Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, maybe a bit.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
PJ never even bothered to follow the authors wishes in how his work should be treated if ever turned into a movie, PJ did what he wanted and pushed Tolkien out the door. All PJ saw was a chance to make a big movie that he would be remembered for, not because of any respect to the author and all the hard work he put into creating the story. As Tolkien has said, he wrote the story the way it really happened, all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right. PJ claims that he is a Tolkien expert and then in interviews he says things that proves he has hardly done any research on him, all he does in guess. PJ might be a fan of LotR, but he has no respect for the author, his family, or all the fans who have been reading and studying LotR over the past 40+ years.

What does this tirade have to do with the thread topic? We've had posters like Melko Belcha and the Arwen-bashing crowd railing against Jackson in countless threads here. The point of THIS thread is for the naysayers to SHOW WHY Jackson didn't capture Tolkien's vision.

To this point, I'm to assume that Jackson was disrespectful to Tolkien's vision...plus "the author himself, his family and all the fans who have been reading and studying LotR over the past 40+ years" because he:

1) expanded Arwen's screen time and gave her a sword to hold; and
2) didn't get the characterizations exactly to everyone's satisfaction.

If you Jackson naysayers want to be taken seriously and have a real discussion on the question of whether or not he captured Tolkien's vision (as opposed to a strict interpretation of the books), we need a lot more meat to chew on than what you've given us thus far.

To be honest, I didn't think I'd prove my point this easily.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, Tolkien said destroying the characters would be worse than destroying the plot, but I believe, but I guess you're just going to stick with Jackson and say "Screw the old geezer!"

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by azalea
I disagree with this particular statement. I think PJ thought many of the changes he made were in the interest of making a viable movie. I happen to disagree with him for the most part, but I don't think he was intentionally trying to make LotR as if it were his own creation. He also stated in the commentary, etc. on the dvd that, for instance, they thought they'd have to "fight" to keep the pipe-smoking in. This tells me that he felt he had to do at least some of what he did to keep the money people happy, unfortunately. There were, of course things he changed or "interpreted" differently that were for his own satisfaction. IOW, he conciously made the changes, but I don't feel that his motive was to improve on the book. Fortunately for me it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the movies.

Sorry but I disagree, I truely feel like he thought he was improving the story. There are to many great cinematic scenes in the book that were left out for his additions. You talk about him making changes to make a viable movie, but his additons have hurt the movie in so many parts from what it could have been. Why add scenes when you have to completey rewrite major points in the story for your additions to fit? Yes there is alot of stuff I would have done different if I wrote the story myself, but I didn't, and I don't plan on making any changes to it, even if I was given the money and opportunity to make a movie or rewrite the story, even if I had full support of Tolkien's family. Tolkien wrote the story the way it should be told, whether in book, movie, or theater. IMO there is no excuse you can give that will make me accept in any way the stuff PJ has done, if you can't follow the book, don't make the movie, if you have ideas of your own, write your own story, and don't redo someone else's.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, a number of times I've heard Jackson say that he has taken Tolkien's story and actually improved upon it.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yes, a number of times I've heard Jackson say that he has taken Tolkien's story and actually improved upon it.

I challenge anyone to find a direct quote where Jackson said he improved Tolkien's story.

On the other hand, I am on record as saying Jackson improved on Tolkien's story.

[Elf Girl]

Then you enjoy the elimination of the characters of Gimli, Merry and Pippin? I can't see why.

As for themes, what about the fading of the Elves? If he must focus so much on Men, then he could at least show how much Elves are giving way to them as "race of glory". But no, he was doing a great job when suddenly a bunch of armoured, walking-in-unison idiots who call themselves Elves, not to mention Haldir, show up to save Helms Deep.

Also the "expansion of Arwen's screen time" made Frodo look like a spineless wimp who couldn't resist the shard of Morgul-blade. Makes me think, "THIS is our Ringbearer?! He won't survive Moria, let alone Mordor!"

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, Tolkien said destroying the characters would be worse than destroying the plot, but I believe, but I guess you're just going to stick with Jackson and say "Screw the old geezer!"

I'm siding with Gwaimir this time.

It is pointless to ruin Faramir's noble character and to make Gimli out to be an idiot. That is not "capturing Tolkien's vision", your latest euphemism doesn't work either.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

This is a question that could be argued from many different angles, and good arguments could be made either way.

Personally, I tend to side with the pro-movie side, although I love the books dearly too. I think FOTR EE was a sheer masterpiece. The changes such as Arwen did not bother me much, because Glorfindel is not really elaborated on in the book. (I know his history and importance, however). Bombadil annoys me because I strongly believe Tolkien put him in the book early on before he had a sure notion of his direction. It says as much in his letters. I feel that he is irrevelant to the story, but JRR left him in just to achieve some mysteriousness. All told, when I watch the movie, it is like the book memories springing from my head straight to the screen.

For TTT, I am not quite as bullish for PJ. The movie was great, but I did not have that feeling of the book jumping straight to the screen. I definitely dislike the whole Gimli thing. I can think of no reason to do that. One of the few instances of out and out error in my opinion. I also dislike the Elves at Helms Deep, but I can live with it. Osgiliath was cool in my opinion because it added a little more depth to the movie in very quick fashion. I feel that unconsciously, the average viewer gets a feeling of the hugeness of Middle-Earth from that scene. It is my hope that the EE of TTT captures a little more feel from the book.

As far as Tolkien's vision goes, I think the Elves were captured very well. The languages were excellent, the sense of fading emanated from Galadriel, and their immortal being was explored. Elrond was different, and I didn't like him at first, but he does a good job showing his disdain for the weakness of men.

I agree that the movie was not centered around hobbits, but I do not think that it could have been done while still being completely effective and making money. Lets face it, that is a necessary part of all this. The movie had to be from the perspective of the people watching it.

FOTR EE rates 10 out of 10 in capturing vision.

TTT rates 7 out of 10 in capturing vision.

Both movies view as one continuous picture rate 8 out of 10.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
Osgiliath was cool in my opinion because it added a little more depth to the movie in very quick fashion. I feel that unconsciously, the average viewer gets a feeling of the hugeness of Middle-Earth from that scene.

In the reality Jackson has created, and also in Tolkien's reality, that scene (with the Nazgul) is impossible. Why didn't it just stab him? Why didn't it just get its pteradactyl to kill him?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sorry, I don't remember Elrond snubbing Men in the book...

[Black Breathalizer]

Elf Girl
Then you enjoy the elimination of the characters of Gimli, Merry and Pippin? I can't see why.

I think most reasonable people would agree that while there are some differences between the movie Gimli, Merry, and Pippin from the books, it would be a gross misstatement to say that their characters were essentially eliminated. These types of gross exaggerations only weaken your case.

Elf Girl
As for themes, what about the fading of the Elves?

I seem to recall a number of "our time is ending" comments from Elrond and Galadriel. I also recall seeing Sam and Frodo watching the elves marching to the Grey Havens to depart Middle-Earth and Sam saying "Somehow it makes me sad." I remember the flash forward scene of a forlorn Arwen wandering the empty forests of Lorien alone. I expect I'll see some very interesting stuff in the Grey Havens in Movie three. For a movie trilogy, I would argue that Jackson has pretty much covered this one, Elf Girl.

Elf Girl
Also the "expansion of Arwen's screen time" made Frodo look like a spineless wimp who couldn't resist the shard of Morgul-blade. Makes me think, "THIS is our Ringbearer?! He won't survive Moria, let alone Mordor!"

There have been numerous threads about the film portrayal of Frodo. Let's just say that while you may have wanted Frodo portrayed as more of an "action hero," Jackson's approach turned out to be a more effective way of capturing the essence of Tolkien's Frodo for a live-action film. As other film adaptations have shown, simply copying the original for the big screen is no guarantee that the heart and soul of the book it has been taken from has been captured too.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

Yes, thanks for reminding me. That scene with the Nazgul in Osgiliath ruined a chance for some real fear and fright to be displayed. It was very, very stupid to just hover there like an imbecile. That scene irks me, bad.

Probably my worst is when they hide under the Elven cape. When they show the view from inside the cape the guys foot is RIGHT THERE BESIDE THEM! Then it switches to the outside view and he is like 50 feet away. I don't get it...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I think most reasonable people would agree that while there are some differences between the movie Gimli, Merry, and Pippin from the books, it would be a gross misstatement to say that their characters were essentially eliminated. These types of gross exaggerations only weaken your case.

I seem to recall a number of "our time is ending" comments from Elrond and Galadriel. I also recall seeing Sam and Frodo watching the elves marching to the Grey Havens to depart Middle-Earth and Sam saying "Somehow it makes me sad." I remember the flash forward scene of a forlorn Arwen wandering the empty forests of Lorien alone. I expect I'll see some very interesting stuff in the Grey Havens in Movie three. For a movie trilogy, I would argue that Jackson has pretty much covered this one, Elf Girl.

There have been numerous threads about the film portrayal of Frodo. Let's just say that while you may have wanted Frodo portrayed as more of an "action hero," Jackson's approach turned out to be a more effective way of capturing the essence of Tolkien's Frodo for a live-action film. As other film adaptations have shown, simply copying the original for the big screen is no guarantee that the heart and soul of the book it has been taken from has been captured too.

1. Why? In the movies, Gimli has very little personality except for "Look at me! I'm short!", Pippin has very little personality except for "Dumb-butt", and Merry has very little personality except for "Dumb-butt's smarter friend".

2. I would pretty well agree with this. I was fairly well satisfied with this aspect. Tho' I must say that some of my non-reading friends didn't understand, wondering why the Elves were leaving, and thinking they were just running away.

3. "Action hero", no. "More of an active character", yes. Frodo was poorly portrayed in my opinion. You think that Jackson's approach turned out to be more effective, but from what I have seen, you place Jackson over Tolkien (about 500 feet over).

Personally, I think that this might have been better in the LotR books forum. But the thread-starter pretty well never goes to the LotR books forum. I wonder if this means something...

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I seem to recall a number of "our time is ending" comments from Elrond and Galadriel. I also recall seeing Sam and Frodo watching the elves marching to the Grey Havens to depart Middle-Earth and Sam saying "Somehow it makes me sad." I remember the flash forward scene of a forlorn Arwen wandering the empty forests of Lorien alone. I expect I'll see some very interesting stuff in the Grey Havens in Movie three. For a movie trilogy, I would argue that Jackson has pretty much covered this one, Elf Girl.

My point exactly. He ruined the excellent job he was doing by having a bunch of strong, non-fading, alliance-renewing, so-called Elves in Helms Deep.

[Black Breathalizer]

What is happening here is the same thing that's happened on every other thread---you Purists just can't stop nitpicking long enough to savor the bigger picture. Capturing the heart and soul of Tolkien's work is much more than the individual issues of character portrayal or plot devices that have been shared here thus far.

One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause. Jackson solved a screenplay plot issue AND enhanced one of Tolkien's messages at the same time by bringing the elves to Helm's Deep. Was it in the book? Nope. But did it help illustrate a larger and more important point that Tolkien was making? ABSOLUTELY.

A screenplay can't always capture the feel of its source book by playing it literal. Sometimes a screenwriter has to be creative in order to do justice to the author. This is but one of many BRILLIANT examples of this.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause.

I fail to see that. There was very little "power" from the Fellowship. The vastly most important work was done by three of the same race.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause. Jackson solved a screenplay plot issue AND enhanced one of Tolkien's messages at the same time by bringing the elves to Helm's Deep. Was it in the book? Nope. But did it help illustrate a larger and more important point that Tolkien was making? ABSOLUTELY.

But since it directly controdicts another theme he has made a point of accenting, it only confused what exactly is the moral of the story.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What is happening here is the same thing that's happened on every other thread---you Purists just can't stop nitpicking long enough to savor the bigger picture. Capturing the heart and soul of Tolkien's work is much more than the individual issues of character portrayal or plot devices that have been shared here thus far.

One of Tolkien's themes is the importance of friendship and the power that comes from people of different races uniting behind a cause. Jackson solved a screenplay plot issue AND enhanced one of Tolkien's messages at the same time by bringing the elves to Helm's Deep. Was it in the book? Nope. But did it help illustrate a larger and more important point that Tolkien was making? ABSOLUTELY.

A screenplay can't always capture the feel of its source book by playing it literal. Sometimes a screenwriter has to be creative in order to do justice to the author. This is but one of many BRILLIANT examples of this.

Really, it comes down to the fact that NO-ONE can know what Tolkien wanted (and no, BB, Jackson is not God, therefore he is not omniscient, therefore he cannot know, even if he cared). So "literal" is really the only way to possibly have any surety of staying true to the author's vision. I'm not saying that every single bit should have been there. But I am saying that if you actually WANT to make a real adaptation, rather than just making money off of a story, than the best way to go about this is to alter as little as possible. Throw "comic relief" out of the window, or preserve what humour (not humor) the author has. Forget "strong female roles": heck, Galadriel and Eowyn fill this in pretty well. Both come off stronger than many of the males. Screw "making it suspenseful" and make it REAL.

Wow...for some reason I suddenly felt pity...

[Elf Girl]

Thank you Gwaimir. Thou has hit yonder nail on the head.