Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Assuming I've got the one you're talking about...it's a made for TV film that lasts an hour and fifteen minutes. Did it appeal to millions across the world, and win multiple Oscars?

One is tempted to respond, "who cares? The issue is whether it is good, not whether it appeals to the massed millions."
Instead I'll just observe that it would of course stop the narrative drive cold *if* the entire bloody Council were repeated verbatim (as well as using up way too much of the available screentime). Of course it had to be pared to essentials. But concedig that is in no way a justification for abandoning the essential dignity of Tolkien's scene for a boorish shouting match.

Tolkien was not writng for "Tolkienites," of course, since they didn't exist. He wrote a unique book owing in very large part to his stubborn refusal to compromise either with popular taste or with the fashions of twentieth-century Litteraturgedenken. He disdained stooping to irony: he wrote heroic characters like Faramir and Aragorn along the lines of ancient saga and didn't give a damn about "character arcs" or whether a contemporary audience could "identify" with them. And plainly it worked, given the books' overwhelming success: success *without* compromise.

There's a word for compromise of this sort, of altering the artistic vision and mode of expression to please a targeted audience: it's called pandering.

[Sir Kohran]

If you're making LotR as an action adventure movie like Star Wars then you're correct.

Let's face it - that's how the movies are viewed. What makes them so good is their ability to be more than just a CGI-filled mess of fight scenes. Unlike the cardboard acting in Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings movies managed to be moving and emotional on a level that most action adventure movies can't even attempt.

The moral/philosophical dimension of Tolkien's story was ignored in favour of producing a SFX heavy saga.

How many people left the cinema saying, 'Well, the acting and the special effects were great, but I don't think they got across the Catholic themes of temptation and redemption'?

Bottomline is this - audiences don't go to cinemas to see philosophy/half an hour of talking/singing men in yellow boots/exploration of Christian morality/discussions on the ethics of Eru destorying Numenor. These things just don't make for good movies.

And anyway, are you suggesting they shouldn't have used SFX/CGI? How else would you create Minas Tirith or the Oliphaunts or the Trolls? Without using such methods you'd end up with a movie that would completely fail to capture the visual majesty that Middle-Earth has.

A different director with a different approach to the material could have made Bombadil & the Council work.

But would the movie have been as good?

Jackson did not simply put Tolkien's story on the screen as it is in the book, he chose to focus on the battles & action, to the extent that they overwhelm the subtleties of Tolkien's creation.

Only in your opinion.

Those defending Jackson here seem to believe that either his approach to the story is the only possible one, or at least the best one.

No, but I believe it was a good one. Not perfect, but a good one given the pressure he was under. He could have made a wooden, bland, CGI-filled video game with bad acting (Eragon and Dungeons and Dragons come to mind) and yet he managed to deliver a trilogy that was both visually stunning and emotionally moving at the same time.

If the focus was to be on Frodo & his quest then there should have been less screen time given to Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields & more on his journey through Mordor, & the Scouring of the Shire should have been included & given the emphasis it deserved - as should the events in the Barrow, which is his first real test against the Ring.

Admittedly a little too much focus was put on the human side of things in TTT, but I think ROTK gave a perfectly fine amount of time to the Hobbit's story - Minas Morgul, Shelob's Lair, Cirith Ungol, the trek across Gorgoroth, Frodo's agony under the Ring, Sam's carrying of Frodo up the mountainside, the final confrontation between them and Gollum - it's all in the movie. And don't forget the last scenes of the movie all concern the four Hobbits and what happens to them.

Now, I think a better approach to the story would have been to focus on Frodo's journey all through, including the Old Forest/Barrow Downs & including the Scouring,

Oh come on, countless reasons for the removal of all of these have been given - the biggest being that they just take up too much time.

with Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields given the kind of minor (in terms of narrative time) treatment they receive in the book.

How were they given minor treatment? Half of TTT and half of ROTK don't even include Frodo and Sam. And how would you give characters like Eowyn, Faramir, Treebeard, Denethor, etc. proper development with so much time being given over to Frodo and Sam?



I think the real issue with you, davem, is that you want an exact replica of the books, with all other concerns being put second to recreating Tolkien's books to the letter. That may be perfectly fine in a small radio show but in the big world of cinema where movies have to appeal to millions to be successful, it simply doesn't happen. You should not expect it to.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I think the real issue with you, davem, is that you want an exact replica of the books, with all other concerns being put second to recreating Tolkien's books to the letter. That may be perfectly fine in a small radio show but in the big world of cinema where movies have to appeal to millions to be successful, it simply doesn't happen. You should not expect it to.

All I wanted was to be affected in the same way by the movies as by the books. I wanted to be taken to the same 'mental/emotional' place. That wouldn't require a director to put the book on screen in every particular. To me the movies weren't the LotR I know & love. I watched them, thinking occasionally 'That's clever' or 'That's impressive', but more often 'Why did they do that?', or 'That's wrong'. As movies they're ok, but as an adaptation of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings they're a failure - in my opinion, of course.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by davem

All I wanted was to be affected in the same way by the movies as by the books. I wanted to be taken to the same 'mental/emotional' place. That wouldn't require a director to put the book on screen in every particular. To me the movies weren't the LotR I know & love. I watched them, thinking occasionally 'That's clever' or 'That's impressive', but more often 'Why did they do that?', or 'That's wrong'. As movies they're ok, but as an adaptation of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings they're a failure - in my opinion, of course.

Tha's the difficulty. Heck, I love the movies and passionately defend them, and yet I openly admit that they don't affect me in the same way the books do. Nor could they - they are adaptations; not clones. I don't believe I've ever seen a movie adaptation that managed the same power as the book did. The answer is simply that it's a different format - text on paper is very different to moving images and sound. With books you can form your own vision of a story; with movies you're looking at someone else's vision of the story. I would not expect the movies to affect me as the books do, anymore than I would expect them to include a singing man with yellow boots.

As an adaptation of the books I would say they are a success - not a perfect success, but a good enough success - though also in my opinion.

One is tempted to respond, "who cares? The issue is whether it is good, not whether it appeals to the massed millions."

The issue is not whether it is good. Of course, by itself, the Council *is* good - hence why it works in the books. However, we're talking about the movies here, and they aimed to appeal to the massed millions - something that the Council by itself would not have done.

Instead I'll just observe that it would of course stop the narrative drive cold *if* the entire bloody Council were repeated verbatim (as well as using up way too much of the available screentime). Of course it had to be pared to essentials. But concedig that is in no way a justification for abandoning the essential dignity of Tolkien's scene for a boorish shouting match.

I concede that the Council scene could have been done better. But I'm arguing that we could not have had the scene direct from the books, and it seems that to some extent you agree with this.

He disdained stooping to irony: he wrote heroic characters like Faramir and Aragorn along the lines of ancient saga and didn't give a damn about "character arcs" or whether a contemporary audience could "identify" with them. And plainly it worked, given the books' overwhelming success: success *without* compromise.

He was writing for an entirely different generation. Ours is one that expects action and character development and people they can identify with. The movie is meant to appeal to them, therefore it includes these things.

And anyway, just how much did it succeed? Whilst LOTR certainly was a success, both financially and in terms of awards and prestige, I'd say it was a limited one; they did not achieve the same kind of success that Dickens or Shakespeare before or Rowling after managed. Before the movies were released I knew nothing of Tolkien (one of the reasons I like the movies so much is because they introduced me and so many others to his work). How much of this was down to the lack of 'compromise' is debatable - my dad can remember trying to read the books back in the seventies and being utterly confused (fortunately I didn't turn out the same way).

There's a word for compromise of this sort, of altering the artistic vision and mode of expression to please a targeted audience: it's called pandering.

So Peter Jackson changed some things to please his audience. And?

[Sauron the White]

Like many things of this world, the truth usually is found somewhere in the middle of opposing arguments. I think it is unfair and hyperbole to characterize the LOTR films as straight up action adventure films. That is tarring them with a brush that just does not quite fit. Obviously it was not an art film either. I think the truth lies in the middle. Sure, there were action sequences, and there were in the books also. But there were also moments of intense emotional drama, portrayal of the human condition(and I guess the Elven condition if there is such a thing ), and lots of wonder and beauty that was subtle and sublime.

I think Jackson had all of this in his films if one looks with an open mind.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Sure, there were action sequences, and there were in the books also. But there were also moments of intense emotional drama, portrayal of the human condition(and I guess the Elven condition if there is such a thing ), and lots of wonder and beauty that was subtle and sublime.

My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

I think with a book you have the actual characters - the 'real' Gandalf facing the 'real' Balrog (real in the secondary world that is), whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect. It doesn't help to have all the documantaries & interviews either, which reinforce that fact & discussing how he approached the role.

Tolkien discusses this in OFS:

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results. It is a misfortune that Drama, an art fundamentally distinct from Literature, should so commonly be considered together with it, or as a branch of it. Among these misfortunes we may reckon the depreciation of Fantasy. For in part at least this depreciation is due to the natural desire of critics to cry up the forms of literature or “imagination” that they themselves, innately or by training, prefer. And criticism in a country that has produced so great a Drama, and possesses the works of William Shakespeare, tends to be far too dramatic. But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted. Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited. Men dressed up as talking animals may achieve buffoonery or mimicry, but they do not achieve Fantasy. This is, I think, well illustrated by the failure of the bastard form, pantomime. The nearer it is to “dramatized fairy-story” the worse it is. It is only tolerable when the plot and its fantasy are reduced to a mere vestigiary framework for farce, and no “belief” of any kind in any part of the performance is required or expected of anybody. This is, of course, partly due to the fact that the producers of drama have to, or try to, work with mechanism to represent either Fantasy or Magic. I once saw a so-called “children's pantomime,” the straight story of Puss-in-Boots, with even the metamorphosis of the ogre into a mouse. Had this been mechanically successful it would either have terrified the spectators or else have been just a turn of high-class conjuring. As it was, though done with some ingenuity of lighting, disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered. In Macbeth, when it is read, I find the witches tolerable: they have a narrative function and some hint of dark significance; though they are vulgarized, poor things of their kind. They are almost intolerable in the play. They would be quite intolerable, if I were not fortified by some memory of them as they are in the story as read. I am told that I should feel differently if I had the mind of the period, with its witch-hunts and witch-trials. But that is to say: if I regarded the witches as possible, indeed likely, in the Primary World; in other words, if they ceased to be “Fantasy.” That argument concedes the point. To be dissolved, or to be degraded, is the likely fate of Fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare. Macbeth is indeed a work by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have written a story, if he had the skill or patience for that art.

A reason, more important, I think, than the inadequacy of stage-effects, is this: Drama has, of its very nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute, magic: the visible and audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasimagical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much. To make such a thing may not be impossible. I have never seen it done with success. But at least it cannot be claimed as the proper mode of Drama, in which walking and talking people have been found to be the natural instruments of Art and illusion. For this precise reason—that the characters, and even the scenes, are in Drama not imagined but actually beheld—Drama is, even though it uses a similar material (words, verse, plot), an art fundamentally different from narrative art. Thus, if you prefer Drama to Literature (as many literary critics plainly do), or form your critical theories primarily from dramatic critics, or even from Drama, you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making, and to constrain it to the limitations of stage-plays. You are, for instance, likely to prefer characters, even the basest and dullest, to things. Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

My problem with the movies is the books. I can't watch them as movies - maybe my feelings would be different if I could - or if I'd seen them first. The problem with being so familiar with a book as I am with LotR is that I can't just watch them as films. I sat in the cinema with 'two' movies going on - the one on screen & the one in my head. Occasionally the two 'met' up but then would fly apart. It was (& still is) an uncomfortable experience.

That certainly makes crystal clear sense to me. I understand your feelings completely when expressed this way.

I am just glad that did not happen to me.

[Sir Kohran]

or if I'd seen them first

Maybe that's the case. I saw the movies before I read the book and now I enjoy both.

whereas when you're watching the filmsyour never quite able to forget that its Sir Ian McKellan in a fake beard & robe pretending to be Gandalf & fighting a special effect.

That's just you. When I see that sequence, not for a second do I not believe I'm seeing Gandalf the Grey defy the Balrog, in the same way as when I am reading the corresponding passage in the book I do not believe that all I'm doing is looking at some ink printed onto some paper.

But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted.

I agree with Tolkien here...I saw the movie Eragon recently and it was appalling. So was Dungeons and Dragons back in 2000. One before LOTR...one after LOTR...and yet both were terrible. In fact, I think the LOTR movies are the only fantasy films I've seen that have done both drama and fantasy well at the same time. I believe this is because they have their roots in literature, where drama and fantasy can coexist (as the books prove).

disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn, and quartered

[Sauron the White]

For those who criticize the films for being too action oriented or playing up the violence at the expense of other more sublime parts of the tale.... I was reading LOTR just this morning , chapter THE GREAT RIVER. I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood. Then there is the scene of Legolas firing his arrow high into the sky and downing a Nazgul on his steed. Jackson cut that bit of action and violence also.

For those who try to tar Jackson with the brush of being a thud and blunder action director who plays up the violence over more subtle parts of the story, thse two examples prove that it is not always so.

I reread the scene where we have the death of Boromir and noticed that JRRT describes him as pierced with many arrows. Jackson limits it to three. I guess you could argue that three could be the same as many but I got the image of the old St. Stephen paintings where he was nearly a human pin cushion. Then JRRT describes that around the dying Boromir lay many orcs piled about him. Makes me think of those 70 trolls in COH. A far more gruesome image than the one Jackson used in the film.

I would guess that there are other portions of the book where similar examples could be cited.

If you want the movies to be more like books does that include adding more violent action scenes like these?

[davem]

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield). Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way - which is perfectly understandable when you take into account the fact that he had fought on the Somme, seen two out his three closest friends die horribly & possibly even taken German lives himself.

I accept that Jackson didn't included every single incident of action/violence on screen - actually I wish the Warg attack just prior to Moria had been included (one of my favourite episodes) - the problem I had was that every incidence of violence that was included was depicted in the most graphic way imaginable. Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... I do appreciate this exchange and I am appreciating your position more and more. Not agreeing with it - but appreciating what it means to you. I do think that we are placing Jackson into the position of he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. You concede that Jackson did not put in all the action and violence that is written by JRRT. But you find fault with the stylings of how it is depicted. You explain it this way

A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield).

The first half of your objection would apply to any author of any book as compared to any on screen depiction. Obviously what happens in a readers mind in terms of how much detail they want to see can never be captured on screen since the director is forced to make a choice that the viewers can see. It would seem that your criticism there is not directed at Jackson so much as it would be the simple process of filmmaking where things must be shown clearly. Of course, the alternative to that is the type of violence which was depicted in the sanitized Hays Office years of the movies - Thirties and Forties - where blood was hardly ever shown and carnage was invisible. Some feel that that type of depiction of violence is far worse because it gives people an unrealistic view of the consequences of violence. And I would agree.

You saw Legolas surfing down the stair as humorous - as is your right. I believe Jackson was going for "oooh thats cool" reaction from the younger viewers. I do not feel that scene was an attempt to be humorous in the least. So we see that differently.

Regarding Boromirs death - we are tending to repeat our positions here but I felt that it was far more effective on screen than in the book. We see the sacrifice of Boromir in all its dramatic magnitude and we gain a tremendous appreciation for it and for him despite the previous scenes of his less than gallant behavior towards Frodo. Having him dying in this way is an on screen display of personal redemption that seemed to ring true with the viewer. Again, repeating a previous point, but I have seen many posts over the past few years from people indicating that this scene really helped them gain a new respect and love for the character. So it did work on screen.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I noticed the events on day 8 upon the river where the company is attacked by orcs. Although I remember reading that Jackson filmed something like that it was not in the film in any edition. There is an example of Jackson playing down the violence and action in favor of creating a mood.

No, actually; not of his own volition. Weta built the set for that episode, but a sudden flood washed it away so the scene was scratched. So we *do* get a scene of tension and character dynamic- only because PJ was forced by powers beyond his control not to go with his preference, another fight.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He was writing for an entirely different generation. Ours is one that expects action and character development and people they can identify with. The movie is meant to appeal to them, therefore it includes these things.

Stuff and nonsense. The English literary world of the time was dominated by the likes of Leavis and Muir and Waugh, who expected all of the above (and castigated Tolkien for defiantly refusing to play ball). Again, intentionally 'appealing' to what an audience 'expects' (especially an audience which, if you are correct, is effectively Neanderthal in its expectations), is pandering and the antithesis of Tolkien's art. His mission, insofar as he saw it, was to reintroduce modern readers to something they had lost or forgotten, the glories of older literature before the rise of the bourgeois novel.

I regret that similar pandering apparently underlies the Zemeckis Beowulf, which from the trailers looks gawdawful- but I'm sure the same audiences whioo flocked to Conan the Barbarian and PJ's flicks will eat it up.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - and if PJ wanted that scene in the film they could have rebuilt it and included it. Even on the later pick-ups, it could have been included if Jackson had thought it important for inclusion. BUT HE DID NOT.

Again, some here seem to damn Jackson if he does and if he does not. In this case, he gets no credit for not including a JRRT written scene of more violence and action because you attribute that to the forces of nature ........ or perhaps even some higher power?

WCH - your argument about the style of Tolkien and even being out of sync with his contemporaries only serves to strengthen the hand of those who feel that it simply had to be updated to be marketable to todays audience. By your reasoning, JRRT appears even out of touch with the actual time he was writing in. He was a throwback to previous eras and traditions. The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

[Sir Kohran]

I had a big post that covered all of davem's points but the bloody internet came up with a 'cannot display' page so I'll have to be short:

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish.

Not really. Tolkien was gory:

Then Pippin stabbed upwards, and the written blade of Westernesse pierced through the hide and went deep into the vitals of the troll, and his black blood came gushing out.

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

The movie violence is extreme & often gross

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

And anyway, it's realistic - a bunch of fighters with swords and axes hacking into flesh is going to be brutal. What are you suggesting, that the camera cuts away every time we see Aragorn or Gimli swinging at an enemy?

its often presented in a humourous way

I don't agree. Was Boromir's death, grunting as the arrows slammed into him, depicted humorously? Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

What's more powerful and moving - seeing a man sitting next to a tree with some arrows in him, or seeing him fighting an overwhelming enemy desperately and slowly being shot? Also, Boromir's death is only surprising ad shocking on the first read - after that you epxect it. However the movie's death scene remains powerful every time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I actually have little problem at all with Boromir being shot onscreen. I think it's powerful and moving, and follows a very real dictate of cinema: "show, don't tell." What I do have a problem with is what follows immediately, Aragorn's o-so-Hollywood duel with an invented superorc character. Yest even that didn't bug me as much as, not the *acting* or *emotion* of Boromir's death-scene, which were palpable; but the *dialogue*, which was stupid, and reflects the supercession of Tolkien's powerful laconicism for more Aragorn-the-reluctant crap.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

I don't interpret that as humourous.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

I can't answer this.

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Why do you have this strange ability, davem? Can't you think something good about something in the movies for a change? But of course not. [sarcasm]You worship at the altar of Tolkien. You probably consider him a saint.[/sarcasm] Jackson is a heretic, a blasphemer who dares change what doesn't work. You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

It is, even if the humor is unintentional, which is unlikely.

[Folwren]

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have.

[Sir Kohran]

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings.

This sounds overly-sensitive. In movies with multiple battle scenes, how could there not be violence? There was little real bloodshed in the movies at all, and the beheadings are accurate for what would be very brutal battles.

And anyway, it's accurate to what Tolkien wrote - the books have many beheadings too. Aragorn 'cleaves' the head of the Orc-chieftain in Moria, Ugluk beheads two Orcs in Rohan, Gimli beheads two Orcs at Helm's Deep, and the Mordor Orcs behead fallen Gondorian soldiers to launch their heads into Minas Tirith.

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I get the same memories from both the books and the movies.

the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over).

So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15.

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

[Sauron the White]

Folwren asks an interesting question

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have

Based on several of his LETTERS, I think it would be safe to say that there is one very definite aspect of the Jackson films that he would have absolutely loved and would have put a big smile upon his face for some time.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Annatar

The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

When I was 17 I would have agreed with you. Thirty years on I find the focus on gore & violence for the sake of it to be juvenile, dull & frankly silly.

You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I'm sorry if the fact that I find the movies dull, overwrought &, frankly, a wasted opportunity bothers you so much. I just don't think much of them. I wanted to like them. I've watched the theatrical & extended versions but in the end I don't care for them. Its personal taste. What do you want - are only positive comments to be allowed? Is it heretical to express a personal opinion about the movies unless your opinion happens to be that they are the greatest movies ever made? I don't like the movies & I've stated why.

This whole 'worshipping at the alter of Tolkien' accusation is frankly silly (not to mention meaningless if you think about it). Tolkien's story came first & is the standard by which I judge the quality of the movies. It is true that some changes are inevitable when translating a book to another medium, but the fact that changes are necessary does not make every single change good - some changes are made for the wrong reason, are mistaken, & some are frankly silly, or worse, pointless.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

Not Victorian; Mediaeval.

Although it is true that even the Victorians and Edwardians still recognized certain ancient virtues as virtues, unlike the ages of Modernism and Postmodernism: in Shippey's eloquent phrasing, "Tolkien was quite clearly... recommending virtues to which most moderns no longer dare aspire: stoicism, nonchalance, piety, fidelity."

PJ caved in to his audience's meaner aspirations and lowered horizons, and his films are the poorer for it.

*****

Incidentally, Peter Weir and his producers didn't shy away from spending millions to recapture the Nelsonian Era complete with its stylings and sensibilities.

[Sauron the White]

PJ caved in to his audience's meaner aspirations and lowered horizons, and his films are the poorer for it.

That is certainly one very uncharitable way of looking at it.

Another way to look at is that Peter Jackson was not insane and decided not to make a $300 million dollar movie for a small group of people who clung to these ancient values and had not yet realized the world had advanced beyond the years of the great plague. In other words, he is a realistic man of his times.

[Sir Kohran]

davem? Are you going to tackle my previous post?

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Based on several of his LETTERS, I think it would be safe to say that there is one very definite aspect of the Jackson films that he would have absolutely loved and would have put a big smile upon his face for some time.

What, the music?

In all seriousness, I think the music would have been his favorite aspect about the entire thing. Howard Shore's music (and P.J's choice of hiring Shore) was fantastic.

Tolkien would also probably like the scenery of everything. That was another great thing about the films. I think Jackson did a good job of taking Tolkien's landscapes and putting them on screen.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Folwren... yes you are right. The music was great as was the visual scenery, sets and design. That probably would have appealed to JRRT.

The obvious area I was referencing was the money it made for the Tolkien Estate. If you look at the sales of Tolkien books for the six months before the movies came out and take it five years down the road and compare it to the previous five years, they sold a ton of books. While the Estate did not share in the film receipts, they certainly did cash a whole lot of greatly increased book royalty checks during those five years. And who gets the thanks for that? Peter Jacksons films spurred that increased sales flood.

Given the written comments of JRRT and his want of money in his waning years, I am sure (had he lived) that he would have loved the increased royalties and it would have been hard to hate Jackson and his films the way some do today.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

a small group of people who clung to these ancient values and had not yet realized the world had advanced beyond the years of the great plague.

You really think that the character of "Modern Man" is anything but a degenerate shadow of former greatness? Tolkien, for one, would passionately disagree; belches and dwarf-tossing gags standing as ample exemplars of 'advanced' taste. PJ was supposed to be, or at least claimed to be, adapting Tolkien not refuting him. Or else perhaps you approve of the deliberate hatchet job Verhoeven did on Starship Troopers?

[Sauron the White]

Could you please provide some evidence of this "former greatness". As someone who has studied and even taught some history courses, I am unaware of such Golden Ages that make them markedly different than our own times. And please give me actual evidence of the real world and not some literary platitudes found in fiction books which idealize and romanticize a life which did not exist except for a very small number of lucky people.

And I do not have the slightest idea what that has to do with JRRT, Middle-earth, the Jackson adaptions of LOTR or anything else on topic. But perhaps you could relate it all for me.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

Yes, he depicted in graphic detail the violence. Shame the moral vision, the philosophy, & the beauty of the books went by the wayside.

I get the same memories from both the books and the movies.

Well, its also possible to read the books as action adventure novels.

So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

The point I was making was that the LotR movies were aimed at a younger audience & so the violence had to be toned down.

No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15.

I concede. I didn't check. That clearly means you're right about everything you've said. I feel totally humilated by your devastating point there. I'll just nip off & shoot meself....

No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

That's a silly point. We're talking about the 'death' of an actor in a movie that had become a complete joke by that point.

So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

Its an expression of relief, of pride in his friend. Its not reducing death to slapstick in order to get a laugh.

[Essex]

very interesting debate. Just to add a point regarding the title of this thread. The narration on audio tapes of the whole trilogy is 54 hours long I believe.

Therefore to create the "film"version word to word from the book would require a 4 or 5 season mini series - now wouldn't that be great?

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

The obvious area I was referencing was the money it made for the Tolkien Estate. ...
Given the written comments of JRRT and his want of money in his waning years, I am sure (had he lived) that he would have loved the increased royalties and it would have been hard to hate Jackson and his films the way some do today.

I don't know. This is a troubling comment. I think Tolkien would not have liked the sacrifice that it took to get that money. I can not imagine what I would think if I sold the rights to a book of mine and then later it was turned into a huge movie that, although it made me tons of money, destroyed the inner meaning of my story. I'm pretty emotional, I admit, but I think I'd be passionately angry and I'd want to throw the check back into the movie maker people's faces.

I don't think Tolkien would have laughed. And though he might not have hated Jackson (I don't hate Jackson myself), I don't think he would have loved him, either.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

-- Folwren

[Meriadoc1961]

Folwren wrote:

"In all seriousness, I think the music would have been his favorite aspect about the entire thing. Howard Shore's music (and P.J's choice of hiring Shore) was fantastic.

Tolkien would also probably like the scenery of everything. That was another great thing about the films. I think Jackson did a good job of taking Tolkien's landscapes and putting them on screen."

I agree that the movie was breathtaking visually, and that the music was fantastic. I absolutley love the Elves singing in Lorien as they mourn the fall of Mithrandir.

I also would very much like Essex's suggestion that this be done in a series form since I keep hearing that the movie can not be done as the book.

Merry

[William Cloud Hicklin]

To chime in in support of Davem's last: Tolkien felt very strongly that Frodo's journey was far more important than the War; and that the most important part of the journey was the Passion of Frodo Baggins, the crossing of Mordor: which PJ chops down to an impossibly short bit of screentime (and, especially in the theatrical cut, the impression is conveyed that Aragorn's march to the Morannon took the same length of time as it took Frodo and Sam to climb down a hill). From Cirith Ungol to Orodruin was ten long, nightmarish days- the sort of "eternal week" paratroopers in Normandy described.

Both Helm's Deep and the Pelennor are lengthy and exciting enough as written- but PJ elected to drag them out (especially the former), and use up even more screen time on fripperies like Tony Legohawk and Eowyn's duel with Mr Potato-head, not to mention the Osgiliation and the Warg attack and other invented action-adventure nonsense, when he could and should have focused on Frodo (and, perhaps, treated Treebeard with the respect Tolkien had for him instead of reducing him to rather dull comic relief).

Compare, since it's been brought up, Lawrence of Arabia- which in its very long running time contains a total of three battle scenes, all of them quite brief; yet it's considered an exciting movie.

[Sauron the White]

WCW - I dearly love LAWRENCE OF ARABIA for many reasons. I remember seeing it at the theater a few weeks after it had won the AA for Best Film of the Year. In those days the big films first opened up in downtown big city theaters and it took months to get out to the burbs where my family lived. I disctinctly remember being 13 years old and going with neighborhood kids on our weekly trip to the theater. We were surprised to see a line around the theater (which also in those days was a single stand alone building with a single screen). When we finally got up to the front of the line we encountered the owner of the theater who was periodically annoncing that he was very sorry but he had to raise the price for this special movie and no childrens tickets would be sold.

The adult price - jacked up for this special movie - was $1.50.

During the film I also remember an usher came down to us and told us quite sharply to shut up of leave since lots of people had paid a lot of money to see it. So we did and enjoyed it greatly.

But that was 1963. Forty-four years is at least two generations perhaps three. For good or bad, it is a far different world with a far different movie going audience. I have my doubts about LAWRENCE going over today as an adventure film that would be described as exciting. I think it would be classified much closer to something like ENGLISH PATIENT.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Could you please provide some evidence of this "former greatness". As someone who has studied and even taught some history courses, I am unaware of such Golden Ages that make them markedly different than our own times. And please give me actual evidence of the real world and not some literary platitudes found in fiction books which idealize and romanticize a life which did not exist except for a very small number of lucky people.

And I do not have the slightest idea what that has to do with JRRT, Middle-earth, the Jackson adaptions of LOTR or anything else on topic. But perhaps you could relate it all for me.

What does this have to do with Tolkien? Everything! Whatever you or I believe, *Tolkien* was firmly convinced that human history is the 'long defeat.' He was defiantly heretical toward the Church of Progress, and was convinced that Man was in his own day becoming smaller and meaner, concerned with nothing beyond material comfort and convenience, and a fixation on 'democracy' as a surrogate for freedom. Although he was of course aware of the downside of the Middle Ages, he nonetheless believed that people of that day aspired to loftier things than their decadent descendants.

He was also aware, being something of an expert, that the average man in medieval England was a far cry from the filthy, famished, oppressed serf beloved of Victorian and then Marx-influenced historians, both of whom had a vested interest in creating a "look how far we've come" narrative. From Tolkien's viewpoint, 'progress' meant Birmingham's Satanic mills and the industrialised carnage of the Western Front and mushroom clouds over Japan. Accordingly, he tried (with indifferent success) to revive something of the old Northern Spirit he loved, and hoped would revive his dying England. I'm sure he wished he could blow Merry's Horn of Rohan and sweep Sarumanism away.

You may disagree with his opinions. But if one is to adapt *Tolkien*, whether in film or any other medium, then one should be attuned to what he was all about. The idea of ameliorating his message to appeal to 'modern' prejudice would be anathema to him.

[Sauron the White]

WCH- thank you for that information. I despised reading books in my English courses only to be told by the profs that what I thought I read was not really what the author wrote. They would then tell you all about the authors life, the authors philosophy, the trials and tribulations the author went through, the social and political history of the times he was writing in and writing about, and that was all before the psycho babbly mumbo jumbo analysis was introduced telling you that a cigar was not really a cigar at all.

Soon tiring of all these books and authors with their hidden messages, meanings, and truths I just said "forget about it". I found books I wanted to read and enjoyed the tales for what they were.

I much prefer to be guided by the great philosopher Robert DeNiro in the classic work THE DEERHUNTER.

"This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, that could be said of Faramir, or Aragorn: he is he. He isn't someone else. He is he. By DeNiro's Law, it would be incumbent upon an adaptation to present the characters as Tolkien wrote them, not substitute the adaptor's preferences.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I think you greatly misunderstand DeNiro's statement. This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

A book is a book.
A film is a film.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a book.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a series of movies.

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.

To apply criteria from one to the other is folly and a violation of the reality of each.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

WCH - I think you greatly misunderstand DeNiro's statement. This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

A book is a book.
A film is a film.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a book.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a series of movies.

The book is not the movies.
The movies are not the book.
.

Yes, but. That being the case one should not use books as raw material for film. If the two media are so totally different that any book 'adapted' for the screen will end up a horse of a totally different colour then there is no point buying the rights, no point trying to make a movie of any book at all. Jackson should simply have written an original script for a fantasy movie.

What you're arguing is that the LotR movies, because they are movies, cannot be the Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien - however hard the director & his team try to make it into that.

Yet Jackson & his team did try & tell Tolkien's story - he carried a copy of LotR around with him. The artists & designers drew on Tolkien's descriptions - even occasionally (when their own 'talent' failed them) using his dialogue. Jackson repeatedly stated that he was trying to remain faithful to Tolkien. According to you this was a complete waste of time on his part, as, however hard he tried, he could never have succeeded.