# What the hayfever is a purist and ....



## Elfhelm25 (Feb 14, 2003)

Hello . 
Ahem. 
My qestion is What the hayfever is a puritist , what makes you a purist and why are people so darn obsessed with the labelling of "purist " on this forum ? Am I am puritist for complaining about puritist labelling ?
No serious offence to anyone who is a puritist and finds my puritist handling offensive


----------



## Thorin (Feb 14, 2003)

Ahem...Allow me.
I'm glad I got to you before someone like Foe-Hammer and markrob! They will tell you that a purist is someone who feels that it is next to sacrilege to alter any of Tolkien's writings and are nit-picking weenies who cannot accept change in any form.

Purists have arisen in conjuction with the release of Peter Jackson's movies based on Tolkien. It has divided the ranks of Tolkien fans: Purists and Film Adaptation Defenders. A "purist" is someone who puts great stock in the genius of Tolkien and dislikes major or unecessary changes to the story. We feel that a closer rendition and more respect for Tolkien to keep things the way they were could only improve the movies and the places where Jackson has deviated the most from the story are where the story fails.

Though we applaud Jackson's efforts and are impressed where he has remained true to the story, we find that overall, Jackson is out to create his own vision, regardless of how true it stays to Tolkien. It is here that we feel he fails to properly portray Tolkien's LoTR and breath life into it like Tolkien did. We also feel that PJ is not only damaging his own cause, but hurting the story by trying to remain so true in dialogue, costume, language and history, and yet alter so many characters and plots to the point that it seems ridiculous.

By "speaking out of both sides of his mouth", he has created a disastrous hybrid of purism and director interpretation. This to most of the purists is the greatest tragedy.


----------



## jallan (Feb 14, 2003)

A purist is someone who wants a story like “Snow White” read in _exactly_ the same words every time, and will complain at the slightest deviation.

A revisionist wants to enjoy as many different versions of “Snow White” as possible and revels in the differences.

“Purist” is often hurled at any critic of Jackson’s films who dares suggest that the original book was better in some feature which could have been displayed on screen quite well without change.

This avoids dealing with the actual criticism.

There are true hard-core purists out there. Some even feel that the books should have been done _exactly_ as written, with no changes, and that anything else is a travesty.

EIther do it as twelve full length films with everyone word and action as in the book, or don’t do it at all.

Some purists don’t seem to have ever noticed that most adpatations vary greatly from the source material and no-one gets upset.

Some of them will complain that Frodo's sword Sting wasn't obtain from the Barrowight in the film, or that Legolas was dark-haired in the books, or that Tolkien did not intend Elves do have pointed ears, or that the Balrog in Moria was not winged .... and go wild when pointed out that their prceptgions of the books are not necessarily true, indeed may be very incorrect.

On the other hand one finds praises (from both purists and non-purists) of the films for their accuracy to Tolkien's vision just when it is most different.

Some revisionists never seem to see pleasure in a book brought to life almost exactly as written.

Then there are the “Jackson-purists”, commentators who claim the films are perfect, flawless, and that all differences beteen book and film _had_ to be made _exactly_ as they were, either for artistic reasons (when they approve) or commerical reasons (when they sort of don’t approve).

Creative people, like Peter Jackson, are generally revisionists, who get excited by what they can _do with_ something, and seldom consider leaving the material alone.

People who naturally would leave everything alone often make very plodding and boring adaptations, because being true to the word may mean betrayal of the spirit.

But occasionally a flim like _Tom Jones_ or _Charlie_ or _The Seven Percent Solution_ will appear that shows a sympathetic and talented director can be quite reasonably true to both spirit and word.


----------



## Thorin (Feb 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *A purist is someone who wants a story like “Snow White” read in exactly the same words every time, and will complain at the slightest deviation*



I don't agree with your definition of "purist". I consider myself an avid purist, however, to expect a word for word translation and no deviation is not only impractical, but ludicrous. As far as I'm concerned, the hard-core purist that you describe should be one who believes that the movies should never have been brought to the screen because there is no way that anything or anyone could do it justice, hence it should be left alone. I can respect that, though I wouldn't agree with it. However, as far as being a purist within the scope of book/movie comparison, I do not believe that "purist" is an acceptable name for someone who expects a movie to be done and then expects no deviation whatsoever...Wacko, would fit better. I can also assure anyone here that there never has been such a person frequenting this forum.



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Some purists don’t seem to have ever noticed that most adpatations vary greatly from the source material and no-one gets upset.*



Please keep in mind that we are not talking about the latest Stephen King adaptation where we'd be surprised were there not some horrific abuse of the book (I can't even imagine what Dreamcatcher is going to come across as...'shudder'). We are not talking about your average dime store novel here. We are talking about what is considered the "greatest literary work of the 20th century". You treat such an epic which has garnered millions of followers with much more respect then what we have seen in some parts of the films. If one claims to be such a big fan, as PJ has claimed, you'd think there would be a bit more sanctity when trying to tell the story. Especially when PJ tried so hard to stay as accurate as possible in much of the adaptation.

Contradiction? Of course. Hence the reason for the purists to make some sense out of the endless justification and illogical rhetoric that many FADs on this forum are spewing forth due to their undying devotion and adoration of Peter Jackson.

Long live the purists!!


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 15, 2003)

Great thread! Good opportunity for a respectful academic debate.

There are obviously shades of gray associated with the word "purist". I tend to agree with Jallan. I personally don't like the whole labaeling thing. We put enough labels on people in life as it is. Why do it to the people we share common iterests with. Is someone a purist because they didn't like the change that PJ made with respect to Frodo face to face with a ringwraith in Osgiliath? Is someone a PJ purist becasue they think that PJ is a brilliant filmmaker and enjoyed the films regardless of the changes? I answer NO to both of those questions. Furthermore, I would love to see other interpretations of the books made in years to come.

As a musician we generally see a piece of music as a blueprint. If we played music exactly as written, staying in perfect tempo, the piece would sound boring and soulless. Film adaption is similar. It is an interpretive process. What works in a book doesn't always work in a film. A director's interperitation may not stay true to the plot of books because they want to highlight other parts. They also have to maintian things like cohesion, thematic development, and character development. Sometimes these aspects of the film get affected by staying true to the plot in a film. Other times the plot gets affected in order to maintain cohesion and thematic material. In other words there is more to a tale than just its plot.

Tolkien was a genius. But, he wasn't pefect. Try to enjoy both the art of both PJ and Tolkien simultaneously and let's stop labeling.


----------



## joxy (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hadhafang _
> *I would love to see other interpretations of the books made in years to come.
> If we played music exactly as written....the piece would sound boring and soulless. Film adaption is similar.*


If you mean more film versions, I totally agree. The "pity" is that the very first serious attempt is not as good as it so easily could have been: all PJ needed to do was to restrain himself from those of his curious personal visions that clash so obviously with Tolkien's style.
Surely musicians usually do at least play the notes they are given, and not invent them as they go along? When they DO have the opportunity to "do their own thing", as in the cadenza of a concerto, do they not do so in the style of the composer? Some of the major criticisms of the films imply that PJ's additions match the general tone of T's works, AND of the films, as badly as a cadenza suitable for Brahms would sound in a Tchaikovsky concerto - only PJ doesn't write as well as Brahms, or devise as well as Vengerov! There are some links between musical and film interpretation, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the two are "similar".


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 15, 2003)

elfhelm,

I would venture to say that there is a difference between a purist and a NPW. (NPW=nit pickin' weenie).

I think thorin pretty much covered a purist. But those same purists who go over the line of reasonable criticism when they call PJ "immoral" have taken leave of their senses. They claim that tolkiens characters can be presented on screen as written in the novel, and just a cursory examination of them, reveals how forced, un-natural, and superficial they would appear on screen.

In short, they cannot temper their dissapointment with the knowledge that there had to be changes, and insist that it should have stayed closer to the book.


----------



## joxy (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *....those same purists who go over the line of reasonable criticism when they call PJ "immoral" have taken leave of their senses.
> They claim that Tolkiens characters can be presented on screen as written in the novel, and just a cursory examination of them, reveals how forced, un-natural, and superficial they would appear on screen.*


I have not seen the word "immoral" from anyone, and I don't suggest that anyone has taken leave of their senses.
PJ DOES present some of the characters as near to the way they are written as anyone could ask - and it's precisely when he does so, that the films work best.
Neither a cursory nor an extensive examination gives any reason to suppose that presenting MORE of them as written would make the films any more forced, unnatural, and superficial than they may already be.


----------



## FoolOfATook (Feb 15, 2003)

What's a purist? Apparently, it's someone who has this crazy idea that J.R.R. Tolkien, one of the most beloved storytellers of all time, might know a bit more about the world that he spent sixty years creating than a young filmmaker from New Zealand does. At least, that's the impression that I'm increasingly getting.


----------



## Elfhelm25 (Feb 15, 2003)

Thanks for the reply everyone . 
Yay for sparking opinions ! 
Does anyone else ever pretend to be a certain opinion to provoque opinions form people ? 
I know I do ! 
Contiune on please !Interesting explanations !


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by joxy _
> *I have not seen the word "immoral" from anyone, and I don't suggest that anyone has taken leave of their senses.
> PJ DOES present some of the characters as near to the way they are written as anyone could ask - and it's precisely when he does so, that the films work best.
> Neither a cursory nor an extensive examination gives any reason to suppose that presenting MORE of them as written would make the films any more forced, unnatural, and superficial than they may already be. *



My contention is that those characters that were closer to the book naturally lend themselves to it the way jrr wrote them. The others did not.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by FoolOfATook _
> *What's a purist? Apparently, it's someone who has this crazy idea that J.R.R. Tolkien, one of the most beloved storytellers of all time, might know a bit more about the world that he spent sixty years creating than a young filmmaker from New Zealand does. At least, that's the impression that I'm increasingly getting. *



I disagree, and I'm pretty sure tolkien would too. He knew the characters would have to be changed in order for the movie to be made and he opposed it. He couldn't face the changes. PJ understood that there had to be changes also, but wasn't afraid to make them where needed to improved the story.

A purist prefers the original book over the film to a much stricter degree than most people.


----------



## FoolOfATook (Feb 15, 2003)

> PJ understood that there had to be changes also, but wasn't afraid to make them where needed to improved the story.



The hubris of that idea is breathtaking. "to improve the story"? There are things that must be changed in order to transition the work from one medium to another. But to make changes to improve the story? To think that somehow you have a better idea of what makes a good story than Tolkien? To somehow have the gall to alter the story because you think that you can do it better? The very idea is offensive to me, and I must say that I should think it offensive to anyone who truly respects Tolkien and his work.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by FoolOfATook _
> *The hubris of that idea is breathtaking. "to improve the story"? There are things that must be changed in order to transition the work from one medium to another. But to make changes to improve the story? To think that somehow you have a better idea of what makes a good story than Tolkien? To somehow have the gall to alter the story because you think that you can do it better? The very idea is offensive to me, and I must say that I should think it offensive to anyone who truly respects Tolkien and his work. *



Well, I can't think of a better example of the difference between a npw purist (you) and a fad (me). And in keeping with the spirit of this thread, I'll leave it at that rather than pull out my LoTR and prove it.


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 15, 2003)

> There are some links between musical and film interpretation, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the two are "similar".



Granted...
However, the interpretive process is what I was trying to get at. There are times in music (even as late as 20th century music) that permits ornamentaions in the music that was not written in by the composer...particularly in the baroque. Also Cadenzas, as mentioned, can vary indefinately, some more tasteful than others.

There is more to a novel then just its plot. I still maintain that the theme, the statement that the author is trying to make is paramount. If that gets voiced in an adaption from novel to book then minor, reasonable changes are meaningless. If one gets too hung up on these changes the term purism evolves into some faux intellectual snobbery. The intellectual part of a novel I believe is the thematic material...what the author is trying to teach us about the human condition.


----------



## joxy (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *I'll leave it at that rather than pull out my LoTR and prove it.*


OK, leave it where it is, but what do you mean? Prove what? That PJ has improved the STORY? He may think he has improved the film, but it's the STORY we're talking about.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 16, 2003)

I thought the thread was about what makes a body a purist. I didn't want to go off on a tangent, cause there are a miriad of threads devoted to the movie v. book discussion.

I found this definition....

Purist: one preoccupied with the purity of a language and its protection from the use of foreign or altered forms

I think that tolkien purists are preoccupied with the purity of tolkiens story and protecting it from being over-shadowed by altered forms.


----------



## joxy (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *I didn't want to go off on a tangent....
> I think that tolkien purists are preoccupied with the purity of Tolkien's story and protecting it from being over-shadowed by altered forms.*


OK, but you DID say you could prove something, and I was asking what it was that you could prove: 
you simply didn't make it clear what you were saying you could prove.
Purist: person who insists on absolute adherence to traditional roles and structures especially in language or style.
Absolute: no; traditional, no.
And from you: preoccupied: no; over-shadowed, no.
There is a reasonable argument that a film could be made using dialogue that was ALL original, but no-one here expected that or is complaining they did not get it; what we do regret is that when new dialogue is introduced some of it is by any standards not in accordance with T's language and style.
T's story is too strong to be over-shadowed; the intrusions merely clash with it, like wrong notes in music.


----------



## jallan (Feb 16, 2003)

Joxy posted:


> Surely musicians usually do at least play the notes they are given, and not invent them as they go along? When they DO have the opportunity to "do their own thing", as in the cadenza of a concerto, do they not do so in the style of the composer?


This reveals almost unbelievable ignorance of musicians and musical tradition.

There have been and are now musicians and singers who _cannot_ read music at all, but have no difficulty in composing new music or adapting music to their own style

Both these, and those who can read music, sometimes change it widely from the source or sources, jazzing it up, giving it a rock beat, throwing in classical influence, a regae sound, Hindu raga influence, and so forth.

And yes, they will change the notes when they wish to, as will as timing, emphasis, etc.

Why not?

There has never been anything wrong with this kind of adaptation.

Classical composers were often noted for stealing the folk tunes of their day to put into their compositions and certainly changed them freely according to their own tastes and needs.

The published music and lyrics of common pop music is notorious for varying from the actual words and notes actually recorded.

Musicans and singers do not remain consistant to their own original compositions. Bach was known as a great improvisor, and probably no more always played the same tune in exactly the same way than does a modern jazz improviser.

Variants of the same folk tune and their words vary widely when collected at various locations. Songs with a sad ending may in some versions have a happy ending, and vice versa.

Shakespeare took the story of King Lear and changed the ending to make it a tragedy. An ealier writer did the same thing with the story of Hamlet, producing a tragic play which Shakespeare then adapted and presumably much changed.

There should be no issue with the _right_ of any performer or writer to change anything as he or she wishes.

But there should also be no issue with people judging the changes as good or bad or indifferent, and questioning why they were done, and preferring one version of a song or story over another.

Foe-hammer posted:


> They claim that tolkiens characters can be presented on screen as written in the novel, and just a cursory examination of them, reveals how forced, un-natural, and superficial they would appear on screen.


And now we get the other side.

Which characters as written would appear forced and unnatural and superficial on the screen?

Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Frodo, Faramir, Théoden?

Give an example of unnatural characterization in the book that _could_ not be carried over to the screen.

Even Tom Bomabadil _could_ probably have been carried off if played by the likes of Gene Wilder or Tom Baker.

I certainly find Jackson's Théoden, Faramir and Gimli forced and unnatural on the screen, far more so than in the book.

Though perhaps it would be farer to describe Théoden and Faramir more as simply empty and wooden compared to their counterparts in the book.

Gollum is forced and unnatural in both book and screen, and works because of this.

Arwen as yet is hardly any more interesting than her book countepart.

Foe-hammer posted:


> I think that tolkien purists are preoccupied with the purity of tolkiens story and protecting it from being over-shadowed by altered forms.


That may sometimes be the case. But I think that Jackson-purists are in denial about how badly, in some cases, the films compare to the books, contintinually making claims about that some things _must_ be changed in adapting from book to film as a way of avoiding any specific complaints about changes.

Hadhafang posted:


> here is more to a novel then just its plot. I still maintain that the theme, the statement that the author is trying to make is paramount. If that gets voiced in an adaption from novel to book then minor, reasonable changes are meaningless. If one gets too hung up on these changes the term purism evolves into some faux intellectual snobbery. The intellectual part of a novel I believe is the thematic material...what the author is trying to teach us about the human condition.


Gee, was Tolkien trying to _teach_ us something about the _human condition_?

As long as an adaptation preserves the _intellectural part_ has it done its job?

From Mark Twain's introduction to _Huckleberry Finn_:


> Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. By Order of the Author .


From J.R.R. Tolkien's introduction to the second edition of the _The Lord of the Rings_:


> _The Lord of the Rings_ has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.


Great works are appreciated for much besides their themes and intellectual content, and the themes may be one of the least reason why they are read.

What is Tolkien's theme?

What is his message? 

Are any of the themes and messages in his works particularly original?

There are a number of different messages and themes and so forth that appear in different parts of the work. As far as I can tell none of these were ignored in the the film treatment that Tolkien tears apart in one of his letters with such gusto, not because it was not thematically in accord with the original, but because of _stupid_ modifications of character and plot and background.

C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien both very much enjoyed David Lindsey's _A Voyage to Arcturus_, despite what they saw as its diabolic theme, that everything that seems good in the universe is false, that the only true good is _pain_ because _pain_ only reveals truth, reveals the hideousness and horror of the "human condition", if one must use such stupid and meaningless terms as "human condition".

A problem is that any complex work is an interlace of character, plot, philosophy, incident, background, scenery, style, ambience amd story-telling method, so that a change in one of these starts to necessitate changes in others.

Sometimes an adaptation may clarify. A later adaptor may see more clearly the unique and distinctive features in a 
work.

But an adaptation may blur and trivialize, especially when the adaptor fails to understand the original work, and not just its supposed overt message, which may be one of the least important reason why anyone reads the work.

So the films contain plot holes and trivialities not in the original.
And anyone who looks can see how in parts they _needlessly_ fall beneath their source.

It is "faux intellectual snobbery" to think that the intellectual theme alone matters. But Jackson is not adverse to playing with the themes and meaning of incidents either.


----------



## Goldberry344 (Feb 16, 2003)

i always catogorized LOTR fans into more than just two catagories.

*Old Timers* people who have been reading LOTR since before my older brother (age 18) was born, and who accept the movie as something they have been waiting for for a long period of time. this would include my mother and father, both of whom loved the books since they were little, drew pictures of what they thought middle earth would be, and love the movies for its plot changes and for the aspects of the book they loved.

*Fan Girls/Boys* people who were drawn to the books through the movie because Liv Tyler/Orlando Bloom/Elijah Wood/you get my point are sexy. these tend to be annoying, and many havent read the books.

*Converts* those who saw the movie, read the books, and fell in love.

* ucky converts* those who saw the movie, read the book, and decided that instead of falling in love with a wonderful story and a masterpiece of cinematography, they would pick out all the differences and complain.

*no choice but theylove it * people, like me and arathin, who were raised on LOTR. though i only read the Hobbit and FOTR before the movie was released, i was destined to love the story, as was arathin, who was literally raised on the story. these people can be marvelous for answering your LOTR questions, but they can also be tremendous show offs.

* extremests* those who dress as LOTR characters, see the movie at midnight (or wish they could) own lisenced weapon/jewelry replicas, and/or are fluent in elvish.

* wow people * those who picked up the book later in life (non movie related) read them, saw the movie and loved them.

please be reminded that people can be a blend of these catagories. I feel that if you are going to catagorize fans, you have to have more than just two doors.


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 16, 2003)

> Great works are appreciated for much besides their themes and intellectual content, and the themes may be one of the least reasons why they are read.


Never argued the contrary. Said that theme was paramount and that there was more to a novel than just its plot.


> Gee, was Tolkien trying to teach us something about the human condition?


Yes as all good artists do when they perform their craft. Bad art tends to be themeless. That doesn't mean some can't enjoy it all the same. Also Mark Twain's thoughts on 'Huck Finn' don't really apply universally to all literature. He was merely telling people not to look at his novel as high art. 


> The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would.....deeply move them


The Tolkien quote from above also doesn't mention anything about lack of themes in the Lord of the Rings. In fact I think it reaffirms them.


> Are any of the themes and messages in his works particularly original?


No, themes are frequently used over and over. They tend to be general statements. A good theme also tends to have some intellectual depth as well.


> What is his message?


1) "Through forgiveness is redemption." 
Manifestations: Bilbo and Frodo sparing Gollum. King Theoden sparing Grima despite deserving death.
Also used in religious teachings.
2) "Do not deal out death in judgement"
Manifestations: Text of Gandalf in Shadow of the Past chapter.
3) "Industry destroys nature"
Manifestations: destruction of the trees around Isengard and the anger of the Ents. The purposeful use of the word "ugly" when describing the industrial homes in the Scouring of the Shire.
Also used in Henry David Thoreau's classic "Walden"
4) "Even the meek can help shape the fortunes of all." 
Manifestations: Two little hobbits walking in a land of evil with the most powerful forces set against them and saving the world.


> It is "faux intellectual snobbery" to think that the intellectual theme alone matters.


Once again, never claimed that the "intellectual theme alone matters". I claimed the theme was paramount. Furtehrmore, I was sticking up for PJ who I believe did an excellent job of presenting these themes. I still maintain that those obsessed with pure plot practice faux intellectual snobbery. Now when I say this I am not suggesting that purists are unintelligent. On the contrary, purism in a film adaption should extend to all parts of the novel not just the plot. An adaption is a balancing act of combining character development, thematic development, and plot in a way that makes sense in a film.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Which characters as written would appear forced and unnatural and superficial on the screen?
> 
> Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Frodo, Faramir, Théoden?
> ...



Hobbits in general. They are simple folk, yet seem to be worldly enough to know how to offer their services to a king. They constantly open their mouths and say the wrong thing, yet are always spoken of as folk with fair speech. Those are just two examples.

This type of character would look fake and feel forced in a film. The viewer doesn't have time to stop and think about why the two traits MIGHT be acceptable, because if they did, they'd miss the next few minutes of the movie, and they can't make up the reason of their own because they are being told a story. When we read the book we are part of the creative process. I see Edoras looking from a perspective of west to east while others will see it from north to south and jrr himself could have seen it from a birds eye view. I rationalize why hobbits make sense and ignore those parts of the book that contradict that idea. In a movie we do not have these choices. We are only able to see it the way the director presents it. (and even then we disagree)

I'd dare say that there may be many dissapointed purists if they were actually able to discuss the book with the author because their idea of ME wouldn't be like his.


----------



## lightingstrike (Feb 17, 2003)

So, is being a purist mean that you do not like the works of PJ? Or does it mean that you think that the movies are ok, but the books still kick but. Does being a purist make you a NPW?


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by lightingstrike _
> *So, is being a purist mean that you do not like the works of PJ?
> 
> Or does it mean that you think that the movies are ok, but the books still kick but.
> ...



No.

Could be.

No.

I am more like #2, but I have to add that JRR's work itself was not perfect and JP did improve the story in some areas AS A FILM. I would NOT accept a novel, re-written, to incorporate anyones changes. I like it the way it is.


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 17, 2003)

Most open minded people don't pay attention to all this labelling in the first place. I personaly love both Tolkien's masterpiece and PJs interpretation of it. It is also okay to criticize parts that you didn't like. I personally didn't like many of PJs changes. However, I understand some of the reasons that PJ did it. I have already posted these reasons _ad nauseum_ so I really don't want to post them again. The _ad hominum_ attacks on PJ are for people that have trouble explaining why they don't like the changes. I guess it is easier to attack PJ as "immoral" and "brainless" than it is to think critically. Obviously he produced a good product because the LOTR trilogy will most likely gross over 1.5 billion dollars when all is said and done.


----------



## joxy (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *This reveals almost unbelievable ignorance of musicians and musical tradition.*


When I've got my breath back from that amazing piece of insolence, I'll begin to tackle your extensive arguments, which at first reading seem totally irrelevant to your personal assessment of my experience and abilities!


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 17, 2003)

LOL! I have to agree with you on that one Joxy. The writer you are responding to stepped on a lot of peoples' toes. The arrogance in the writer's tone did not match the quality of his/her arguments. I still can't figure out what the point of that incredibly long post was.


----------



## joxy (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hadhafang _
> *The arrogance in the writer's tone did not match the quality of his/her arguments. I still can't figure out what the point of that incredibly long post was.*


Thanks Hadhafang: I've tried to read through the lot and certainly haven't got the point of it! 
It seems to be even more of a mixture than PJ's films are.
The only answer I'm going to give is totally to refute his personal comment: "unbelievable ignorance of musicians and musical tradition".
I have a lifetime knowledge of both, in areas ranging from classical baroque through to heavy metal.
I know the difference between artistic interpretation and instrumental incompetence: I know a wrong note when I hear one.
Some of PJ's inventions in the films strike a wrong note as distinct as any that a professional musician might let through in practice, or on an off-night.
I can't demonstrate a wrong note in print; you somehow introduced Shakespeare into the comparisons, and that's a bit easier:
Perfectly acceptable interpretations:
To be or NOT to be, that is the question.
To be or not to be, THAT is the question.
A literal interpretation:
Should I live, or not, that is what I am asking.
A doubtful interpretation:
Am I gonna live or die, I'm asking' yer.
A couple of wrong notes:
To be or not to was, that is the question.
To be or not to be, that is the answer.
A skateboard at Helms Deep is a wrong note, imho.


----------



## Galdor (Feb 17, 2003)

Hmm, I'm not really sure were exactly to cassify myself, I would have said I was a purist, but it seems around here purist are NPW. So here was I think, I abulutly love the books and am crazy about them. When I watch the movies I get mad at a lot of the changes, but in some cases I'll agree that PJ's way works better in movie form then the way it was in the books. But then with some things like what he did with Faramir I really really don't like and see no point in doing. But so I force myself to look at movies as movies and the books as books. The movies aren't the books, but if it wasn't for the book they'd still be my favorite movies.

So where would you guys place me?


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 17, 2003)

> So where would you guys place me?


A Lord of the Rings Fan.

I think the whole labelling thing is inappropriate. Noone is really a purist. Everyone is able to put up with some changes in a film adaption to a degree. There are many shades of gray between a purist and a non-purist.
I personally don't mind things like Legolas snowboarding downstairs or the addition of warg riders. Others hated these. I personally didn't like the Ents cowardice at the entmoot or Frodo face to face with a ringwraith in Osgiliath. Others thought these changes were alright. Its a matter of opinion. 
Furthermore, film adaption is an interpretive process. It is impossible to make a perfectly "pure" transition from book to film. So if anyone shows you any contempt for your opinions just remember that good old Hadhfang deems you: "A Lord of the Rings Fan."

Otherwise, you wouldn't be here on this forum in the first place.


----------



## jallan (Feb 17, 2003)

As an example of characters who seem who would seem forced on the screen, unless changed, Hadhafang mentions:


> Hobbits in general. They are simple folk, yet seem to be worldly enough to know how to offer their services to a king. They constantly open their mouths and say the wrong thing, yet are always spoken of as folk with fair speech. Those are just two examples.


Pippin in the film, is often speaks and acts foolishly, just as in the book. Presumably Merry will offer his services to Théoden in the third film and Pippin will offer his services to Denethor. 

Merry once apologizes for his inability to speak of high matters with fitting words. 

I don't understand the point. 

None of this material is self-contradictory and should cause any difficulty in the book, nor would it cause any difficulties in film or drama if used, as it perhaps will be.

Nor are Hobbits "always spoken of as folk with fair speech". I think you are remembering a single passage, where Beregond says:


> 'I am glad to learn it,' said Beregond, 'for now I may say that strange accents do not mar fair speech, and hobbits are a fair-spoken folk.'


Pippin has just been speaking quite clearly and vividly about his experiences in Minas Tirith.

Hadhafang later posts:


> Once again, never claimed that the "intellectual theme alone matters". I claimed the theme was paramount. Furtehrmore, I was sticking up for PJ who I believe did an excellent job of presenting these themes. I still maintain that those obsessed with pure plot practice faux intellectual snobbery.


If "theme" is paramount (and I don't think it is in many works or parts of works), it is only first among many, many equals.

In adaptation discussions the "theme" argument seems to me a "faux intellectual snobbery", an attempt to circumvent consideration of other details.


> Also Mark Twain's thoughts on 'Huck Finn' don't really apply universally to all literature. He was merely telling people not to look at his novel as high art.


I think rather he was annoyed at assinine literary criticism. _Huckleberry Finn_ is high art, if any book is, though not seen so by most at the time of its writing. Its genius is in the details, in a depiction, ficitonialized and stylized, of the Mississippi River of Twain's youth and the people who lived around it, in the wondrous dialect language, and in the character of its wordly-wise but also naïve narrator.

Isolate the themes from this or _The Lord of the Rings_ if you can, then give them to a writer to write a book on those themes. You won't get _Huckleberry Finn_ from just the themes extracted from _Huckleberry Finn_ and you won't get _The Lord of the Rings_ from just the themes extracted from _The Lord of the Rings_.

An adaptation of a work would not be recognizable if it only retained the supposed themes.

What are the themes of C.S. Lewis' _Perelandra_. Could you create the book just from a listing of themes?

From a dialogue between C.S. Lewis, Kingsly Amis, and Brian Aldiss (Magdalene College - Science Fiction):


> LEWIS: The starting point of the second novel, Perelandra, was my mental picture of the floating islands. The whole of the rest of my labours in a sense consisted of building up a world in which floating islands could exist. And then, of course, the story about an averted fall developed. This is because, as you know, having got your people to this exciting country, something must happen.
> 
> AMIS: That frequently taxes people very much.
> 
> ...


Do Tolkien's accounts of his writing of _The Lord of the Rings_ indicate anything different? Do his drafts indicate anything different?

Themes are important, but often not the _raison d'être_ of a work and often quite trivial when stated on their own. 

What lingers for a reader may be in part the theme, but as much or more what lingers in mind are invidivual characters, specific moments, special phrases, bits of dialogue, particular images, clever points of plot, atmosphere, and so forth. 

A revision may change any of these, including themes, and still seem as good or better than the original to some.

But even in a very theme-oriented book, such as William Golding's _The Lord of the Flies_ it is the treatment of the theme that gives the work its indidivuality and literary merit.

Hadhafang posted:


> I guess it is easier to attack PJ as "immoral" and "brainless" than it is to think critically. Obviously he produced a good product because the LOTR trilogy will most likely gross over 1.5 billion dollars when all is said and done.


Why "think critically" at all by that argument? Just count the money that a book or film brings in. You don't need to think.

I don't believe the PJ is "immoral" or "brainless". I think that like many manic, creative people he gets carried away by his own enthusiasm, something almost a necessity for a successful creative person. Total manic self-confidence is partly why he and other successful creative people get to a high level, along with gobs of genuine talent.

But parts of the films undeniably show, PJ's failure to consider carefully the threads he is untangling and reweaving with his own invention.

Now, if the film makes lots of money, does that mean that gross and obvious flaws don't exist?

Going by profits alone Danielle Steele may then be one of the greatest authors of our time and Britney Spears the greatest singer.


> I still can't figure out what the point of that incredibly long post was.


As much as it had _one_ point, which it did not have, it is a criticism of what seems to me to be bogus arguments used by both Tolkien-purists and Jackson-purists.

I reject both absolute purist and absolute revisionist positions, which is why my comments may seem confusing.

You often can adapt material exactly, despite the claims of revisionists, but there is no requirement to do so, despite the claims of the purists.

Joxy posted:


> I know the difference between artistic interpretation and instrumental incompetence: I know a wrong note when I hear one.


I would be loathe ever make such a claim absolutely. That someone is playing or singing out of tune, or playing or singing "wrong" notes is one of the most common complaints about music that happens to be outside of one's own musical tradition or is playing with that tradition.

It is a cavil hurled at jazz and blues musicians ad nauseum, at traditional folk singers, who are singing exactly in tune in the modes used in their own communities, hurled at avant-garde composers and free jazz musicians, blamed for their hideous disharmonic chords, sounds which the next generation find rather normal.

Your original statement was:


> Surely musicians usually do at least play the notes they are given, and not invent them as they go along? When they DO have the opportunity to "do their own thing", as in the cadenza of a concerto, do they not do so in the style of the composer?


This sounds like a rhetorical question which must be answered, "Yes they do".

But we are talking about adaptations surely, and musicians adapting or arranging a piece may do so very freely, may purposely adopt a style very different from the original, and may do so with great success.

There is also free improvisation.

You seemed to deny that musicians or other adaptors do this and to deny the "right" of an adaptor, whether a musician or another kind, to do anything he or she wishes.

Whether the result works or not, and who it works for, are different questions.

Hadhafang doesn't feel Legolas' skateboarding is a wrong note. Can you prove to him that it is. 

He might claim that this is just Jackson's way of protraying the "theme" of Legolas' Elvish grace and poise, and portraying the theme is what really matters, not how it is portrayed.

Mix that in with the Gimli jokes and Brego the wonder horse and we've got a very good B-film blockbuster type movie, which is enough for some people, who can't understand why anyone would want more

Perhaps skateboarding is not a wrong note in Jackson's film where, as in many Hollywood film, shields are never actually used for defense and the crenels of the Hornburg are only suitable for sheltering Dwarf-size defenders.

But the purist arguments and revisionist argument are not new. 

One difference in respect to Jackson's films is that there are a much larger group of people who have recently read the original and can more clearly compare the two works.

Another difference is that Jackson's source is in a very distinct style, unlike a modern novel or western.

Of course _Gladiator_ was also put down by peole who knew something about Roman history and culture and artefacts, but their cavils were also ignored by the general public.


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 17, 2003)

> Hobbits in general. They are simple folk, yet seem to be worldly enough to know how to offer their services to a king. They constantly open their mouths and say the wrong thing, yet are always spoken of as folk with fair speech. Those are just two examples.


Hadhafang never said that. I don't even remeber talkng about that. I think you got the wrong guy.


> An adaptation of a work would not be recognizable if it only retained the supposed themes.


For the second time. I NEVER SAID THAT IT ALONE MATTERED!
I still maintain that the most important part of a film adaption is highlighting the authors message (if there is one...and the Lord of the Rings has many). After all film adaption is what we are talking about here. All of these quotes by C.S. Lewis and M. Twain are irrelevant.


> If "theme" is paramount (and I don't think it is in many works or parts of works), it is only first among many, many equals.


All of those other "equals" you mentioned are highly interpretive to an adaption. I am sorry you disagree. What moves me most in LOTR is Tolkien's thematic depth. If I was looking for themeless, sheer excitement, I would read the Dragon Lance Chronicles.


> Going by profits alone Danielle Steele may then be one of the greatest authors of our time and Britney Spears the greatest singer.


Touche! Got me on that one. 
(playing devil's advocate) However, if themes are so unimportant than why should Danielle Steele's books be considered garbage novels and LOTR be considered artful? I personally think that Danielle Steele is a junk novelist because her stories are themeless and don't teach us about our human condition. Isn't that what separates art from sensationalism? 


> Isolate the themes from this or The Lord of the Rings if you can


If this was directed at good old Hadhafng then your reading comprehension could use some work. I beleive I did that for you in an earlier post.


> I reject both absolute purist and absolute revisionist positions, which is why my comments may seem confusing.


I'm glad you agree with me. However, I don't know exactly how much anyone else believes that LOTR should be totally revised. If that is your one point then why do you argue so much with those that agree with you? So if you are accusing me of faux intellectual snobbery which, I believe you have done twice now, you are attacking your own logic as well.
Also the faux intellectual snobbery I propose is a manifestaion of the contempt absolute plot purists show towards open minded readers of the text. It seems that neither of us put enough weight in themes after all...otherwise we would have not argued about this in the first place. 
Please in the future don't misquote me...that is the second time you did that. Thanks


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *As an example of characters who seem who would seem forced on the screen, unless changed, Hadhafang mentions:Pippin in the film, is often speaks and acts foolishly, just as in the book. Presumably Merry will offer his services to Théoden in the third film and Pippin will offer his services to Denethor.
> 
> Merry once apologizes for his inability to speak of high matters with fitting words.
> ...



Actually, I made that remark. And I think every hobbit in the book is given that credit except for sam.

The point is that learned people have to have a place to learn those things. Hobbits are praised as simple folk through the entire book. Where did they learn to offer their services to kings in such a manner when they've never even been around kings before? The main emphasis seems to be on their simplicity so I doubt they will come off like they did in the book, when we finally see the movie.

But who knows? Maybe JP is just brilliant enough to do it?


----------



## Uminya (Feb 17, 2003)

This is sort of like the political scale of liberalism and conservatism, and I think that my observations have given me a good perspective.

To the left of the left you have the *Anti-Tolkienists* who don't care what is in the book, but that the movie was far better. They accept whatever is put on screen and denounce the practice of reading.

On the left you have the hard-core *Jacksonians*, if you will. They feel that the film was adapted in a way that was superlative to the original work. They accept anything that follows the basic outline of Tolkien's work, no change too great, no addition too unreasonable.

Not so far left, you have the *Adaptationists*, who enjoyed the film greatly and have no objections to the changes that were made. They accept content cuts and more extensive storyline changes, as well as character alterations.

In the middle there are the *Moderates*. They easily separate the book from the movie and enjoy both equally. They accept more drastic scene cuts, content cuts, and minor changes.

To the right of the middle there are the *Purists*, who agree that the original work was better, but that the movie did some things well and that the movie's existence is acceptable. They accept scene cutting and some minor changes to the content.

To the far right are the *Tolkienists*, who oppose all filming of Tolkien's works unless they follow the true spirit of the novel. They accept nothing but the real deal, no extracts or concentrates will get their stamp of approval.

Beyond the Tolkienists are the *Anti-Theatrics* who think that no attempt should ever have been made to adapt Tolkien's works to screen. They resent the mere speculation of making a movie and accept nothing.


----------



## joxy (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Hadhafang doesn't feel Legolas' skateboarding is a wrong note. Can you prove to him that it is.
> He might claim that this is just Jackson's way of portraying the "theme" of Legolas' Elvish grace and poise, and portraying the theme is what really matters, not how it is portrayed.
> Mix that in with the Gimli jokes and Brego the wonder horse and we've got a very good B-film blockbuster type movie.*


I don't think that PJ WAS portraying the grace and poise; I think he was giving a second version of a gimmick he used in FOTR. If he was trying to portray it then he didn't succeed; neither stunt is clever enough to justify the idea, and neither fits in with the general tone of the film, which is why they are "wrong notes".
You've got it just right: there's a good B-movie tucked away inside a great classic film. Separate the two and you'd satisfy everyone!


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 18, 2003)

This has been bugging me so I'll spit it out. 

I think what legolas did with the shield would be more like snowboarding than skateboarding. I guess I am now a npw! hahaha!

I do think he used it to appeal to a certain segment of the audience along with the thematically (?) natural grace of the elves. Even at that, is it so terrible to use the shield trick because is seems so much like a modern activity? (I don't have a problem with it, so for me it's a different note as opposed to a wrong note.) Or maybe it wasn't outrageous enough? Gandalfs fireworks are far beyond reality, as are many other thing in ME that we do not critique.

This is a serious question as a result of that train of thought.....

Would a more outrageous stunt by legolas been accepted better by those who have a problem with it the snowboarding? (I have no idea what that might be, I'm just throwing it out there)


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 18, 2003)

> He (myself, Hadhafang) might claim that this is just Jackson's way of portraying the "theme" of Legolas' Elvish grace and poise


 This isn't a theme. I won't look too much into this criticism. Its more of an addition to the plot, not a theme. I don’t personally think that the scene of Legolas rushing down the stairs on shield is necessarily contrary to Tolkien's spirit. You may disagree. I respect anyone's opinion for that as a fellow fan of the book.


----------



## joxy (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *<Joxy: I know a wrong note when I hear one.>
> I would be loathe ever make such a claim absolutely. That someone is playing or singing out of tune, or playing or singing "wrong" notes is one of the most common complaints about music that happens to be outside of one's own musical tradition or is playing with that tradition.
> 
> ...


In general, I wouldn't make the claim either; I was referring to the matter in its simplest terms. If someone sits at the piano to play a scale of Fmajor and plays the B natural, then everyone hears the "wrong note". The same would apply to a singer who couldn't hit a high note in a simple song. In talking about different musical traditions, or much more advanced techniques within one's own tradition then what is "wrong" does of course take on a different dimension. I think PJ's films are more on the level of the scale or melody than of improvisations and variations.

Indeed rhetorical, but I WAS thinking more in terms of a player's contribution than of those adaptations and arrangements. A great player can get away with a wildly imaginative cadenza, but I don't rate PJ as highly as that.


----------



## joxy (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *Would a more outrageous stunt by legolas been accepted better by those who have a problem with it the snowboarding?*


Yes it would! This one is too trivial, too silly, too quick, and, yes, too "modern". The deeply serious setting of the battle needed something stronger. PJ's first gimmick for Legolas, the troll's chain, was done better, and was in a scene that was already, for better or worse, somehow comical. He couldn't let that go, and had to give L another trick, but didn't do it well enough, or seriously enough. The same applies to his insistence on a second dose of dwarf-tossing, though that was probably just a little more effective.
How much better it would all have been without any of this invented nonsense! Tolkien provided plenty of "real" incidents to show off Legolas', and Gimli's, characters.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 18, 2003)

I think one thing is clear. PJ did not set out to make a dark film. I think he added more of the "hobbit" feel to this adaptation in order to reach a broader audience. I remember how I felt when first reading the ring was evil. I was almost let down because I could never read the hobbit without the knowledge of the rings origin.


----------



## Thorin (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *I think what legolas did with the shield would be more like snowboarding than skateboarding. I guess I am now a npw! hahaha!
> 
> I do think he used it to appeal to a certain segment of the audience along with the thematically (?) natural grace of the elves. Even at that, is it so terrible to use the shield trick because is seems so much like a modern activity? (I don't have a problem with it, so for me it's a different note as opposed to a wrong note.) Or maybe it wasn't outrageous enough? Gandalfs fireworks are far beyond reality, as are many other thing in ME that we do not critique.
> ...



Is it just me or is our dear Foe-Hammer smoothing out his rough edges and actually starting to sound reasonable and in control?  Every post I've seen as of late has been well thought out with no sarcasm towards any purist or npw. No jibe or rhetorical attack against an unsuspecting criticizer of PJ's movies. Wow! I am impressed! Reason has returned to my arch-enemy! Would Harad recognize you now?


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 18, 2003)

Have any of the purists resolved not to see ROTK based on the alterations that PJ made to the first two films? Why bother wasting three hours of your life and $8.50 to see it if PJ's interpretations are so awful?


----------



## Thorin (Feb 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hadhafang _
> *Have any of the purists resolved not to see ROTK based on the alterations that PJ made to the first two films? Why bother wasting three hours of your life and $8.50 to see it if PJ's interpretations are so awful? *




Three reasons:

1) There is a remote possibility that PJ might salvage some of the glaring errors his little tangents have taken the movie.

2) It's worth the money to see the parts that remain true to Tolkien come alive. As well as the sets and costumes. Come one, you can't tell me that Moria and Lorien (in the EE) weren't worth it!

3) We have to see this through to the bitter end!

I think Beorn is the only one who has toyed with the idea of not seeing the movies based on principle. But even he caved in!


----------



## joxy (Feb 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hadhafang _
> *....if PJ's interpretations are so awful? *


I haven't read ANYONE saying they are "awful".


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by joxy _
> *I haven't read ANYONE saying they are "awful". *



Have you caught some of maggotts remarks? As bad or worse.


----------



## joxy (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *Have you caught some of maggotts remarks? As bad or worse. *


I haven't seen MM using the word "awful".
She has criticised parts of the films and praised other parts; so have I.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by joxy _
> *I haven't seen MM using the word "awful".
> She has criticised parts of the films and praised other parts; so have I. *



A rose by any other name......

Still, I believe she used the word "immoral".


----------



## jallan (Feb 22, 2003)

Foe-hammer posted:


> The point is that learned people have to have a place to learn those things. Hobbits are praised as simple folk through the entire book. Where did they learn to offer their services to kings in such a manner when they've never even been around kings before? The main emphasis seems to be on their simplicity so I doubt they will come off like they did in the book, when we finally see the movie.


Tolkien presents a class society in the Shire, with the Thain at the top, except in Buckland and the Marish where the Master of Buckland's authority is accepted. Presumably both have people in their service, and they are probably not the only such powers in the Shire. Also the Hobbits do know old stories, presumably some of them about Men and Kings. From _The Hobbit_:


> Not the fellow who used to tell such wonderful tales at parties, about dragons and goblins and giants and the rescue of princesses and the unexpected luck of widow’s sons?


From the chapter “The Ring Goes South”:


> In those last days the hobbits sat together in the evening in the Hall of Fire, and there among many tales they heard told in full the lay of Beren and Lúthien and the winning of the Great Jewel; ...


The supposed contradiction dpes not exist in the book.

Nor _need_ an adaptor change a word of the two offerings of homage. There is no reason to think that Jackson’s hobbits would not know such stories.

Foehammer posted:


> Gandalfs fireworks are far beyond reality, as are many other thing in ME that we do not critique.


This sounds like the old _it's fantasy so you can't criticize it for realism_. Within the tale Gandalf is a wizard specializing in fire. Of course he should produce exceptional fireworks. If Gandalf flamed on like the Human Torch we would accept that also, if Tolkien had given him such powers.

The stairboarding is just so silly, reminiscent of mediocre Samuri and Ninja films, of mediocre superhero films, films that don't ask the audience to take what is happening on screen very seriously.

Hadhafang posted:


> Hadhafang never said that. I don't even remeber talkng about that. I think you got the wrong guy.


Stupid typo! :-(
My apologies.


> For the second time. I NEVER SAID THAT IT ALONE MATTERED!
> I still maintain that the most important part of a film adaption is highlighting the authors message (if there is one...and the Lord of the Rings has many). After all film adaption is what we are talking about here. All of these quotes by C.S. Lewis and M. Twain are irrelevant.


I never said at any time that that you said that it _alone_ mattered.

At least two popular films based on books, _Mary Poppins_ and _Blade Runner_, showed no particular interest in following the themes of the originals. _Mary Poppins_ the film centered on the theme of a dysfunctional family coming together, of which there was nothing in Travers’ source books. (I don’t particularly like either the books or the film, but for different reasons.)

_Blade Runner_ takes only the plot and atmosphere of Philip K. ****’s _Do Androids Deam of Electric Sheep_, ignoring everything else.

There are certainly other such films which change themes.

I recall reviews praising directors for not following an author's theme, but cannot recall which films. (Like most, I've often seen a film but not read the book, or if I have, not close enough in time having viewed the film to adequately compare the two.)

Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ also rather obscures the theme of the original tale, of a dispossessed heir who cleverly feigns madness for the purpose of covering up the preparations he is making to avenge himself and gain the throne, in which he totally succeeds. James Branch Cabell’s _Hamlet Had an Uncle_ draws from both, but invents the conceit that Hamlet's true father was actually “Claudius”, so that his Hamlet unknowingly kills his father to avenge his uncle.

Your theme rule seems to say all of this is _wrong_.

I think your theme rule as bogus as any rules about literature, except as guidelines about what often works.


> However, if themes are so unimportant than why should Danielle Steele's books be considered garbage novels and LOTR be considered artful? I personally think that Danielle Steele is a junk novelist because her stories are themeless and don't teach us about our human condition. Isn't that what separates art from sensationalism?


I never said themes were unimportant!

I find "teach us about our human condition" a horrible, vacuous phrase. 

I suppose it could be said that _Hamlet_ teaches us that if we murder, the ghost of the victim may not rest easy, may inspire vengeance. Or are we supposed to ignore that teaching about the “human condition” and morality? 

Who better describes the “human condition”: J.R.R Tolkien, Franz Kafka, Ernest Hemmingway, James Joyce, Ayn Rand, or even Danielle Steele? Depends on the human beings described, and on one’s own philosophy.

Some would say you should instead for the truth of the human condition to existentialist philosophical writings, or to the Christian gospels, or to the Qur’an, or the teachings of Gautama Buddha, and so forth.. Of course, these sources also disagree with one another.


> I'm glad you agree with me. However, I don't know exactly how much anyone else believes that LOTR should be totally revised.


I never said that either.

Certainly, there is no literary work that could not be improved, at least according to some tastes. But tastes differ.

But who should revise it? And how?

The first edition of _The Lord of the Rings_ is in public domain in the United States at least. There is a large amount of Tolkien fan fiction on the web.

So, go ahead.


> Also the faux intellectual snobbery I propose is a manifestaion of the contempt absolute plot purists show towards open minded readers of the text.


I take it that “open minded to change” is your meaning.

Does this mean _any_ change?

We could replace Gandalf with Arwen, Gandalf having retired after the events of _The Hobbit_ and having passed his powers and task on to her. We conflate Gandalf and Elrond. That wouldn’t change any of the themes surely, and might strengthen the tale. Imagine Aragorn’s grief when Arwen falls in to abyss in Moria, and his joy when she returns as Arwen the White.

We hardly need both Merry and Pippin, so let's conflate them into one character. Themes are still intact.

Frodo Baggins becomes Froda Baggins, Bilbo's niece. Why not? Themes are still intact.

The Elves are actually mutants, created by the interstelllar aliens known as the Valar. Most accompanied the Valar when the returned to their home planet, but a few have remained, for a time.

Lothlórien becomes a futuristic science-fictional city in the sky, and we replace Galadriel’s mirror with a prediction computer. 

No smoking of course. Chewing gum instead. Arwen the Grey blows a rocket bubble that bursts Bilbo's round bubble.

The Balrog is Saruman’s son. That explains why Saruman is trying to force the Fellowship into Moria. He trusts his kid. That's one Jackson _faux-pas_ fixed.

The Nazgûl are re-imagined as raptors. (Dinosaus sell.)

Legolas and the Elves have wheels on their shields and generally skateboard everywhere on them, except when flying using their winged harness, a tribute to the hawkmen in _Flash Gordon_.

Galadriel does succumb to the temptation of the Ring, but is fortunately killed by Boromir who has awakened and has been secretly watching Froda and Galadriel at the computer. This is followed by an exciting scene in which the Fellowship are forced to take boats and flee, now pursued by both Elves and Orcs, which heightens the tension.

When Haldir arrives at Helm's Deep we have a deeply moving scene in which he and his folk decide that they must join with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli and forget their desire for vengeance. (Boromir, Galadriel’s slayer, is presumed dead in any case, but actually he is alive, being preserved and healed by the power of Galadriel’s Elven ring which he took from Galadrie’s finger. Boromir will be conflated with Faramir.)

Théoden and Denethor will also be conflated. Rohan is simply a province of Gondor, where Théodenethor happens to be residing at the time.

The Ents are replaced by the nymphs of mountains streams, who are incensed by Saruman's pollution. They flood Isengard directly using their own power over their streams, putting an end to the Balrog who has also survived.

At last the sword that was broken can be reforged, for only the blood of a Balrog can properly temper the blade.

The short and stocky Dwarf Gimli we will rename _Hardy_ because he is, and the tall Elf Legolas we will rename from the plant _Laurel_, so these two comical sidekick characters will be a tribute to ....


----------



## Thorin (Feb 23, 2003)

Looking at Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. He changed the scenery, the setting and the costume to match 18th century Denmark instead of 15th century Denmark and it worked regardeless. Why? Because of his strict adherence to the written work. 

Now I suppose that some Shakespeare purists would be disgruntled that he changed the setting, but they can't complain about how he portrayed it on screen. Much better than Mel Gibson's Hamlet. 

Does that mean that were Tolkien's LoTR put in a futuristic mode and still had all the dialogue that it would be okay? Nope. Because the whole story is ingrained in the history and setting of what we know as Middle Earth. It wouldn't work, not would it make sense. Hamlet is not focused around a particular setting (except for it being Denmark) so one can get away with it. Tolkien is another story.

Why am I bringing all this up? I have no idea. I really don't know what point I'm trying to prove. Maybe that ONLY strict adherence to the story would truly work as an adaptation and that any major changes would disrupt Middle Earth. Hence, the need to keep it true to the book.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Foe-hammer posted:Tolkien presents a class society in the Shire, with the Thain at the top, except in Buckland and the Marish where the Master of Buckland's authority is accepted. Presumably both have people in their service, and they are probably not the only such powers in the Shire. Also the Hobbits do know old stories, presumably some of them about Men and Kings. From The Hobbit:From the chapter “The Ring Goes South”:The supposed contradiction dpes not exist in the book.
> 
> Nor need an adaptor change a word of the two offerings of homage. There is no reason to think that Jackson’s hobbits would not know such stories.
> ...



Thats just silly. There are no kings in the shire and you interjecting the specifics of stories that are not there is presuming that everyone else would assume that the stories told would teach these simple hobbits how to deal with kings. We all create our own version of ME and a lot of the time it is unique to each reader. So, when pj writes a "simple hobbit", he keeps him simple because doing it tolkiens way is contradictory and 2 dimensional.

As for the rest of your post, as with most of them, I didn't bother to read it all because you present entirely too many points in one thread for anyone to respond to. "less is more" is an old chestnut you might do well to consider before writng your next post. You keep that up and you'll be challenging MM for the title of pedant extraordinaire.


----------



## jallan (Feb 23, 2003)

_Hamlet_ has also been presented in modern dress on the stage, and recently in the film _Hamlet (2000)_ which dropped lines and sections, but did not change the dialogue. I very much liked this version, though it did not do well at the box office.

Of course there is also the modern day  Luhrmann's _Romeo & Juliet_ and Julie Taymor’s Titus that mixed Hollywood Roman and twentieth century.

Outside of works of the bard, there is a modern day black casted film version of _The Wizard of Oz_ called The Wiz, perhaps more interesting than successful, but with a wonderful evocation of the atmosphere of the decaying New York City of the 70’s.

Could one modernize _The Lord of the Rings_? Probably, though the only extended fan fiction attempt I've seen failed miserably.

But try The Lord of the Rings (2002) for a taste of what a good free modern adaptation (with some parody) might be like.

Then for a complete and hilarious film version of another concept, see _The Lord of the Rings_ movie with Humphrey Bogart as Frodo, Sidney Greenstreet as Gandalf, and Peter Lorre as Gollum.

Thorin posted:


> Maybe that ONLY strict adherence to the story would truly work as an adaptation and that any major changes would disrupt Middle Earth. Hence, the need to keep it true to the book.


This would depend on the adapter. Also, there would be no necessary need to keep everything true to the original than there was for _Westside Story_ to exactly follow Shakespeare’s _Romeo and Juliet_.

There are no rules, other than what any particular adaptor can get away with.

The earliest surviving form of the Hamlet story can be found begnning at The Danish History, Book 1-IX: Book Three. Search on _Horwendil_ for the start of the story, or read the whole chapter for an interesting account of the death of Balder. The story continues at The Danish History, Book 1-IX: Book Four. This history was written by Saxo Grammaticus in the early 13th century.

Belleforest retold the tale in volume five of his _Histories Tragique_, published in 1570, somewhat modernizing it. For example, the spying counsellor in Saxo hides under a heap of straw in the Queen's bedroom. Belleforest imagines an arras instead. The Elizabethan English translation of Belleforest can be found at The Hystorie of Hamblet, London: 1608. We do not have the earlier Elizabethan _Hamlet_ play, but Shakespeare’s remake is even more modern than is Belleforest’s account.

The determined pagan Jutish son of a rading warrior chieftain has become a vacillating Christian Danish prince who is a student at the Univesity of Wittenberg (only founded in 1502). Cannon are mentioned prominantly.

The ending of the story, from Hamlet's return from England, has no basis in the old tale.

One may also note that from 1681 for 150 years the version of _King Lear_ that was seen on stage was Nathan Tate's happy ending adaptation. (Other Shakespeare plays were also often played in adapted forms.)

This version of _King Lear_ has recently been returned to the stage, See Excellent production of butchered King Lear.

Of course, the original story that Shakespeare adapted did have a happy ending. Look in Geoffrey of Monmouth: _Histories of the Kings of Britain_ and search in Adobe Acrobate for “Leir”.

See a discussion at The True Chronicle History of King Leir.

So which version should a _purist_ support?


----------



## joxy (Feb 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *....when pj writes a "simple hobbit", he keeps him simple because doing it Tolkien's way is contradictory and 2 dimensional.*


Could you expand on T's "way" being "contradictory and 2 dimensional"? What way?; what does it contradict?: 
do you mean T's writing has no depth? How is PJ's "simple" different from T's alleged 2-dimensionality?
Or does your sentence mean something totally different?


----------



## jallan (Feb 23, 2003)

Foe-hammer posted:


> Thats just silly. There are no kings in the shire and you interjecting the specifics of stories that are not there is presuming that everyone else would assume that the stories told would teach these simple hobbits how to deal with kings. We all create our own version of ME and a lot of the time it is unique to each reader. So, when pj writes a "simple hobbit", he keeps him simple because doing it tolkiens way is contradictory and 2 dimensional.


That’s just silly.

Tales and stories and legends are mentioned again and again, admittedly without detail, which speaks as much against your doubts as for them.

But we are told specifically that the Hobbits had a tradition about Marcho and Blanco obtaining permission from the King to settle in the Shire, that the Hobbits of the Shire followed the old Rules of the King, and later that Aragorn had been telling them tales of the Elf kingdoms.

To judge from Merry Pledges Fealty to Théoden at least one of the pledgings is planned for the third film, and I don’t think anyone but yourself will find Merry's knowledge odd, anymore than Merry knowing about treeherds before meeting Treebeard.

It's not something that anyone would normally worry about. Even simple folk have tales, however inaccurate in some features, about past days and foreign lands.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Foe-hammer posted:That’s just silly.
> 
> Tales and stories and legends are mentioned again and again, admittedly without detail, which speaks as much against your doubts as for them.
> ...



Well here you are making up your own stories now. simple folk may hear of tales, but relating them to action is another story. the are SIMPLE hobbits more worried about food and gardens and rest than anything else. And if the scene is included in TRoTK, PJ will improve it by making the actions of the hobbits fit their experience. Something tolkien was not concerned with.


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 24, 2003)

> Frodo Baggins becomes Froda Baggins, Bilbo's niece. Why not? Themes are still intact.....etc.


All of these are of course radical changes to the plot and would be unacceptable in my eyes at least. It also suggests that I stated that theme alone was important, which, of course I did not. That has also been argued by Jallan...


> I never said at any time that that you said that it alone mattered.


 Therefore the litany of examples presented was unnecessary.

I also don't agree with any critics who applaud changing an author's themes in an adaption. That changes an authors vision far more than minor plot changes. If a film maker doesn't like what an author is stating they shouldn't rearrange the themes to there own liking....but that's just my humble opinion.


> Does this mean any change?


In a film adaption where time is of the essence, minor plot changes may actually enhance the author's messages, themes, and visions. An author gives a reader a lot of information that develops themes, characters, and messages. Much of what the author expresses occurs in the minds of the character or in narrative between character actions. During a film adaption these critical points can not always be translated in the action of the plot. These are impossible to show in a film adaption without incurring minor changes. 
A couple of exmples:
1) Replacing Arwen with Glorfindel to develop her character is an acceptable change in my eyes. This allows greater development of the powerful love/guilt story between Aragorn and Arwen since we get more time with her.

2) I also think that enhancing Gollum's text in TTT was acceptable. It allowed the viewer to feel pity for Gollum. In doing this it eventually further promoted the theme that 'Through forgiveness is redemption.'

This does not mean that PJ was perfect though. He made plenty of changes that I personally felt deviated too far from Tolkien.

It is obvious one has to stay relatively close to the plot of the book in any film adaption. Otherwise you wouldn't even recognize the story. However, changing Tolkien's or any other authors' themes is not acceptable in my eyes. I therefore maintain that (and clarify for the third time) that 'themes are paramout' in an adaption from novel to film. This means that while there are many things to consider when adapting a film, themes should hold most true to the authors vision.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 25, 2003)

*Film changes*

The most egregious changes Jackson made were to the characters. The ones he "left alone" (followed the author) were the most successful: Bilbo, Gandalf, Sam, Frodo (except he has been too weakened at this point in the story), Galadriel, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli (in the first film for the latter; now he's merely comic relief) and Gollum (although he is _too_ sympathetic and may be presented at the end as "willingly sacrificing" his life to destroy the Ring, something diametric to Tolkien's character).

On the other hand, he absolutely destroyed Aragorn. He made him fearful and vacillating, terrified of some sort of "weakness in his blood" regarding the Ring, fleeing from his heritage and birthright and doing everything in his power to drive away the woman he ostensibly loves. In the beginning, his efforts to forestall her attentions had at least the excuse of a desire to prevent her from becoming mortal, but as of the last film, he was just rude. 

Arwen is much the stronger one of the two, driving, pushing and propping up her wuss of a lover while riding to battle in FOTR even if she was edited out in TTT. It was supposed to "introduce" the audience to the character before the wedding! Yet the character could have been properly portrayed without all that Xena Warrior Princess garbage using the same type of flashbacks and "dream sequences" Jackson had no trouble using in TTT! 

Elrond is a nasty, sarcastic, embittered scold rather than a kind and courteous counselor.

Eowyn is much sturdier and stronger than Tolkien's "stricken lily" and her "attraction" to Aragorn is strangely tepid and short-lived (given the big "play" the old "love triangle" got before the film came out). Indeed, there was far more actual "passion" in the book than in the film. Go figure!

Merry and Pippin who in the books were devoted friends determined to follow Frodo and Sam into exile and danger were, in the first film, thieving vandals who "swerved into" the matter and went along almost as a lark to be used by the Director as a running gag and comic relief. In the second film they all but disappeared as Jackson apparently lost interest in both them and their plot thread. But never fear, Gimli stepped into the "comic relief" role lest we be without someone to hold in contempt of the original Company.

Theoden in the book was an _old_ frail king under the "spell" of his wicked counselor. When he was released therefrom, he didn't get younger nor did his beard become shorter and gold rather than white. However, he did understand the need to take arms against Saruman and, in fact, instead of taking his people into the refuge at Dunharrow, actually led his army to Helm's Deep for the battle. Jackson's king became free, grew younger and much, _much_ stronger, learned all about the horrors perpetrated by Saruman against his people - and decided to hide in the hills!

And did anyone mention Faramir? Even the veriest of FADs is a tad embarrassed about Jackson's destruction of the second most noble man in Middle-earth after Aragron. But considering what Jackson did to Aragorn, maybe Faramir didn't fare all that badly!

And the ents, the poor ents! Treebeard, far from being wise and "deep", was dimmer than his forest. Like Theoden, the ents decide _not_ to fight only to have Treebeard tricked into it by M&P. Of course, as he starts into battle alone, suddenly all these ents appear (who apparently were just waiting around to see if the old root would change his mind) and so forth. A beautiful plot thread greatly reduced and Jackson did not even use the formidable and frightening (and would would have made glorious cg characters) huorns to help win the battle at Helm's Deep! Another missed opportunity so that we can have another ten minutes of game boy excitement at H. D.

It isn't enough for a film adapted from a book to be peopled by characters that have the same names as those in the book or even who look like them. Jackson's films have an awful lot of characters who despite their familiar names and appearances, are absolute strangers at least to me and I suspect some others as well.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 25, 2003)

Jeeze mm, is a man less of a man because he has a good woman behind him? I don't think arragorn is a great character because he has no need of a woman other than to further his seed. Which is all wimmin' were good for in tolkiens day.
I think PJ has giving arragorn more depth because he has mis-givings about his strength to rule. But he is by no means a coward or a weak man. He kicks bum (for you joxy ) and is manly in every sense, especially in his attitude towards his kingship.

As with the rest of the changes you complain about ad naseum, they were made to better the story so it would actually draw in people who expect more nobel actions from their heros.


----------



## joxy (Feb 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *....is a man less of a man because he has a good woman behind him?
> Which is all wimmin' were good for in tolkiens day.
> He kicks bum (for you joxy
> ....the changes you complain about ad nauseam, they were made to better the story so it would actually draw in people who expect more noble actions from their heroes.*


No, not less of a man, but not a more interesting man either, in the context of T's story. 
That about wimmin is as arrant a bit of nonsense as I've ever seen here!
OK F-H, we say kick-ass here too!
1: They do NOT better the story; they mess it up.
2: You don't know they drew ANY people in - any more than I know they drew NONE in.
3: I've yet to see a more noble collection of actions and heroes than T's, and a more mixed up collection than PJ's.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Feb 25, 2003)

It is one thing to have "a good woman behind you" and quite another if she constitutesyour entire backgone and whatever intestinal fortitude you display belongs to her. In the book, Aragorn needed Arwen because he loved her and found completion of himself in that love. However, he didn't require her standing there holding him up and repeating endlessly in his ear that he wasn't his ancestor and his blood wasn't weak or bad and besides that, even if it were, she loved him anyway. 

And, I might add, how does Mr. Jackson's Aragorn repay this selfless love? He tells her in so many words to "ship out". Oh yes, he doesn't want her to "die". But, friends, she has already told him that she prefers mortality with him than immortality _without_ him (why, God alone knows!). Now the question must be, does he think so little of her intellect (she being so much older and of a more "noble race" than he - or so we're told) that he doesn't think she knows what she's talking about? Or could it be, he's as scared of her daddy as he is of his great-great-great _grand_daddy? No matter how you look at it, he's a loser. He either doesn't respect her judgment (after all, what does _she_ know!) or he's too frightened of Elrond to take a chance and return her affections (unless it's in a "flashback"). Neither of these characters are Tolkien's Aragorn but at least they explain to some extent Elrond's absolute contempt for the man. Who can blame him?


----------



## Thorin (Feb 25, 2003)

Once again, Maggot has pointed the horrific deviations, holes and fallacies in TTT that make the theatre cut of FoTR a breath of fresh air. Bravo! I only wish more FADs had the sense to see the logic in what you are saying. PJ is going so far from what Tolkien intended that he is seemingly reinventing alot. 

Despite the deviations of Aragorn in FoTR, they would have been tolerable except for the way things went in TTT. But as Maggot has previously mentioned, when you make one change in one movie, the rest needs to be changed to fit the rest of the deviated story.

God only knows what RoTK will be like for PJ to make it congeal with the numerous plot and character changes he has introduced in the previous two movies.


----------



## joxy (Feb 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Thorin _
> *....when you make one change in one movie, the rest needs to be changed to fit the rest of the deviated story.*


This is really the crunch about these films. Tolkien made changes, many of them, over many years, then painstakingly resolved them and completed a coherent work in which the details fitted together, within the broad scope of his story, of his alternative universe. In contrast PJ, despite all the claims made for him, appears to have had no one clear vision, but made arbitrary changes which inevitably build up, in the snowball or domino effect, to what indeed looks likely to be the fearful mess of ROTK that you anticipate. Of course, with source material on such a grand and detailed scale, there is nothing surprising about PJ's failure; the only remarkable thing is how he had the self-confidence, hubris even, to take it on himself to attempt the drastic changes in the first place. Increasingly, his vision is becoming diminished in quality, just as we are finding that his technical abilities as a 
film-maker are coming into question also. Trying to take him seriously is becoming an ever more difficult task!


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 25, 2003)

It's obvious you all are turning a blind eye to how absolutely elietest arrogorn looks in tolkiens book.

He has no fear of the ring. yet he wanders the wilderness. why? As rightful king he allows many of gondor to be killed because why? The entire reason arragorn does not take charge of the kingdom right away would look so totally contrived on film that it's laughable. He's waiting for the right time so he can be the hero?

C'mon. it's weak.


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 25, 2003)

> *Roger Ebert of the Chicago sun Times* The task of the critic is to decide whether this shift damages the movie. It does not. "The Two Towers" is one of the most spectacular swashbucklers ever made



This was a quote from Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times who has complained about many of PJs changes in the adaption. I too was annoyed at PJs changes but didn't allow them too ruin the movie for me. If I had not read LOTR before the movie I wouldn't have gotten hung up on these changes in the first place. I think it is important to relax enjoy the films for what they are. 
I do agree with most of Mrs Maggots complaints. However, the film independant of the books is a good film.


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 25, 2003)

joxy,

you just think all the pieces fit. readers create a lot of the story in their imagination in order to force the story to make sense. PJ changes were made to hide the weaknesses of the book. Specifically towards the middle of the book where it gets BORING. Which coincedentally is right where PJ made all the changes that have fixed the story. The change is so noticable that it seems as if a different writer was writing the book.


----------



## Hadhafang (Feb 25, 2003)

> readers create a lot of the story in their imagination


I agree with this to a degree, particularly with Tolkien. I felt he left alot to the imagination. As a Tolkien fan I undestand that Tolkien wasn't perfect. He made some mistakes and didn't due the best job of developing characters and themes in "every" instance. I would never go as far as to say that Tolkien's works were "boring". But, we're all entitled to our opinions...


----------



## Foe-Hammer (Feb 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hadhafang _
> *I agree with this to a degree, particularly with Tolkien. I felt he left alot to the imagination. As a Tolkien fan I undestand that Tolkien wasn't perfect. He made some mistakes and didn't due the best job of developing characters and themes in "every" instance. I would never go as far as to say that Tolkien's works were "boring". But, we're all entitled to our opinions... *



Well not the whole book was boring, just certain places. They were boring the first time I read it and they are the umteenth time too. I just finished TTT and am into "the steward and the king" now and am I glad TTT is over with.


----------



## jallan (Mar 1, 2003)

Foe-hammer posted:


> Well here you are making up your own stories now. simple folk may hear of tales, but relating them to action is another story. the are SIMPLE hobbits more worried about food and gardens and rest than anything else. And if the scene is included in TRoTK, PJ will improve it by making the actions of the hobbits fit their experience. Something tolkien was not concerned with.


I originally suggested that Foe-hammer give examples of characterization that had to be changed for the film.

The only example given was a supposition that Jackson _would_ have to change or drop the two pledging of alliegicances by Merry and Pippin.

Since the films have not reached this place in the story, this sole example really cannot be used to show any characterization in the book that had to be changed. 

Shouting the word "SIMPLE" does not strengthen the argument.

Tolkien does not give any tale specifically about pleding of alleigiance to an overlord.

He also never mentions Frodo smoking a pipe himself. Does that mean that Frodo must have been a non-smoker? 

Tolkien never mentions any excretion of waste by any characters? Does that mean he imagined a different biology for his characters than that known in our world today?

Tolkien deals with this kind of argument in his essay “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’' published in the omnibus critical volume _The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays_ on the matter of the genuiness of Gawain’s confession:


> First: since the author does not specify what Gawain confessed, we cannot say what he omitted, and it is therefore gratuitously silly to assert that he concealed anything.
> <snip>
> We are obliged therefore to come to terms with the situation deliberately contrived by the author; ....


But perhaps you have some other example somewhere of characterization that had to be changed for the films, where the changes appear in the films we have seen?


> It's obvious you all are turning a blind eye to how absolutely elietest arrogorn looks in tolkiens book.


No. Aragorn, like Gandalf, is often elitist. Who has turned a blind eye to this?


> He has no fear of the ring. yet he wanders the wilderness. why?


What has one to do with the other?

Book-Aragorn was wandering and adventuring long before it was known the Ring might have been found, had become the greatest hunter and adventurer of the age before Gandalf shared with him his suspicions about Bilbo’s ring. Perhaps the same is true of movie-Aragorn. He has seen the White City, somehow learned to fight very well, gained the great respect of Gandalf and the love of Arwen.


> As rightful king he allows many of gondor to be killed because why?


Who does he allow to be killed?


> The entire reason arragorn does not take charge of the kingdom right away would look so totally contrived on film that it's laughable. He's waiting for the right time so he can be the hero?


You are inventing again.

The claim of the descendants of Isildur had been rejected at least once by Gondor, along with various other claims of descendants of Meneldil. To avoid quarrels and possible civil war the rule of the Stewards continued.

Denethor had already become a rival of Aragorn when he served in Gondor as Thorongil.

What do you suggest book-Aragorn should have done, other than wait for some chance to support his claim? 

Should he have playing politics by making secret alliances with any disaffected with Denethor’s rule, dividing Gondor when it most needed his strength, perhaps formenting a civil war?


> C'mon. it's weak.


Well, according the extended DVD version Aragorn will be hunted all his life, unless he lays claim to the throne and suceeds in attaining it.

Who is hunting Aragorn?

What is movie-Aragorn’s claim to the throne?

Why does Elendil suggest that broken sword by reforged for Aragorn alone, that Aragorn alone can wield it (though it was apparently not reforged for any of his ancestors). 

The film lacks any explanation for Aragorn’s position, whether laughable or not.


> you just think all the pieces fit.


There are a number of _minor_ puzzles, discrepencies and errors in the book. There are a number of _serious_ puzzles, descrepencies and errors in the films.

Perhaps you can explain whether in the film Gandalf does or does not know that Balin and his kingdom has been destroyed, or why Saruman wanted the Fellowship to face the Balrog in Moria? These and many other questions have come up again and again on Tolkien boards


> readers create a lot of the story in their imagination in order to force the story to make sense.


 Please do think about supporting your statements. If the films were more logical than the books, you might have a case. Mostly, they are not.


> PJ changes were made to hide the weaknesses of the book.


What weaknesses are you talking about now?[/quote] Specifically towards the middle of the book where it gets BORING. Which coincedentally is right where PJ made all the changes that have fixed the story. The change is so noticable that it seems as if a different writer was writing the book.[/quote]No mention of exactly which parts you found boring that _needed_ fixing. 

Did Gandalf’s magic staff have to give Théoden a beard trim and a haircut? Did Aragorn and Gandalf have to give bad advice to Théoden? 

Did Gimli have to fall off a horse?

What was the meaning of that scene where one of the archers fires an arrow unordered into the Orcs, which leads them to charge? It looks like it might have had some dramatic purpose in some other film from which it was borrowed, but it makes no sense in the PJ’s film.

Did the army that came to the aid of Helm’s Deep have to charge into pikes?

Why do you read a book umpteen times if you find it boring?

Hadhafang posted:


> All of these are of course radical changes to the plot and would be unacceptable in my eyes at least.
> <snip>
> I also don't agree with any critics who applaud changing an author's themes in an adaption. That changes an authors vision far more than minor plot changes. If a film maker doesn't like what an author is stating they shouldn't rearrange the themes to there own liking....but that's just my humble opinion.


But should your _opinion_ be anyone else’s rule?

_Cat Ballou_ if presented as in the book, might have been a reasonably good western film. The book was not exceptional. Instead the story was very much revised into a wonderful comedy.

The best of the Tarzan films is usually considered to be _Tarzan the Ape Man_, only very loosely based on _Tarzan of the Apes_ and _The Return of Tarzan_.

The books told how the son of an English lord, raised by apes, taught himself to read English from books he found in his father's cabin, stole primitive weapons from natives, fell in love with Jane Porter who came to Africa with her father on a treaure hunt, and eventually civilized himself, learned to speak good French and English, and gained both her hand in marriage and also his hereditary position as an English lord.

(Like movie-Aragorn, at the end of the first book he gives up on both, for Jane's sake. The second book makes all right again.)

The film gave no indication of Tarzan’s origin, but tells how Jane Parker[sic], accopanying her father on a safiri fell in love with Tarzan in Africa, taught him a very little English, and forsook civilization to remain with him (with no indication of marriage).

_Any_ kind of change _can_ work, whether of plot, atmosphere, theme, character, despite claims about what film producer or other kind of adaptor should or should not do.

Aesthetic rules that are broken successfully are obviously not rules.


> I think it is important to relax enjoy the films for what they are.


“The Two Towers” has numerous plot holes and absuridites. Why is it _important_ to relax and enjoy these plot holes and absurdities for what they are?

Taking into account how uncinematic it is in many places compared to its source, why not spend the time in re-reading the source instead?

Why inflict the flat movie-Faramir on myself again?

Tolkien's account of Helm’s Deep I find both more dramatic and cinematic and real than Jackson's. I don’t see any reason to enjoy Olympic torch Orcs and cute Dwarf-tossing. (I would have been far more reasonable for Aragorn to have quickly summoned at least three or four more warriors to come through the postern to aid him.)

Tolkien’s Théoden seems like a king one might actualy want to follow.

Tolkien’s account of the Ent’s taking of Isengard is far more dramatic than PJ’s silly opening of a convenient self-destruct dam.

If PJ wants to increase tension and drama, let him do it. I’ve no special complaint about him turning up the tension in the early part of the first film, changing a snowstorm into an avalanche etc., though I have enough purist inclination to wish that I might see a closer dramatization of the original.

But many of Jackson’s innovations, especially in “The Two Towers”, such as the Nazgûl scene at Osgiliath, are not up to the book dramatically or cinematically.

I don't _need_ to enjoy such silliness, and find it odd that someone thinks I should.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 2, 2003)

Indeed, Jackson's Aragorn has much _less_ of a problem with a claim to the throne because Jackson has deleted Anarion and the Northern Kingdom of Arnor. There is only one Kingdom (Gondor) and only _one_ line (Isildur's) through which the kingship passes. This is very much unlike Tolkien's historical situation where Arvedui's claim to the throne as the only remaining heir of Isildur is rejected because ostensibly Gondor was supposed to go only to the heirs of Anarion. His second claim - that he was husband to the late King's daughter - is also rejected because the throne supposedly passes through the male line.

In the film, Aragorn would not have either of these complications to deal with. One Kingdom; one original High King; one remaining (unmarried) heir. Whatever reason the film's Aragorn had for rejecting his heritage, it cannot be that the claim made by his forefathers had already been rejected and therefore he did not feel he would be accepted.


----------



## jallan (Mar 2, 2003)

Mrs. Maggott posted:


> Whatever reason the film's Aragorn had for rejecting his heritage, it cannot be that the claim made by his forefathers had already been rejected and therefore he did not feel he would be accepted.


Indeed, Aragorn's position as potential rightful heir to the throne seems unquestioned.

But Gondor apparently, at least according to Boromir, doesn’t need or want a king.

If this is the official government position, that is, the position of the Steward and whatever Council there is who might also have a say in the matter, then Aragorn’s potential claim has been rejected even before he makes it.

The hunting reference certainly suggests something of the kind, a rejection of a potential claim that began even before Aragorn was born.

If the hunting reference is to be taken seriously, then Denethor may appear as a tryant obsessed with holding on to his power, who has indeed been hunting Aragorn and seeking his death, sort of a Saul and David situation with Boromir and Faramir together as Jonathan.

David similarly refused to seek the throne (though probably not particular because he didn’t want power).

But I don't see how PJ can make this strand cohere and I suspect he won’t try.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Mrs. Maggott posted:Indeed, Aragorn's position as potential rightful heir to the throne seems unquestioned.
> 
> But Gondor apparently, at least according to Boromir, doesn’t need or want a king.
> ...


Certainly that don't want/don't need is _Boromir's_ position (understandable as the heir apparent), but whether it would be the position of the "government" is not known. Of course, we only know Denethor from the book which certainly would have been his position - and in fact, _was_ his stated position - but in the book with the Arvedui business, at least Denethor has some legitimacy in his claim whereas, no such legitimacy can exist in the film. Remember, the Stewards rule "in the name of the King". How can anyone say that they don't want the very person in whose name the Stewards rule?

As for a reference to anything as scholarly and esoteric as the Saul, Jonathan, David relationship, one doubts very much that Mr. Jackson thinks his audience is capable of even knowing who these people _are/were_ much less the nature of their relationship. From what I have seen of these films, I don't believe that Jackson has much respect for his audience at least as far as plot and character are concerned - even though he certainly respects their ability to spot a good special effect!


----------



## Hadhafang (Mar 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jallan:_
> But should your opinion be anyone else’s rule?


No. Neither should yours. I believe I backed up my statements well. If you disagree with them we will just have to agree to disagree.

I say with mutual respect for your opinions that you assume much of me that isn't true.


> I don’t see any reason to enjoy Olympic torch Orcs


I hated that as well.
It seems you assume that I am PJ purist. I am not. There was much in the film I did not like. I personally agree that I would have rather seen a closer dramatizaion of Tolkien. I thought this Orc scene was really bad as well. I also agree with almost all of the other criticisms of the film presented by both you and Mrs Maggot. However, some I didn't find as horrible as the others.


> I don't need to enjoy such silliness, and find it odd that someone thinks I should.


I don't think that the entire film was silly. PJ changed a lot. But he added some cool things as well. There were some ridiculous moments but I thought that the film had its brilliant moments as well....some of which stayed very true to Tolkien, like the presentation of Tolkien themes


----------



## joxy (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Foe-Hammer _
> *....you just think all the pieces fit. Readers create a lot of the story in their imagination in order to force the story to make sense. PJ changes were made to hide the weaknesses of the book. Specifically towards the middle of the book where it gets BORING. Which coincidentally is right where PJ made all the changes that have fixed the story. The change is so noticable that it seems as if a different writer was writing the book.*


I have read the books so many times that I KNOW the pieces DO fit.
The story DOES make so much sense that I often have to go back, check on a point, and realise with admiration how accurate the books are within themselves.
I don't think PJ himself would say the changes were to hide weaknesses!
In all my many readings of the books, I have never had a moment's boredom, in the middle or anywhere else!
PJ made changes from the very opening of the film, and progressively got himself into more of a mess with them, as they piled up on each other to the extent we see at the end of TTT.
FIXED the story? Yes, into a heap of confusion.
And your closing sentence is priceless: substitute producer for writer and film for book and you have a perfect summary of PJ's films - just as I've been saying all along.
"It seems as if a different producer were making (different parts of) the film."
Of course the films are "spectacular swashbucklers", but their chief characteristic is inconsistency, of character, dialogue, plot, even PJ's speciality - spectacle.


----------



## joxy (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hadhafang _
> *I don't think that the entire film was silly. PJ ....added some cool things as well.*


Nobody thinks the entire film is silly. What made you think anyone did think that?!
Now give us all a treat - tell us just ONE of the COOL things that PJ added - please!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by joxy _
> *I have read the books so many times that I KNOW the pieces DO fit.
> The story DOES make so much sense that I often have to go back, check on a point, and realise with admiration how accurate the books are within themselves.
> I don't think PJ himself would say the changes were to hide weaknesses!
> ...



If it is to believed from someone reporting about press released from N.Z., Jackson is _still shooting!_ What does this say except that he still hasn't made up his mind about what he wants to say in the last film especially. This, in turn means that he has long ago turned his back on his source material (or he would only have had to decide how best to present what was already present and carefully crafted). 

Why is it that when I think of ROTK, the words "pastiche" and "chaos" come immediately to mind?


----------



## joxy (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *....he would only have had to decide how best to present what was already present.
> Why is it that when I think of ROTK, the words "pastiche" and "chaos" come immediately to mind? *


Yes, you and I have paid PJ the compliment of believing that he COULD have made excellent films direct from his source material.
The question sounds dangerously like one of PJ's rhetorical offerings to Legolas - "why does that not surprise me?", but you express it more elegantly than I have done, in my suspicions that ROTK is going to see PJ's snowball of changes burst around him, into a "fearful mess"!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by joxy _
> *Yes, you and I have paid PJ the compliment of believing that he COULD have made excellent films direct from his source material.
> The question sounds dangerously like one of PJ's rhetorical offerings to Legolas - "why does that not surprise me?", but you express it more elegantly than I have done, in my suspicions that ROTK is going to see PJ's snowball of changes burst around him, into a "fearful mess"! *


As I said: when someone reported that sources in the N.Z. press have noted that Jackson is back _shooting_, fear grips me! Unless some part of the film was ruined accidentally, the fact that he feels the need to continue _filming_ - not editing - then it says volumes about the fact that he is somehow not satisfied with something and that he feels the need to "fix" whatever it is (or, worse, whatever _they are!_). 

I remember clearly that TTT started out fairly coherent given the fact that it had to be divided into three plot threads. But as Jackson focussed more and more on the "man" thread (Rohan et al), his treatment of the two equally (and in the case of Frodo and Sam, one might say _more_) important plot threads became disjointed and smack seriously of a certain amount of disinterest (with the exception of the development of Gollum!). However, as "unfinished" and lacklustre as the "hobbit" threads were, the "man" thread suffered worst from Jackson's "inventions" and redevelopment. The "Rohan" thread might have profited from less interest on the part of the Director!

As I have said before, I am not sanguine about ROTK although I will certainly go just to see how Jackson manages to put it all together (or, more precisely, IF he managest to "put it all together"). And I have to see if my crystal ball prophecy about St. Smeagol comes to pass. However, truthfully, this is one prediction I devoutly hope _is_ mistaken!


----------



## markrob (Mar 3, 2003)

*For the love of...............*

Good God, all you all still debating this stuff into March? I thought I would check in for a sec and lo and behold Thorin uses my name in his first response. Ill take that as a show of respect my good foe. I have to hand it to you Foe, most FADs have gone back to normal living but you have stayed and fought the good fight. I hate to give the purist all spring and summer to gloat in thier ways but gosh darnit Ive got a lot of other things to do. Keep the spirit of the FADs alive as long as you wish. I will no doubt be back in the late fall to wage the war of reality against the purist-hai once again. I also will check in from time to time to see how our kind are fairing. Thorin, have a good mid 2003 and whoever that long poster is "get a life" dude. Jeezzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Hadhafang (Mar 3, 2003)

> Now give us all a treat - tell us just ONE of the COOL things that PJ added - please!


I thought that the Warg Riders were a "cool" addition.
I also thought that the expanded dialogue of both Gollum and Saruman were interesting. The added dialogue in the Depature of Boromir I liked as well. You may disagree with my tastes. However, I had a bunch of criticizms of the film as well which I have listed in other posts.
I have stated before and I'll state again that the words 'purist' and 'FAD' are vague notions in the first place. There is a whole gray-scale between those two words. I abstain from taking on either of these labels.
Overall, I personally loved both the book and the films.


----------



## joxy (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by markrob _
> *....to wage the war of reality against the purist-hai....*


You equate "reality" with PJ's wild imaginings?!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by joxy _
> *You equate "reality" with PJ's wild imaginings?! *


The difference between Tolkien's story and Jackson's is that Tolkien used the medium of myth to convey great truths which, frankly, can often only be conveyed through and by great myths. 

Jackson took the fact that the author was using myth in order to create a "fantasy" which was concerned with nothing more than creating a good action adventure allowing him to have all kinds of "neat, cool stuff" like trolls and orcs! In other words, the fundamental _meaning_ of the tale was forgotten in the production of a sword-and-sorcery blockbuster.

For Tolkien, Elves, Orcs, Trolls and Wizards were, like the paper upon which the tale was printed, nothing more than a medium by and through which to tell it. 

For Jackson, they _were_ the tale which is why any changes of character or even plot were inconsequential as long as it "rocked".


----------



## joxy (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Hadhafang _
> *I thought that the Warg Riders were a "cool" addition.
> I also thought that the expanded dialogue of both Gollum and Saruman were interesting. The added dialogue in the Departure of Boromir I liked as well.*


I guess they do qualify: they're "cool" the way the broken staircase in Moria is "cool" - both are rubbish, but both look good, and are done well! I like them, but would gladly have done without them to find room for more of the original material.
G's internal wrangling, yes, but Saruman? He waffles a bit in FOTR but doesn't have much to say at all in TTT.
D of B is a nice conflation of two scenes from the book; there isn't really much added to it, and the only noticeable obtrusion is the unworthy brother-captain-king figure of speech.
I still don't rate PJ high - or should that be low? - on the scale of "cool"ness!


----------



## jallan (Mar 9, 2003)

Mrs. Maggott posted:


> Of course, we only know Denethor from the book which certainly would have been his position - and in fact, was his stated position - but in the book with the Arvedui business, at least Denethor has some legitimacy in his claim whereas, no such legitimacy can exist in the film. Remember, the Stewards rule "in the name of the King". How can anyone say that they don't want the very person in whose name the Stewards rule?


There is of course, no answer to this unless Jackson provides it, since any back story is his invention. 

Without this back story any discussion about movie-Aragorn’s rights to the throne is based on unsupported supposition.

In the third film Jackson may or may not have Denethor openly ruling in the name of the King. 

If Denethor does rule in the name of the King, this _can_ be explained on the assumption that, as in the book, the Stewards and Council have put off recognizing any particular claimant.

I might _imagine_ that the main line of royal descent died out, and Aragorn descends from a branch lineage, that originally all such claims were denied, as in the book, but that since that time only Aragorn’s lineage has survived.

I expect Jackson will leave matters vague.


> As for a reference to anything as scholarly and esoteric as the Saul, Jonathan, David relationship, one doubts very much that Mr. Jackson thinks his audience is capable of even knowing who these people are/were much less the nature of their relationship. From what I have seen of these films, I don't believe that Jackson has much respect for his audience at least as far as plot and character are concerned - even though he certainly respects their ability to spot a go.


My Saul and Jonathan reference was not to indicate that Jackson was necessarily thinking of this in particular. It is just the best known example of what was once a common story motif in adventure literature: the good son or nephew of the evil tyrant or lord.

Hadhafang posted:


> I believe I backed up my statements well. If you disagree with them we will just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I say with mutual respect for your opinions that you assume much of me that isn't true.


You have not backed up your statement that is _important_ to enjoy the films.

What do I assume of you that is not true? I never indicated you were an ultra-purist.

My main arguments were with your attempt and anyone’s attempt to lay down arbitrary rules about what anyone should or should not do in adaptations (or in newly created work).

No matter what aesthetic rules anyone lays down, one can almost always find somewhere a work that breaks them successfully (at least for some people).

If not, and the rules are publicized widely, someone will create a work of art that breaks them successfully (at least for some people) just to show that it can be done.

Mrs. Maggott posted:


> If it is to believed from someone reporting about press released from N.Z., Jackson is still shooting! What does this say except that he still hasn't made up his mind about what he wants to say in the last film especially.


That alone indicates nothing one way or the other.

Last minute fixes including later reshooting of scenes and late shooting of additional scenes are normal enough practice at the final editing stage of a film, if there is money for it.

There are always ways to improve, and sometimes flaws or obvious ways to improve a film only reveal themselves at the editing stage.

What I find more bothersome is that after Jackson did reshooting for _The Two Towers_, it still remains such a continuity mess.

Mrs. Maggott posted:


> The difference between Tolkien's story and Jackson's is that Tolkien used the medium of myth to convey great truths which, frankly, can often only be conveyed through and by great myths.


I’ve read enough in mythlogy and legend to dispute this. Myths disagree fundamentally with each other, philosphically and religiously, as would be expected, and some are purposely frivalous and silly.

Realistic fiction can be just as good at revealing “truths”.


> Jackson took the fact that the author was using myth in order to create a "fantasy" which was concerned with nothing more than creating a good action adventure allowing him to have all kinds of "neat, cool stuff" like trolls and orcs!


This was mostly true of Tolkien also, except Tolkien had a different feel for what “good action adventure” means.


> In other words, the fundamental _meaning_ of the tale was forgotten in the production of a sword-and-sorcery blockbuster.


I don’t think this is true. Jackson seems to understand the meanings and themes well enough, is able to strengthen them on occasion.

It is in details and style that he fails.

The meanings and themes are all in the Osgiliath scene, but that scene is an aesthetic and logical disaster.


> For Tolkien, Elves, Orcs, Trolls and Wizards were, like the paper upon which the tale was printed, nothing more than a medium by and through which to tell it.


Certainly not! Atmosphere, character, nature, the weather, Elvish strangeness, Orkish quarrelsomeness, names of persons and places, heroic cutural background make up the texture of the story and were important to Tolkien for their own sake.


> For Jackson, they were the tale which is why any changes of character or even plot were inconsequential as long as it "rocked".


Yet some of the changes are well done.

This is the puzzle.

Both lapses and excellences occur in the same aspects of the films: theme, character, atmosphere, plot, dialogue, mood.

It would be interesting to know what really happened during the planning and making of the film ... who was responsible for writing the good material and who the bad, and when each was done, and for what reasons.

Why are the films so uneven, especially the second?

What emerges for me is a lack of concern for coherency. for a world that makes sense, that doesn’t fall more apart in the center the more one ponders it. 

But it seems to me that Jackson fails mostly not in his themes, but in the details, and does not always fail just when he makes changes and additions.

(Though no-one seems to have any complaints about the places where he follows the books exactly or almost exactly.)

Jackson is afraid not to keep the action flowing. A boggle must pull Frodo into marsh (which would have been a repetition of a planned scene for the first film where an Orc was to rise from the water and pull Frodo from his boat), Sam must accidently fall down and almost reveal himself at the Black Gate (saved only by a cheesy special effect), Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli must (unrealistically) fight their way through Edoras ...

All of this, like the Moria staircase sequence, is thematically neutral, though unlike the staricase theme similar thematically neutral material in _The Two Towers_ is less well done.


----------



## Hadhafang (Mar 9, 2003)

> If not, and the rules are publicized widely, someone will create a work of art that breaks them successfully (at least for some people) just to show that it can be done.


This I can agree with. Using music as an example...even the masters broke the rules every now and again. Mozart with his I-V-IV progressions, Bach throwing parallel fifths and blatant tritones into his voice leading on occasion, etc.
However, I do think that technique of thematic loyalty in a film adaption is an important one. As with any artistic 'rules' they can be frequently broken and still have a beautiful outcome. Good call Jallan.


> You have not backed up your statement that is important to enjoy the films.


Touche. I shouldn't suggest that others 'enjoy' films simply becasue I do.


----------



## Arvedui (Mar 10, 2003)

Mrs. Maggott says:


> Jackson took the fact that the author was using myth in order to create a "fantasy" which was concerned with nothing more than creating a good action adventure allowing him to have all kinds of "neat, cool stuff" like trolls and orcs! In other words, the fundamental meaning of the tale was forgotten in the production of a sword-and-sorcery blockbuster.


I find it intriguing that you can say that the meaning of the tale was forgotten, after having seen 2/3 of the entire movie. Hopefully, if rumours are true, we have seen even less, and the last part of the movie will be longer than 3 hours.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Arvedui _
> *Mrs. Maggott says:
> 
> I find it intriguing that you can say that the meaning of the tale was forgotten, after having seen 2/3 of the entire movie. Hopefully, if rumours are true, we have seen even less, and the last part of the movie will be longer than 3 hours. *


The meaning of the tale gets "lost" when the characters irrovocably change in their nature: 

Aragorn who in the book is a "hidden king", a man who has labored long years in selfless devotion to those he has protected against the day that he will be able to claim his birthright, becomes Aragorn, the self-imposed exile who is terrified of the "weakness in his blood" and who "doesn't want" (indeed "_never wanted_) to claim his heritage. 

Elrond, the courteous, kindly counselor becomes a nasty individual filled with contempt for men in general and his "ward" and possible future son-in-law in particular. 

Merry and Pippin change from devoted, courageous friends who choose to accompany their friends Frodo and Sam into exile and great danger into bumbling sneakthieves who get "caught up" in the action and "go along" for the ride. 

Arwen changes from a devoted lover (off-stage, tis true) whose love sustains her betrothed through longs years of trial and sacrifice to Arwen, Elven warrior princess (at Helm's Deep too, although most of that was edited out!).

Theoden changes from a kindly old king, accepting of wiser counsel, who rises even in weakness to lead his people into battle first against Saruman and then against Sauron to Theoden, delivered of possession (and whose hair and beard turn gold and shorten two inches) who scorns all advice and, being much younger and stronger, decides to run and hide in the hills!

Faramir goes from the second most noble man in the book (after Aragorn) to a pale imitation of his brother but lacking the charm.

Saruman goes from an individual who is trying to walk a fine line between getting the Ring (and the power) for himself and keeping in Sauron's "good graces" to a mere puppet of the Dark Lord, a two dimensional "villain" acting as a stand-in for Sauron.

Treebeard goes from a very wise creature who has hoped to avoid war but who finally accepts his and his people's obligation at least to their own to a sort of "second Theoden" who only wants to run and hide and has no knowledge of what has transpired virtually on his doorstep - but who can be "tricked" into going to war with Saruman.

And so forth.... When you make seminal, fundamental changes in the story's characters, it stands to reason that you no longer have the same "meaning" in the story as you did in the original, even if you have approximately the same plot line. When you put one character's words into another character's mouth - and frequently, those characters are on opposite sides in the story - you have fundamentally changed the character. 

It wouldn't matter if you had _ten_ more films to go - there is no way Jackson can retrieve his characters at this point in time and hence, however it ends, the story is not going to have the same vision/meaning as the original. It might be grand film, but it _isn't_ Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Arvedui (Mar 10, 2003)

Well, that was a descriptive answer...
But still, your experience with the movie will not, and cannot, be mine. I still think there is a chance that it may turn out good in the end, and my point is what it has been for a long time: I find it hard to critizise a movie without having seen all of it. 
But when I have seen the last part......



> It might be grand film, but it isn't Lord of the Rings.


And that we have agreed on before


----------



## jallan (Mar 15, 2003)

Arvedui posted:


> : I find it hard to critizise a movie without having seen all of it.


Do you also find it hard to defend a movie without having seen all of it?

The difficulty people have with the films so far does not seem to be with the films taken as a whole but with individual epsiodes and characters and threads (which of course make up the whole).

These can be discussed. One general consensus seems to be Gandalf done well, Faramir done badly.

The thematic material in the account of movie-Faramir can be argued to have been preserved from the book, but the feel of that character which drew people to like that character, has been last.

PJ cannot now save that in those scenes he has already covered.

I am suspicious that Jackson and Walsh are merely following standard “rules” about how stories “should” develop and about dramatic conflict.

Characters “should” changed and grow, so the character of Faramir will be improved according to the “rules” if he can be shown to change through what he undergoes, to “grow”.

But the result is that almost all that makes Faramir so attractive in the book is jettisoned and most of the great _moments_ of his relation with Frodo and Sam ... the wondrous account of Boromir’s body in the boat, Sam’s careless revelation that Frodo has the ring, and the perception of the Hobbit’s that they have now blown it.

Instead we are not even told how Faramir knows that Boromir is dead or how he knows that Frodo has the Ring.

(Gollum referrring cryptically to the Precious is hardly enough to make anyone suddenly recall the Ring of Power lost over a thousand years earlier.)

The drama of the book is lost and the film displays muddled confusion.

Perhaps this will be partly fixed in an extended DVD version, but it is hard to see how any competent editor could have mangled things so badly in the theatrical release, unless as a cynical attempt to force sales of the extended DVD version.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Aug 13, 2004)

I absolutely LOVE the movie!!!! As a movie. As an adaptation of Tolkien's work...Its pretty good. The parts that peter Jackson did close to the book, he did an absolutely fabulous job on. See, I don't mind, say, the lack of Tom, or Arwen instead of Glorfindel (maybe I was a little irked, but I understood and thus didn't get too riled up), but with, lessee, no scouring of the shire, or no Saruman or stuff like that, um...NO!!!!! I hate it. But he did have excellent special effects, casting, etc, and overall, he did pretty damn good.


----------



## gilgalad (Feb 25, 2007)

My last post on TTF was made somewhere in the region of 3 years ago i reckon, and funnily enough i think it was made in joxy's direction, and we were arguing about a very similar issue. Still, old habits die hard!Anyway...



joxy said:


> the broken staircase in Moria is "cool" - both are rubbish, but both look good, and are done well! I like them, but would gladly have done without them to find room for more of the original material.



The escape-from-moria scene remains, to me, among the most watchable, exciting, well-shot scenes in the entire trilogy. Granted, in the book there were loads of passages that were far more fulfilling than this sequence, but for a movie a certain amount of excitement is needed and this is provided excellently by this scene. I suppose I can't really argue against your idea of leaving it out until I have heard what you would suggest putting in instead of it, but to be honest an awful lot of the stuff that was satisfying, inspiring etc in the book just wouldn't work as well in the film. I'm interested to hear what you would have replaced it with though...



joxy said:


> D of B is a nice conflation of two scenes from the book; there isn't really much added to it, and the only noticeable obtrusion is the unworthy brother-captain-king figure of speech.



I put it to you that if the "brother-captain-king" thing had been written by Tolkien, and subsequently omitted by PJ you and others of your persuasion in this matter would be deriding him to the high heavens. It's a poignant speech delivered well by a quality actor and I certainly think it is well worthy of its place in the midst of all the great dialogue the Big Fella wrote himself.


----------



## Mike (Feb 28, 2007)

Just when I thought the endless Purist vs. Jacksonist debate was over...


----------



## gilgalad (Mar 1, 2007)

Mike said:


> Just when I thought the endless Purist vs. Jacksonist debate was over...



You go and add a pointless throwaway comment to it - bravo :\


----------

