'd given the Oscars for a good film they'd at least picked the first one but for some reason they didn't... But to be serious... that was an after-award as ever there was one! They couldn't just not notice them at that point.

But coming back to my basic idea. As film and literature are two different medias both should try to excel in those areas their media makes them excel.

PJ probably tried his hardest (at least in some part) but just couldn't make it.

So a brave interpretation would have been in place, original view with an excellence in telling the story via a film-media, and hopefully lots of money behind to make it look good as well... PJ's was a compromise with some highly potential visual & musical artistic aspirations blended with box-office requirements (the storyline, the cast...) - and possibly PJ's shortcomings as a director...

Sorry to say this. I loved the films for what they looked like and I love the music as well... but as movies... no I can't love them as movies.

EDIT: Looking backwards into the thread this clearly is steering far away from the actual topic... I'll promise to try and stay better in the topic the next time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Regardless of the Masses (whose collective judgment makes McDonald's a great restaurant) and the judgment of the AMPAS and film critics (all movie people), look at the consensus of those who know Tolkien best- Tolkien scholars. Their verdict is *unanimous*- YECCCHH!

(Not to mention JRRT's own children. Christopher's disdain for the fluicks is well-known, and Priscilla told a story about having re-typed the early chapters of Lord of the Rings for her father, and being terrified to the point of nightmares by the Black Riders. Someone asked if she had seen the movies. With her very English (almost headmistressy) tact, she said that she would 'rather not go into that'. The questioner just wondered if she had still found the Black Rider's frightening in the film. 'Oh, good God no!' she exclaimed, adding something about 'spectacle and sensation'.)

The biggest problem with PJ's work is that it's *shallow*- but of course the non-reader or casual reader isn't aware of the depths PJ never plumbed. Where at least in theory something on a par with Lawrence of Arabia might have been possible in other hands, what PJ gave us was Indiana Jones and the Ring of Doom. Again: Yeccchh!


NB: PJ's "love of Tolkien????" Get a clue! PJ set out to make a sword 'n' sorcery flick and only then learned that Zaentz was willing to deal- and PJ hadn't read the book since he was a teenager.

And it shows.


Oh, sure, he talked a good game in interviews- most of the time. Well, guess what? Smeagol lied. PJ has also said this: "Tolkien's tale was long and boring....I think I did better."

[Bêthberry]

Well, I will get back to the original question and say that the problem lies with Tolkien and his constant niggling.

Once a book is published, it cannot be unpublished (although it can be censored, banned or burned). Even if it were withdrawn from book sales, it would still exist in libraries (unless they pulled it off the shelves, and what a cry that would raise!), in private collections, and in the dearly loved memories of the children who had it read to them or of the children who read it and also of those adults who love it too, tra la la lally and all.

Tolkien was of course free to see, as a sort of academic exercise, if TH could be retoned to suit LotR. But that would/will always remain a post-publication exercise. Once a book is given to the world, it cannot be taken back. It no longer 'belongs' to the author, but to the world. Any revision would be simply a second (or third, as the case may be) version, and left to the tastes of the reading public.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tolkien was of course free to see, as a sort of academic exercise, if TH could be retoned to suit LotR. But that would/will always remain a post-publication exercise. Once a book is given to the world, it cannot be taken back. It no longer 'belongs' to the author, but to the world. Any revision would be simply a second (or third, as the case may be) version, and left to the tastes of the reading public.

And yet the 'official' version we all know & love contains the re-written Riddles in the Dark, which (to my mind after reading the original) doesn't 'fit' as well as the version it replaced. That revision was done purely to bring TH into line with the Gollum of LotR. Clearly Tolkien wasn't attempting this revision as an academic excercise but as a potential replacement text. If it had replaced the edition we now have then its possible that TH as we know it would have been as difficult to get hold of as the 1st ed. Hobbit text is now.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin)

Oh, sure, he talked a good game in interviews- most of the time. Well, guess what? Smeagol lied. PJ has also said this: "Tolkien's tale was long and boring....I think I did better."

I hadn't come across that quote before; however, that attitude came through for me in the movies

[Sauron the White]

William ... you are simply in error when you state this

Regardless of the Masses (whose collective judgment makes McDonald's a great restaurant) and the judgment of the AMPAS and film critics (all movie people), look at the consensus of those who know Tolkien best- Tolkien scholars. Their verdict is *unanimous*- YECCCHH!

The point of my listing of the three areas of success was that normally they are mutually exclusive of each other. But in the case of LOTR, the three different areas all apply to the LOTR films. McDonalds may be a financial success but please show me where professional food critics rate it as a great restaurant.
Please show me where McDonalds has won industry awards for its quality of food or ambience of its eating establishments? In simple point - they do not. They have achieved financial success and it ends with that. Your analogy is faulty and flawed at its basic premise when compared to what I used to define success with the Jackson films.

Jacksons films of LOTR achieved three very different kinds of success which usually are not found in the same package. No single filmmaker in the 100+ year history of the medium ever achieved that type of success with three films - let alone three consecutive films - yet alone three films on the same subject.

Tolkien scholars know one thing very well - the writings of JRRT. When it comes to film they have shown little practical knowledge of how films work or how the film industry works. They have pretty much shown themselves (with some exceptions) to fall into the TRUE BELIEVER category. They covet their special knowledge and hold it above the world - the great unwashed ignorant masses, or Masses as your post refers to them. Snob appeal anyone?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Once a book is given to the world, it cannot be taken back. It no longer 'belongs' to the author, but to the world. Any revision would be simply a second (or third, as the case may be) version, and left to the tastes of the reading public.

And just think the rows over all these now appearing "director's cut" -versions of different films! I think Blade runner started it but now they seem most like marketing programmes than questions of any artistic integrity...

But even with the question of the artist's actual will to bring forwards a more thought of or not "censored" (because of the sales-demands or whatever) version of the work I do agree with Bêthberry here. Once let loose is also out of one's authority for the eternity... No one can claim back the experiences people have already had with those works and any newer version will always be the underdog or the curiosity among people with experience with an earlier version.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by davem

I hadn't come across that quote before; however, that attitude came through for me in the movies

There's a reason you hadn't come across that quote before; it probably doesn't exist - the only result I find was an Epinions review, where some purist ranted on for ages about camera angles and didn't bother to review the rest of the film. He also complains about the Hobbits having 'Irish accents', which is a bit stupid when Ian Holm, Andy Serkis, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan all came from the UK (Sean and Elijah were American, yeah, but they used English accents) with no Irish actors in the entire trilogy.

I did find this PJ quote, though:

“We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. What we were trying to do was to analyze what was important to Tolkien and to try to honor that. In a way, we were trying to make these films for him, not for ourselves.”

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And yet the 'official' version we all know & love contains the re-written Riddles in the Dark, which (to my mind after reading the original) doesn't 'fit' as well as the version it replaced. That revision was done purely to bring TH into line with the Gollum of LotR. Clearly Tolkien wasn't attempting this revision as an academic excercise but as a potential replacement text. If it had replaced the edition we now have then its possible that TH as we know it would have been as difficult to get hold of as the 1st ed. Hobbit text is now.

Yes, I know that about 'Riddles in the Dark'. To my mind, it was wrong to revise TH and market the revision as the 'canonical' (oooh, that word again) text. We complain about books that are 'revised' for "political correctness", to make them compatible with the values of subsequent ages, so why cannot one complain that such changes on Tolkien's part represent a faulty niggling? At the very best, I would argue that both texts should exist. Perhaps readers should be given the choice--as some modern children's books do now--about which version to go to?

I wonder, are there other writers who have done this kind of revision/editting in 'second' editions?

The fact that Tolkien never completed the 'darker' version says something about the process, I think. Or maybe just about his writing habits, lol!

EDIT: Sorry, cross-posting with Noggie and others and absolutely must dash now.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The point of my listing of the three areas of success was that normally they are mutually exclusive of each other. But in the case of LOTR, the three different areas all apply to the LOTR films.

I quess I just put that in question in my post #58 - in all three fronts... (well, I'm the first to blame not reading thoroughly what others have said in an extended thread...) But you can't just fend of any questioning of your argument that easily...

Originally Posted by PJ

“We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies."

Show me someone who can do that - how much s/he tries - and I'll show you that the moon is made out of cheese...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

There's a reason you hadn't come across that quote before; it probably doesn't exist - the only result I find was an Epinions review, where some purist ranted on for ages about camera angles and didn't bother to review the rest of the film. He also complains about the Hobbits having 'Irish accents', which is a bit stupid when Ian Holm, Andy Serkis, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan all came from the UK (Sean and Elijah were American, yeah, but they used English accents) with no Irish actors in the entire trilogy.

I found this:

http://www.glinka.ru/eurogym/korotkih/peterjackson.htm - at the bottom of the page, just above 'Salary'.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder, are there other writers who have done this kind of revision/editting in 'second' editions?

I don't know so much about writers themselves but after they're dead things have been re-printed alongside with the "originals"... as the markets have many times been saturated already. So surely to make the cash-machine sing in the first place...

In Finland there was a case just a few years ago when a piece central to Finninsh 20th century literature, Väinö Linna's "The Unknown Soldier", was reprinted by the name of "A War Novel". It had in it all the things that the editor for the publishing company had took out from the original version printed in italics (like some versions of Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" under Sovjet cencorship).

In the end it turned out that most of the deletions were mainly literary shortcuts and indeed "betterments", not political choices as so many people had foreseen...

So these markets as well seem to work more on profit than artistic integrity... so sad as it is.

Would there be this discussion without today's competition of quartal performance by all the publishers as well which seem even to include a possibility of taking in the cash-flow from all the Tolkien fans with a third version of the Hobbit?

[Sauron the White]

Jackson is proud of his films. So what? This is the only "quote" (if indeed it is one since the source is not cited) that I have seen where Jackson has adopted this tone. I can show you many others where he is rather respectful of JRRT and his work.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by davem

I found this:

http://www.glinka.ru/eurogym/korotkih/peterjackson.htm - at the bottom of the page, just above 'Salary'.

I'm a bit doubtful of that; it's right at the bottom of the page which looks a little suspicious.

Also note that my earlier quote was there too.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Whether you believe PJ said what is attributed to him, Davem is quite right- that attitude is apparent throughout the films. He's constantly "improving" the books, with an eye toward more fights, more action, more noise and shrieking, more eye candy: So what if there's no fight on Weathertop- we need one! The cave troll fight we invented and the Balrog aren't enough excitement- lets have a physics-defying teetering staircase! Boy, a warg attack would juice things up! Let's turn the Dead of the marshes into water zombies! Gee, an avalanche of skulls would be neato-keen! Let's have a Nazgul nearly nab Frodo at Osgiliath! And on and on and on......

It not much of an argument to list a handful of plot-points and boast that PJ put them in the movies. Plot is *all* he ever perceived. Nothing more- and even then he couldn't get it right.

This is where the 'snobbish' Tolkien scholars are coming from. They know from long study that the Lord of the Rings is far more than just an adventure yarn, and it's painful to see it reduced to such a simplistic level-even beyond the plot and character vandalism, it's plain the PJ never understood what it was all about.

[Sauron the White]

Lets all join hands and learn together: a book is one thing - a film is quite another. What makes for a great book does not necessarily make for a great movie - and vice versa.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Lets all join hands and learn together: a book is one thing - a film is quite another. What makes for a great book does not necessarily make for a great movie - and vice versa.

Were you ever unfortunate enough to see the 'Hamlet' scene in Last Action Hero?

[Jack Slater (Schwarzenegger)is Hamlet]
Hamlet: Hey Claudius! You killed my father! Big mistake!
Narrator: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and Hamlet is taking out the trash.
Old Man: Stay thy hand, fair prince.
Hamlet: [shooting him] Who said I'm fair?
Narrator: No one is going to tell this sweet prince good night.
Hamlet: To be or not to be? Not to be.

That's precisely what PJ did with LotR as far as I'm concerned.

[Sauron the White]

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I truly believe after several years on various JRRT based websites that there are a group of Tolkien book based people who would never ever ever be satisfied with any film adaption of LOTR. Even if someone would take a billion dollars and make 50 hours of film translating every blessed page with every single line and song, they would still find fault with something and that is what they would dwell on in post after post for years to come.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I truly believe after several years on various JRRT based websites that there are a group of Tolkien book based people who would never ever ever be satisfied with any film adaption of LOTR. Even if someone would take a billion dollars and make 50 hours of film translating every blessed page with every single line and song, they would still find fault with something and that is what they would dwell on in post after post for years to come.

But...I liked the opening credits.

[Sauron the White]

fron Nogrod in a post attempting to refute my claim that the professional critics lavished acclaim upon the 3 LOTR films:

Collective praise by the critics? I'm not sure about the U.S. if every critic is fed by the big movie-corporations but at least in Europe I think most of the critics had a long list of reservations and some even scorned the whole project. So at least here it was not a "collective praise"...

If you look at two different websites you will get the proof of my point. The first is metacritic.com -- it keeps track of professional media critics reviews. It tries to limit itself to only the full time critics. Here are the figures for approximately 40 reviews they tracked

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
92 out of 100 - listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

THE TWO TOWERS
88 out of 100 listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

RETURN OF THE KING
94 out of 100 listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

rottentomatoes.com is a bit more expanisve in thier definition of a film critic so they have between 175 and 227 listed. Here are the figures for the 3 LOTR films

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
93% positive out of 183 critics reviews

THE TWO TOWERS
97% positive our of the 206 critics reviews

RETURN OF THE KING
94% positive our of the 227 critics reviews

Again, my point is NOT that the critics are always right. Sometimes the public can love a film that critics hate or vice versa. Sometimes the industry can bestow awards of excellence of films few saw while spurning the fan favorites of the year. The 3 LOTR films are the exception because they achieved the level of a rousing success by three distinct measurements of film success
box office take
critical acclaim
industry awards

Name me any other three films by the same director which can match that feat?

You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

There's an error of logic here. Hating Peter Jackson and his work or disliking the films does not mean denying the historical record. It means simply having independent judgement and freedom of thought. That is allowed in most democracies, although not in Mordor.

When I saw RotK in the cinema, I had the misfortune of sitting behind four young girls who did nothing but hoot, hollar and laugh with cynical derision at every speech Aragorn made--I got a running commentary on the movie. In fact, I suspect they came to the film in order to laugh at it. I won't repeat their verbal comments here as I'm sure they would earn me an infraction if not a wrist slapping from the mods. But their money still went into the movie coffers and I suppose one can say that they were entertained.

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry ... if you reread my post you will see that I did not connect a dislike of the Jackson films with a denial of the historical record. That indeed would be an error of logic as you state. What I said was this

You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

My statement was directed at those who want to imply that the LOTR films were some type of failure simply because they did not approve of them or of parts of them. I provided three industry standards to measure a films success. All three were achieved by the LOTR films ... and then some.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There's an error of logic here. Hating Peter Jackson and his work or disliking the films does not mean denying the historical record. It means simply having independent judgement and freedom of thought. That is allowed in most democracies, although not in Mordor.

When I saw RotK in the cinema, I had the misfortune of sitting behind four young girls who did nothing but hoot, hollar and laugh with cynical derision at every speech Aragorn made--I got a running commentary on the movie. In fact, I suspect they came to the film in order to laugh at it. I won't repeat their verbal comments here as I'm sure they would earn me an infraction if not a wrist slapping from the mods. But their money still went into the movie coffers and I suppose one can say that they were entertained.

And what about all the people who went in, saw it, and praised it? Their money also went into the movie coffers.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I truly believe after several years on various JRRT based websites that there are a group of Tolkien book based people who would never ever ever be satisfied with any film adaption of LOTR. Even if someone would take a billion dollars and make 50 hours of film translating every blessed page with every single line and song, they would still find fault with something and that is what they would dwell on in post after post for years to come.

I was about to dismiss this as a strawman (akin as it is to the two different media = blank check argument); but have to agree that there are some who *know* (this is indisputable fact) that no film adaptation can ever do complete justice to any decent book- not even Harry Potter: and further as a matter of personal predeliction prefer that therefore no attempt should ever be made on a book as complex and multi-layered as The Lord of the Rings.

I don't myself fall into that camp. However, that is not nearly the same as claiming that, since no adaptation can ever be completely successful, we thereby must accept any old crap instead. PJ's action-adventure flicks are, again, shallow. There is nothing intellectually challenging, and what little tone of high seriousness to be found is quickly dispersed by the next popcorn-movie moment.

Imagine instead what Kurosawa (may he rest in peace) might have done with this story. Even if he put everyone in kimonos and samurai armor, the result would *still* have been far closer in spirit to the books than PJ's rock 'em sock' em extravaganzas. Imagine Coppola, or Kubrick, or any of a number of *serious* and intelligent directors whose megaphones PJ isn't worthy to polish. Even Ridley Scott would have done a better job, and that's not saying a lot.

The Lord of the Rings is not just a pulp-fantasy adventure story! But that's all PJ gave us. Far better he should have done something like Shannara or the Belgariad than take on an author he can't comprehend.