Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Wayfarer]

Jackson has captured the essence of the character. Is he more humanized than Tolkien's Aragorn? Yes. But I would rather have a more humanized Aragorn who felt real than an attempt to carbon-copy the books that falls flat on its face. Am I the only one who remembers Ralph Bakshi's Aragorn?

That, for once, made sense.

I agree. I myself liked Jackson's Aragorn several orders of magnitude better than Bakashi's. Because it was quite a bit better done.

But is that because jackson 'humanized' the character? Not really. No. It's because Viggo Mortensen is a good actor, and can (or could) convey far much more of the character than a silly badly drawn cartoon.

You've read the books, but you might have forgotten that Aragorn /is/ unsure in places. He /does/ have doubts- but for different, and infinitely better reasons than those jackson attempts to palm off.

Have you noticed that one of the places where Tolkien's Aragorn displays the most doubt, directly after Gandalf's death when he is forced to assume the mantle of leadership, is one of the places where Jackson's Aragorn displays none whatsoever? Does that really make sense if what you are saying is true?

No. Because Jackson, though he tried, has failed to humanize Aragorn. Oh, his character is more understandable to people today, but that's Modernization, not humanization. He's turned him into the sort of conflicted protagonist that's expected today, with issues and complexes rather than real considerations that worry him. He has ceased to become a hero who will become king, and become an action-figure with a veneer of trite emotionalism.

That's not to say that he's entirely bad- there were many places in which the part was well scripted and played. But there were others where he departed wildly from the character of Aragorn in the novels.

[Ruinel]

Dang it! I had all this stuff I wanted to say. But reading all the posts, well... it's already been said.

Oh, yeah, about the cartoon. I was warned away from it, so I never watched it. My friend said, "It sucked like an industrial strength vacuum cleaner."

[Lizra]

I will say that I agree with BB on the bit of "straight from the pages of the book Aragorn" would have been too "Dudley Do-Right
and rigid for me. Same with Boromir as the "corrupted man". I like the humanized version the films offer. (as an alternative, not transformation) Wayfarer is correct ,(IMO) it is all a matter of taste, but I am glad for the opportunity "to indulge" ! So are alot of other people, if the $ talks. Hey, he got the rights to the film....que sera, que sera!

I don't think some of you should take BB so seriously! Nibble the worm, but don't swallow the hook!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Tolkien's Aragorn is a marvelously complex character, a man who is at once vulnerable and possessed of a great strength which he has acquired in a life of solitary service to people who treat him with contemptuous disregard (Bree etc.). The scene at Bree where he attempts to gain the hobbits' trust and friendship by virtue of his presence alone (and fails until Butterbur produces Gandalf's letter) is rather tragic in a way. Eventually, by virtue of his own personality and acts of courage he does gain that affection and trust, but it is not an easy thing and in the beginning, he has to be content with a trust garnered from his relationship with the beloved (and trusted) Gandalf. Aragorn - especially in FOTR - is anything but a "cardboard" superhero - the usual argument made by Jackson's apologists as to why Tolkien's character would not "connect" with the audience (and repeated by BB). Even when the remainder of the Company (Legolas and Gimli) await his choice to follow either Frodo or the orcs, he laments that they have picked "a poor chooser".

The sad thing is that the actor Jackson was smart enough to choose - Viggo Mortensen - could have carried off Tolkien's Aragorn perfectly. Indeed, in the beginning - until Arwen interruptus - I thought that he was going to do just that. Unfortunately, Jackson opted for a combination of feminist "mistique" and therapeutic nonsense and produced a weak, vacillating fellow who spent all his time running away. I guess this must "connect" with Jackson's audience - or at least the more neurotic feminists among them! Thank heaven Professor Tolkien was spared that concern. He only had to produce a great story - which he did!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Of course it's Peter Jackson telling the tale. And he's not rewriting the novels, he's making three films based on Tolkien's story. Believe it or not, I honestly know where some of you are coming from. But you're not being fair to Peter Jackson and the art of film making when you demand a literal interpretation of Tolkien's books and preferences in these films.

Let's use Mrs. Maggott's Aragorn comments above as an illustration. Aragorn has always been one of my favorite characters from the books. But let's be honest and candid here. If Jackson had taken the literal approach to the character that some of you book purists have demanded, he wouldn't connect with the audience. Translated to film, I could see Tolkien's Aragorn coming across as aloof, stern, and most importantly, he wouldn't feel "real." From the very beginning, Peter Jackson demanded that the films have a strong sense of realism to them. This was just one of many "How best do you honor the overall work when various aspects are at odds?" questions the Jackson team had to figure out when translating the story to film.

Aragorn doesn't shun his birthright in the films, but he has self-doubts about his heritage and his ability to lead. He is counciled by the woman he loves, the elf daughter of Elrond who has lived for centuries. How is that so wrong? I had serious doubts about Viggo and whether PJ would "do right" by Aragorn before FOTR came out. But Jackson has captured the essence of the character. Is he more humanized than Tolkien's Aragorn? Yes. But I would rather have a more humanized Aragorn who felt real than an attempt to carbon-copy the books that falls flat on its face. Am I the only one who remembers Ralph Bakshi's Aragorn?!?!?!?

These types of issues though go back to the primary point in this thread: People are haggling over specifics and not stepping back and appreciating how well it all comes together and captures the heart and soul of the books.

I take it then that you don't like Tolkien's characters?

-sigh- Good lord, how many times do we have to tell you: The Characterization IS a theme! Or do you just not count it, because either we say it is a theme, and we obviously must be wrong, or because you know in your heart of hearts that the characters were not captured the same, or something? Why does that theme not count for jack?

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
That's even necessary. From what I've seen, a number of 'Mooters feel that it was a fine if not perfect adaptation (Lizra, Dunedain, etc.), but I don't have any problem whatsoever with that. What gets annoying is the way BB acts.

Yes! I was merely jesting.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Sometimes I do think to myself, "BB, you can't do this. They're all wrong. By rights you shouldn’t even be here."

But I am.

It’s like in the great LOTR movie board debates, Elf Girl. The ones that really mattered. Full of Purist complaints and narrow-minded thinking they were. And sometimes the enlightened few didn’t want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world end up loving both Tolkien's books and Jackson's movies when there is so many downright stupid things being said about the films?

But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this Purist shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come in December with The Return of the King. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.

Those are the debates that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too young to understand why. But I think, Elf Girl, I do understand. I know now. The enlightened few in those debates had lots of chances of going away in frustration only they didn’t. Because they were holding on to something.

What were they holding on to, you may ask?

That this is a very special film trilogy-- and its worth fighting for.

May I ask how that had any relevance to what we were discussing? It's just the old, "Black Breathalizer is right, people who don't agree with him aren't worth talking to." Pointless.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm not ignoring anything - but there's only one of me and so many Purist minds here that need straightening out.

It's true that there is only one of you, as opposed to all of us Tolkien (not Jackson) fans.

Don't you realize that I was defending you when I made the post about heroic resolve? It was not sarcastically intended.

Now, on to real debate:

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Of course it's Peter Jackson telling the tale. And he's not rewriting the novels, he's making three films based on Tolkien's story. Believe it or not, I honestly know where some of you are coming from. But you're not being fair to Peter Jackson and the art of film making when you demand a literal interpretation of Tolkien's books and preferences in these films.

We do not demand a literal interpretation. Please do not paste labels on us. Everything else in that paragraph is true, though I would say "loosely based on Tolkien's story."

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Let's use Mrs. Maggott's Aragorn comments above as an illustration. Aragorn has always been one of my favorite characters from the books. But let's be honest and candid here. If Jackson had taken the literal approach to the character that some of you book purists have demanded, he wouldn't connect with the audience. Translated to film, I could see Tolkien's Aragorn coming across as aloof, stern, and most importantly, he wouldn't feel "real."

I have nothing to add to Wayfarer's counter to this.

Originally posted by Wayfarer
You've read the books, but you might have forgotten that Aragorn /is/ unsure in places. He /does/ have doubts- but for different, and infinitely better reasons than those jackson attempts to palm off.

Have you noticed that one of the places where Tolkien's Aragorn displays the most doubt, directly after Gandalf's death when he is forced to assume the mantle of leadership, is one of the places where Jackson's Aragorn displays none whatsoever? Does that really make sense if what you are saying is true?

Thank you, Wafarer.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
From the very beginning, Peter Jackson demanded that the films have a strong sense of realism to them. This was just one of many "How best do you honor the overall work when various aspects are at odds?" questions the Jackson team had to figure out when translating the story to film.

The movie Aragorn just doesn't add up. In FotR, this episode portrays him as cold and inhuman:

Aragorn: Legolas, get them up.
Boromir: Give them a moment, for pity's sake!
Aragorn: By nightfall these hills will be swarming with Orcs. We must reach the woods of Lothlórien...

When you contrast those episodes of "humanization" you have helpfully cited, you will find that Aragorn does not feel "real".

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Aragorn doesn't shun his birthright in the films, but he has self-doubts about his heritage and his ability to lead. He is counciled by the woman he loves, the elf daughter of Elrond who has lived for centuries. How is that so wrong? I had serious doubts about Viggo and whether PJ would "do right" by Aragorn before FOTR came out. But Jackson has captured the essence of the character.

Again, best demonstrated by a quote from the movie:

Arwen: Why do you fear the past? You are Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself.You are not bound to his fate...

Aragorn: The same blood flows in my veins; the same weakness!

He may not shun his heritage, but he certainly fears and hates it, if he thinks it makes him weak.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
These types of issues though go back to the primary point in this thread: People are haggling over specifics and not stepping back and appreciating how well it all comes together and captures the heart and soul of the books.

We are debating over whether or not the very fundamentals of Aragorn's character have been changed, and citing specifics to back up our points. I wish you would stop beating a dead horse which was never valid in the first place.

EDIT: Supposed to be directly after Wayfarer's post. Sorry, took a long time typing!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Note: that was supposed to be "not even necessary", not "even necessary". See title for more info.

[Lizra]

I'm ready for another farty noise!

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If Jackson had taken the literal approach to the character that some of you book purists have demanded, he wouldn't connect with the audience.

All I can say is that I have many friends who read the book after seeing the movie, mainly because of Aragorn, and now they hate the films because of the changes to the characters. They connected with the character of Aragorn more in the book the the film version, the film version of Aragorn was way too weak is what I keep hearing. Do not assume what people like or connect with, not all people are the same, that to me is the problem PJ made.

And to add, if you are trying to use the term book purists as an insult, then to let you know that I take great pride of being a purist. I will scream it with pride, I am a book purist, IMO it's better then being a PJ sheep.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
And to add, if you are trying to use the term book purists as an insult, then to let you know that I take great pride of being a purist. I will scream it with pride, I am a book purist, IMO it's better then being a PJ sheep.

How could being a Purist be an insult?!?!?! It simply means you are...um...well, a Tolkien book purist. I love JRR Tolkien's books but personally I am NOT a Purist...um, (in the immortal words of Jerry Seinfield) not that there's anything wrong with that. It's like saying "I'm in grade school" as opposed to "Hey, dudes, I'm in college." I understand that some of you will never change. I am simply using my Entmoot Doctorate in Advanced Tolkien and Jackson Studies to help some of you to graduate into one of the "Enlightened ones."

Black Breathalizer, Ph.D.
A Proud Member of PJ's Sheep

[Black Breathalizer]

Okay, enough silliness...back on topic.

I'm being told that the characters themselves are a "big theme" and that changes to the characters represent a major deviation from Tolkien. I would agree that for a film to work as a great adaptation of a book, the characters of the film need to be true to their book soulmates. A perfect example of an untrue character from LOTR was the way Ralph Bakshi portrayed Sam. What moron possessed the body of Samwise Gamgee in that sickening film? There's never been a bigger butcher job in cinematic history.

But I see a huge difference between an Aragorn who has aspects of his character highlighted or supressed in different ways in the film from the book and a total personality change. As with everything we've been discussing, this is all subjective, but I certainly see the look and personality of the film Aragorn to be a good representation of the book Aragorn. Are they identical? Nope. But on the other hand, I feel it is dishonest for the critics here to say that PJ's Aragorn is a whimp who bares no resemblance whatsoever to the noble ranger of the books. That's utter hogwash.

If you want to make the characters themselves "a theme" then you need to make the appropriate comparisons. The questions should be "Did PJ's character reflect the personalities of the characters and promote the same or similar messages from the books?" versus "Are PJ's characters identical to the books?"

You Literal Translationists (not to be confused with the insulting slang word: Purists) are driving me nuts.

[Lizra]

Did someone call for a "Bliss Ninny"? No? .... too bad ! Oh well. Have fun.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Frankly, one cannot build up Jackson by defaming Bakshi. Bakshi was a cartoonist who had produced that cultural gem, Fritz the Cat. He was an opportunist who saw a very popular story and wanted to cash in on it.

Jackson, on the other hand, went into the project after the original huge popularity of LOTR had quieted to the point of making it a less commercially tempting commodity. Jackson also raised a great deal of money by promising to remain as faithful as his medium would permit to the book. Everyone knew there would be changes, but no one thought (at least no one that I know of) that Jackson would decide to not only film, but rewrite the story. At least Bakshi with all his opportunism had sufficent respect for Tolkien that he tried to bring the actual work to the screen. His lack of success was unfortunate, but it does not mitigate his intentions. Jackson, on the other hand, failed before the first frame was exposed because his intentions were far less pure.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
At least Bakshi with all his opportunism had sufficent respect for Tolkien that he tried to bring the actual work to the screen. His lack of success was unfortunate, but it does not mitigate his intentions. Jackson, on the other hand, failed before the first frame was exposed because his intentions were far less pure.

Are you being serious?!?!?!! Bakshi's LOTR was one of the worst movies in history. After standing in line for the Bakshi's LOTR premiere, I left the movie theatre embarrassed for Tolkien (thank god he was already dead) and totally disgusted at what I'd just seen. If THAT piece of cinematic trash is your example of bringing Tolkien's vision to the big screen, I'll stick with non-purist Peter Jackson thankyouverymuch.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
How could being a Purist be an insult?!?!?! It simply means you are...um...well, a Tolkien book purist. I love JRR Tolkien's books but personally I am NOT a Purist...um, (in the immortal words of Jerry Seinfield) not that there's anything wrong with that. It's like saying "I'm in grade school" as opposed to "Hey, dudes, I'm in college." I understand that some of you will never change. I am simply using my Entmoot Doctorate in Advanced Tolkien and Jackson Studies to help some of you to graduate into one of the "Enlightened ones."

Black Breathalizer, Ph.D.
A Proud Member of PJ's Sheep

Hm... I don't think we are using the same definition of "purist". Give us your definition., and we will tell you if you would think we're purists.

[Elf Girl]

I would also like to say that I agree completely about Bakshi. Trash!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm being told that the characters themselves are a "big theme" and that changes to the characters represent a major deviation from Tolkien. I would agree that for a film to work as a great adaptation of a book, the characters of the film need to be true to their book soulmates. A perfect example of an untrue character from LOTR was the way Ralph Bakshi portrayed Sam. What moron possessed the body of Samwise Gamgee in that sickening film? There's never been a bigger butcher job in cinematic history.

Agreed. Also, his body wasn't anything like Samwise Gamgee's.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But I see a huge difference between an Aragorn who has aspects of his character highlighted or supressed in different ways in the film from the book and a total personality change. As with everything we've been discussing, this is all subjective, but I certainly see the look and personality of the film Aragorn to be a good representation of the book Aragorn. Are they identical? Nope. But on the other hand, I feel it is dishonest for the critics here to say that PJ's Aragorn is a whimp who bares no resemblance whatsoever to the noble ranger of the books. That's utter hogwash.

This must be the fifth time you've repeated yourself. Are you going to back yourself up, or maybe even *gasp* answer some of our points?

Heheh... "bares no resemblance"...

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you want to make the characters themselves "a theme" then you need to make the appropriate comparisons. The questions should be "Did PJ's character reflect the personalities of the characters and promote the same or similar messages from the books?" versus "Are PJ's characters identical to the books?"

That is what we have been doing. See my previous two posts.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You Literal Translationists (not to be confused with the insulting slang word: Purists) are driving me nuts

.

Falsely attacking the person again. I have said: No one is asking for a literal translation.



Crud. Stupid vB code won't make the bold right. Well, it will have to do.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Are you being serious?!?!?!! Bakshi's LOTR was one of the worst movies in history. After standing in line for the Bakshi's LOTR premiere, I left the movie theatre embarrassed for Tolkien (thank god he was already dead) and totally disgusted at what I'd just seen. If THAT piece of cinematic trash is your example of bringing Tolkien's vision to the big screen, I'll stick with non-purist Peter Jackson thankyouverymuch.

As usual, you are creating more of my opinion than I presented (very much like Mr. Jackson in a way...). I did not like Bakshi, nor did I say that I did. Furthermore, I only brought Bakshi into the conversation because you did in the first place with the intent of "lifting" Jackson by "trashing" Bakshi. I simply pointed out that that cannot be done. One film has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Jackson fails because he fails - not because Bakshi failed or succeeded. I merely mentioned that Bakshi made a stab at bringing Tolkien - not Bakshi - to the screen, something that appeared to be beyond Jackson.

Bakshi was hardly a "purist", merely an opportunist who believed that he would do better if he stuck with the original. And, by the way, Jackson himself admitted that he did better when he stuck to the original! Too bad he kept forgetting that little fact, especially in the second film!

Finally, you do not strengthen your argument by attributing to those who dispute you beliefs they do not hold and conclusions they have not reached. To read your above post, you would think that I had brought Bakshi into the debate and, furthermore, that I had defended his film. Neither, of course, is the case.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
And, by the way, Jackson himself admitted that he did better when he stuck to the original!

He did? Could you tell me where you heard it, please?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
He did? Could you tell me where you heard it, please?

He gave a rather long quote about returning to the original story and finding it much better for the film. I remember seeing it on television and it might be one of the interviews that appeared in the EE version of FOTR. Jackson has given so many interviews and especially when the project was approaching its original release date there were lots of them on the cable channels to build up interest in the first film. But he did very much admit that when he "strayed" from the story, he found himself in trouble. Of course, that was in the first film. I guess by the second, he had figured out how to stray and survive!