What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I suspect based on what we can tell of the dynamics of the writing team via interviews and extras on the EE discs that PJ simply couldn't say "no" to either of the other two women on the committee even had he wanted to.

[Curufin]

Re: Helm's Deep.

This is probably the change that bothers me the MOST in the whole movie. Helm's Deep was the battle where men start to take the reins from the elves and begin to be able to defend themselves. It's a poignant reminder of the beginning of the ascendency of man and the downfall of the elves that PJ obviously missed.

[ringbearer]

No one who has loved any novel as much as most of us "mooters" do has ever liked a film version as much as the novel. (maybe one exception would be "To Kill a Mockingbird")
In my opinion, the films cannot be compared to the books at all. Some changes had to be done because of the medium...(A picture is worth a 1000 words).
I have loved LOTR for over 35 years and the movies are enjoyable to me for what they are. Mainly, a way to re-live the story in a little over 9 hours.
Some things HAD to be added AND taken out for continuity for the casual fan.
Also the films had to sell...I think a perfect adaptation would have fallen on it's face...
With all that stated, I do wish more time would have been spent on the aftermath, after the ring perished. Especialy Aragorn's healing of Faramir, Eowin amd Merry. AND the celebration in the Field of Cormallen(SP?) Along with the courtship of Eowin and Faramir.
Sam still cries to much in book and films!

[Galin]

Originally Posted by ringbearer

(...) Some changes had to be done because of the medium...(A picture is worth a 1000 words). I have loved LOTR for over 35 years and the movies are enjoyable to me for what they are. Mainly, a way to re-live the story in a little over 9 hours. Some things HAD to be added AND taken out for continuity for the casual fan.

Fair enough in general, but what had to be added and taken out is a matter of debate when one gets down to what Jackson actually did.

Also the films had to sell...I think a perfect adaptation would have fallen on it's face...

Well, that depends upon what you mean by perfect adaptation. A good or even great adaptation can include cuts and changes due to the mediums being different. But that's where the discussion begins, I think.

'There is insufficient rigor in film criticism in distinguishing between changes that actually are necessary because of the differences in the media, changes that are not necessary but are made to fit the director's or screenwriter's preferences (usually dignified as 'expressing a vision'), and changes that are made purely out of guesswork or superstition about what will sell to movie audiences. The screenwriter William Goldman's first Law of filmmaking is 'Nobody knows anything' David Bratman, Tolkien On Film

Earniel wrote: You get to see the scourging in Galadriel's mirror, neatly explaining this will happen in they fail, so if they succeed, Jackson doesn't have to add another 30 minutes of movie.

I'll just add that Jackson might have considered crafting a film that included the Scouring. Not that you claimed so, but there's no real reason, of course, that the Scouring of the Shire must 'fit on the end' of Jackson's movie as it now is, in order to be included, and so his decision to cut it arguably involves his vision for all three films before any filming started.

Grey Wolf posted: My conclusion to all the changes in the story is that PJ desperately wanted to make the trilogy his story - there are after all 10 million people who has read LOTR. This was PJ's vision. The omitting and changing of the personalities of the characters and LOTR in itself can then be explained as simply this: This is my project, so dont whine about what I have done - live with it!

I think people can be expected to object to (what they might see as) the distortion and cheapening of a beloved book. The film's credits say 'Based on the book by JRR Tolkien' and Jackson obviously didn't write the story, so was it his intent to be faithful to his source? and in what measure?

[Coffeehouse]

Tolkien fan Michael Martinez writing in 2001:
"It has been said that Peter Jackson treats the camera as another person in each scene. This is his way of drawing the audience into the story. He uses changing angles, reverse-action whatchamadiggits, and sweeping panoramic shots that scope out the countryside, focusing in on the action as it heats up. If anyone is afraid that the movie departs from Tolkien's book, they may rest assured that it does. If anyone is hoping that the movie brings Middle-earth to life, they may rest assured that it does. Is it Tolkien's Middle-earth? Of course not. It's Peter Jackson's Middle-earth. But it's a beautiful image and one well worth absorbing at least once or twice."

[Galin]

It might be a given that the film is going to be Peter Jackson's Middle-earth, and I respect the right of artists to do their own thing, but I don't think that's reason enough to expect Tolkien fans not to criticize the films in the arena of faithfulness.

'Artistic vision is personal interpretation. Either Jackson and his crew were devotees of the original text and setting, and did their best to keep true to the text and spirit of Tolkien, or they were determined to put their interpretation on the text, to make the movies uniquely theirs. You can't have it both ways. (...)

To defend Jackson by saying his films aren't Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is not an answer to criticism, but a throwing up of the argument in mute agreement (...) As his defenders say, any director will necessarily pursue his own vision. So what is his own vision? The answer turned out to be something incompatible with Tolkien's vision, and the solution would have been a director whose own vision was more compatible with Tolkien's. David Bratman, Tolkien on Film

I know already that not everyone agrees with David's last statement at least, but the statement 'it's Jackson's vision' (or similar) throws open very wide doors to my mind.

[Coffeehouse]

Let's be honest. Some readers of Tolkien's works simply wouldn't like any cinematic adaptation whatsoever. The reason? Because no cinematic adaptation can realistically ever convey the breadth, depth and complexity of Tolkien's literary work. It's then meaningless to set any movie up against such a standard because it will be by default well below par compared to the actual literary work. I can only say to people who insist on comparing them this way: why bother?

So what we get is a discussion about how faithful, given an unpassable obstacle of a direct literary-to-movie translation, the cinematic adaption is to the literary work. The quote presented here claims that either the director and his crew remain loyal to the original text and its spirit or the director and crew insert their own interpretation, giving the literary work a snub.
The claim itself isn't false, but it leaves out an important third way of doing it. What Peter Jackson and his crew have done is try to stay faithful to Tolkien's Middle Earth conception and the central themes that they thought Tolkien had highlighted, but having and needing also if you may to take artistic liberty to actually produce a coherent, cinematically-pleasing motion picture. What they haven't done is make the movie something of an adaption beyond the recognizable. As an avid Tolkien reader it's breathtakingly clear just how much of the storyline they managed to get into something of 9 hours of final footage. And with the musical and visual effects that becomes quite amazing really.

In that respect I think they did a very good job. The Lord of the Rings motion picture conveys the story, the setting, the characters, the central battles and most of the central themes of the literary work. Yes they leave out certain characters, certain events and a shipload of dialogue, but as a cinematic adaption I think it's as close to what you can achieve in a movie with a realistic timespan of 3 hours or less per movie.

Finally, it's quite obvious that Peter Jackson is a genuine Tolkien fan having used so considerable amount of input from Tolkien experts, Tolkien artists and last but not least the whole range of Tolkien fans. Having watched about 3 documentaries about the making of the movies I can tell you there is was no other person on that set that seemed to reminded himself and everyone else more that they were making the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and not some distantly related new tale where artistic liberty was endless.

In the end, insisting that the movie is not faithful enough becomes a matter of taste, but it doesn't bear down on what seems to be a genuinely good-hearted attempt by Jackson nor the fact that the three movies together are the single-most watched motion picture in human history, creating a subsequent avalanche of interest in the books. It is the reason why Tolkien forums across the web have flourished

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Let's be honest. Some readers of Tolkien's works simply wouldn't like any cinematic adaptation whatsoever. The reason? Because no cinematic adaptation can realistically ever convey the breadth, depth and complexity of Tolkien's literary work. It's then meaningless to set any movie up against such a standard because it will be by default well below par compared to the actual literary work. I can only say to people who insist on comparing them this way: why bother?

Perhaps these some would begin by saying something like: 'While no cinematic adaptation can realistically ever convey the breadth, depth and complexity of The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson's version yet...' and go on to make the same arguments you have read.

The criticisms I have seen appear to spring from realistic soil (and consider a reasonable length for a film). And of course, people are going to use the book to compare. Film scenes do not have to be slavishly copied out of the book to be faithful, and being too strict can actually hurt a film in given cases -- but on the other hand, if a given section of the book arguably provides perfectly good film, and Jackson has introduced or altered something for arguably 'Hollywood reasons' (for instance) -- to my mind that seems an argument for a better and more faithful fillm, despite its agreed upon limitations.

Jackson's alterations begin very early and are of all kinds, and they tally an ultimate sum. The Lord of the Rings is an admittedly difficult task for any filmmaker, but I think two people can come out on opposite sides of the coin as to whether or not Jackson gets a gold star or a rotten egg in the arena of being faithful enough to Tolkien -- both working from the same or similar place with respect to what a film can realistically convey of Tolkien's amazing work -- or if not, both thinking they are working from a realistic enough place, in any case.

The quote presented here claims that either the director and his crew remain loyal to the original text and its spirit or the director and crew insert their own interpretation, giving the literary work a snub. The claim itself isn't false, but it leaves out an important third way of doing it. What Peter Jackson and his crew have done is try to stay faithful to Tolkien's Middle Earth conception and the central themes that they thought Tolkien had highlighted, but having and needing also if you may to take artistic liberty to actually produce a coherent, cinematically-pleasing motion picture.

I think your third option is basically a more detailed description of one of David's: if Jackson and crew are trying to stay faithful in whatever way they think they are being faithful, then that is essentially different from purposely making the movies uniquely their own -- in other words, if they are trying to stay faithful to what 'they thought Tolkien highlighted' that is essentially trying to stay faithful, and David's choice does not omit artistic liberty in order to achieve a great film (while trying to be faithful), nor pretend that any director is not going to have to make decisions as to what to cut or highlight.

(...) Yes they leave out certain characters, certain events and a shipload of dialogue, but as a cinematic adaption I think it's as close to what you can achieve in a movie with a realistic timespan of 3 hours or less per movie.

I probably would have cut out more of the book than Jackson did -- I think some of his pacing appears rushed because he tried to fit in too much (in places). But that said, I would also cut out a lot of what Jackson added. Peter Jackson not only altered Tolkien's books, he added things that took up screen time, or chose to take certain sections of the book and make them relatively long. In my opinion there is screen time here that would have been far better spent on other things.

Finally, it's quite obvious that Peter Jackson is a genuine Tolkien fan having used so considerable amount of input from Tolkien experts, Tolkien artists and last but not least the whole range of Tolkien fans. Having watched about 3 documentaries about the making of the movies I can tell you there is was no other person on that set that seemed to reminded himself and everyone else more that they were making the adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and not some distantly related new tale where artistic liberty was endless.

Jackson hired an expert in Elvish, for example, and put a lot more of it in the films than appears in the books. He certainly seems to be going above and beyond here, and I guess people will see this effort in a certain light, and praise him for it.

On the other hand, well-intended or not, Jackson chose to discard most of Tolkien's own Elvish, and replace it with not only fan-invented examples, but chose to replace it with a different order of Elvish. Here an arguably more faithful approach was easier and less costly.

So some will say Jackson has been faithful with respect to the languages -- others will say no. But the opinion to use Tolkien's Elvish as in the book is not unrealistic to my mind, or a suggestion that automatically swims against the tide of crafting a good film. I would say it's a perfectly legitimate and specific criticism; and the languages can be merely issue number one on a long list.

In the end, insisting that the movie is not faithful enough becomes a matter of taste, but it doesn't bear down on what seems to be a genuinely good-hearted attempt by Jackson nor the fact that the three movies together are the single-most watched motion picture in human history, creating a subsequent avalanche of interest in the books. It is the reason why Tolkien forums across the web have flourished

Well opinions can be stamped as subjective of course. And I think you might agree that the fact that the movies are popular do not necessarily make them faithful however, whether a good-hearted attempt or not. Interest in the books is another matter. The Lord of the Rings was not lacking in readership in any case, was not obsolete or revived by Jackson. The films could be advertising yes, but how much will Jackson change the reaction to the books because of expectations that might hail from the films?

Oh, sure, you always have some who don't want to read period, but usually in a fantasy course (and students can choose among many courses -- my fantasy lit, southern lit, detective fiction, sci-fi, etc.) students are already readers (of sorts at least) who are able to tackle lengthy works full of description. (...)

'My experience is simply that overall PJ's films have not done Tolkien any real favors in terms of new, appreciative readers. I know there are some, but I think they're the minority.' Dr. Ted Sherman, Editor Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature & Professor of English

That's one experience anyway. David Bratman also notes:

(...) But that depends on the person being attracted to Tolkien through the films. The films having attractive qualities quite different from Tolkien's, a person who might like Tolkien could easily be repelled by the films and never realize that he or she might like the books. That would certainly be the case with several people I know, particularly women, who are attracted to the book for its beauty and wonder, and by its remarkable lack (for a war story) of long gruesome depictions of battles. These are qualities in which the films are very different. (...)

In any case, interest in the books and interest in forums would arguably be just as good if Jackson had made, what in my opinion could have been, a much more faithful adaptation of his source (which does not mean a lesser film).

[Coffeehouse]

So it's all a matter of preferences and taste, as we've made now made abundantly clear..

[Galin]

Perhaps no one will agree with my opinion on Jackson's approach to the languages, for example, but considering the thread title, this seems the place for it anyway.

[Coffeehouse]

In fact this grand old Moot is quite accustomed to the creation of new threads for the most specialized conversations, so I see no problem in one being created a.k.a. a thread on 'Elvish language in the LOTR motion pictures' or what may you.

I disagree with the view though, be it yours or anyone else's that it is poor judgement or an unfaithful act to include Elven language created by someone else than JRRT, if that was what you meant.
Language is humanity's ultimate tool of communication, and as JRRT would know more than anyone else, goes through a constant change. It never remains idle, but changes with time and the amount of people who use it. It also goes through changes in the same literary work, the Bible being a great example, yet few would disown the changing of words in the Bible if the meaning and spirit remained the same.
To JRRT it can be nothing but the ultimate nod to him and his titanic linguistic project for Middle Earth, that fans, drawing nothing but inspiration from him, create new words and meanings. JRRT would want the language to, repeating myself, widen in depth, breadth and complexity! And who better suited for this than the fans of his writings. What started with his exquisite creation of several languages, drawing from languages as different as English and Finnish, Gaelic and Latin, has given way to a linguistic project which I think would be more than happy that take place.

That Peter Jackson then chooses to use (besides the literal phrases taken from the book itself) other altered Elven words and phrases created by someone else than JRRT, is to me no problem at all. On the contrary, I like the fact of it and I applaud whichever people contributed to it.

Most good literature gives the reader the pleasure of the story and its characters.
But truly great literature enlightens the reader and its meaning and spirit transcends time and place. The reader can draw infinite inspiration from it and forge new ideas, new passions and new meaning on the basis of it.
Tolkiens Lord of the Rings is of the latter kind, and I think that be it linguistic additions, visual realization or placing music with the story, if done professionally can enhance the work without trying to replace it.
That's how I see the motion pictures, as a bonus to an already truly great story that only the books can provide.
Mutually complementary, not mutually exclusive.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I disagree with the view though, be it yours or anyone else's that it is poor judgement or an unfaithful act to include Elven language created by someone else than JRRT, if that was what you meant.

There is more to it that using fan-made Elvish, but Tolkien language expert Carl Hostetter already said it better than I could:

But this provides yet another example of how little appreciation Jackson had for the tone and "feel" of Tolkien's work. Yes, Jackson went to considerable length to include Elvish in the movie: but he did so mostly by _discarding_ Tolkien's _own_ Elvish exemplars -- which, please note, are almost entirely in the form of songs, poems, spells, and exclamations made in crisis or _de profundis_ that are used sparingly so as to punctuate the story and to not cheapen the effect of the Elvish -- and instead substituting for them long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else).

Carl Hostetter

In any case I recommend, for anyone interested, the essay Elvish as She Is Spoke on line at the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship. This next quote is but a small part of the essay.

Indeed, it seems plain that it was never Tolkien's purpose either to fix and finalize his invented languages, or to make them 'usable' in narrative or in any other prosaic or quotidian application, even by himself; or to describe them in such a way and bring them to sufficient completion that they could be learned and used by others as a living speech.

Elvish as She Is Spoke Carl Hostetter

[Coffeehouse]

Right, in the first quote you provide Carl Hostetter disapproves of Peter Jackson's usage of Elvish because Peter Jackson did not appreciate, quote, "the tone and 'feel' of Tolkien's work".

So what then is Carl Hostetter (and yours I presume) rationale for disapproving? It is because Peter Jackson substitutes "[...] them [for] long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) dialogue of the sort entirely missing from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story".

Thus Carl Hostetter's problem with the Elvish in the Lord of the Rings is that, instead of being several poems or songs it is instead actual conversation. Carl Hostetter also calls the conversation mostly banal, however skillfully it has been put together. Nevermind the banality, that is his personal preference.
I can't say it's a very convincing set of argument though as Carl Hostetter himself shows why Tolkien did not write long, dialogue passages in the Lord of the Rings. As can be found in "Elvish as She Is Spoke":
Carl Hostetter: "There are a number of answers to this question, not least the one Tolkien himself gave in the letter quoted above: that his readers could hardly have been expected to stomach long passages in an utterly foreign language, and that as a consequence at least some of the language element had been edited out. [...] But even if this entirely practical concern for reader interest were set aside, I believe that there would have remained an obstacle to extended Elvish narrative composition far more fundamental and no less practical: namely, that Tolkien himself was neither fluent in either of his two chief Elvish languages, nor himself able to compose in them with anything like the facility that would be required to produce substantial amounts of Elvish narrative."

Indeed Carl Hostetter has just pointed two very important reasons for why, bar the obvious cinematic reasons which I'll return to, Peter Jackson, and not JRR Tolkien, made use of more dialogue and less Elvish poem recitation and singing. Peter Jackson, unlike JRR Tolkien, had a host of Elvish language experts and fans to contribute to the script, whoms combined years and depth of expertise in the context of the situation (the movie-making) made possible just the sort of creation of Elvish dialogue that JRR Tolkien would have found both difficult and uneccessary in his medium.

The difference was that JRR Tolkien was writing a poetic literary work, in tune with his favorite subject: ancient European (mostly poetic) literature and mythology, whilst Jackson & company had the leisure of having a script with living actors and the neccessity of living dialogue. Bar the many instances of chanting and singing, Elvish too, in the movies, a motion picture requires dialogue. You simply can't have, in contrast to a book-trilogy, broadsheets upon broadsheets of poem recitation. In contrast to vivid and passionate 12-stanza poems in the book, at which point a reader can stop, read and interpret at leisure, having actors standing around reciting these same poems doesn't quite do justice to the viewers imagination.
In a book you read the poem and you create your own images, whilst in a movie the visuals are what the director provides. Left of the spoken word is thus the dialogue, and that is precisely why some of the Elvish found in the Lord of the Rings motion picture is Elvish not always found in the books. It is a case of adaption and one cleverly at that. I found, and I imagine most people too did find, the Elvish spoken in the movies to be both beautiful and sometimes very appropriate.

Carl Hostetter also writes:
"To the extent that others found pleasure in the glimpses of that expression provided by the publication of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was no doubt quite gratified. But this in no way implies that Tolkien meant for others to “develop” his languages, his personal expressions, into a “useful” form, or into any other form than his own."

And I couldn't agree more! I would imagine that JRR Tolkien would be very pleased with finding such a great following of Elvish fans so many years after he passed away, with all sorts of Elvish having sprung up in literature and of course on the Internet. But whatever Tolkien meant the language to be used for, the Elvish language has evolved and become deepened, widened, more diverse and of greater complexity. With it, as any language can attest to, comes new usage. If anything, whatever Tolkien's initial private pleasure in having Elvish as a language, he has achieved something remarkable: Several languages that now have taken on a life of their own. We can debate whether he meant them to evolve this way or that, but I think it is erroneous and narrow-minded to assume that the Elvish in the motion pictures somehow are 'cheapened' versions of Tolkiens passages just because they are not the exact Elvish laid down in the books.

Tolkien himself never settled on any finalized Elvish, like Carl Hostetter observes:"Indeed, to the extent that we can speak accurately of Quenya and Sindarin as single entities at all, it is only as continuities of change over time, not only within their fictional internal histories (continual change being of course also a feature of primary world languages), but also across Tolkien’s lifetime."

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

(...) Thus Carl Hostetter's problem with the Elvish in the Lord of the Rings is that, instead of being several poems or songs it is instead actual conversation.

As I read it you are oversimplifying the argument in your conclusion ('Thus...' seems to begin a conclusion), including simplifying the examples to poems and songs.

(...) Indeed Carl Hostetter has just pointed two very important reasons for why, bar the obvious cinematic reasons which I'll return to, Peter Jackson, and not JRR Tolkien, made use of more dialogue and less Elvish poem recitation and singing.

Carl's statements in the essay concern the book and possible 'long passages', of some kind, in Elvish. We don't know how long, nor what the passages would be, in essence, just the bare bones that readers would likely skip them and possibly be annoyed simply due to lengthy enough passages in a foreign tongue. His statements also concern the fact that Tolkien's languages were not complete enough to make this easy, even if Tolkien had desired it.

But you didn't argue that Peter Jackson's reason was that film audiences could stomach 'long' passages delivered in a foreign tongue, you chose the wording 'more dialogue' instead -- in other words audiences could stomach sporadic examples of simple dialogue -- if that were the phrasing, then yes I would agree. They could.

In any case this approach to the languages is not necessary because audiences at large would not object (nor would they have objected to Tolkien's work, I would argue, if integrated creatively regarding the poetry). Nor was it necessary to substitute Tolkien's art simply because fan-elvish is available today.

In this context it's also that Jackson's fan-fiction Elvish is not simply in addition to Tolkien-made (actual) Elvish, but largely excises Tolkien's own art while adding so much of it, which to me reflects his approach to the films in general. My guess is that he would claim ignorance in the matter. As far as Jackson probably knew the hired expert was producing 'Elvish' in the same sense as if he (Jackson) had asked for Latin. But when the speculative smoke clears, in any event Tolkien has now passed and his art, as it is, is right there for a filmmaker to consult and judge for him or herself how the Elvish is being used, and how one might go about trying to be faithful to that.

The difference was that JRR Tolkien was writing a poetic literary work, in tune with his favorite subject: ancient European (mostly poetic) literature and mythology, whilst Jackson & company had the leisure of having a script with living actors and the neccessity of living dialogue. Bar the many instances of chanting and singing, Elvish too, in the movies, a motion picture requires dialogue. You simply can't have, in contrast to a book-trilogy, broadsheets upon broadsheets of poem recitation. In contrast to vivid and passionate 12-stanza poems in the book, at which point a reader can stop, read and interpret at leisure, having actors standing around reciting these same poems doesn't quite do justice to the viewers imagination.

Of course films require dialogue, but you say these are 'the obvious cinematic reasons' and I'm not sure how the fact that Viggo is alive and working from a script means he can't say a given sentence in English. You say Tolkien has written a book (whose sources are poetic), and this is a film with a script with living people -- but I don't see how we get from there to a 'necessity of living dialogue' in Elvish particularly -- by which I guess you mean that significant amounts of comon phrases would help demonstrate that Sindarin was a living language, for some, in Frodo's day.

I see no necessity here anyway. I don't think anyone would argue that a film would flop if there were no Elvish in it at all actually, but of course there's no real film-based reason to not include the languages, and I really can't imagine audiences complaining that the Elvish didn't seem alive enough if given the language from the books.

Is fan-made Elvish available? Sure, and so is fan-fiction about Arwen and Aragorn, or Legolas, or whatever. Personally I'd rather hear and see something from Tolkien, if it's at all workable on film, which the Elvish certainly was, just as it was.

No one has argued that there should have been broadsheet upon broadsheet of poem recitation in the film. No one argued that Jackson should have actors standing around reciting poems of any sort, which implies a boring visual might be the only way to incorporate poetry into a film, which is not true of course.

Maybe instead of the time and money it took to create Elvish common dialogue Jackson might have poured more creative energy into working Tolkien's art into the films in interesting ways.

In a book you read the poem and you create your own images, whilst in a movie the visuals are what the director provides. Left of the spoken word is thus the dialogue, and that is precisely why some of the Elvish found in the Lord of the Rings motion picture is Elvish not always found in the books.

I'm not really sure what this second part is attempting to say, but something I can comment on here is your choice of expression which seems to minimize what Jackson has actually done: 'some' of the Elvish in the films isn't found in the books -- versus -- notable amounts of fan-Elvish in the films that can be found nowhere in any Tolkien book.

It is a case of adaption and one cleverly at that. I found, and I imagine most people too did find, the Elvish spoken in the movies to be both beautiful and sometimes very appropriate.

Utilizing Tolkien's Elvish would have been beautiful and very appropriate too

If anything, whatever Tolkien's initial private pleasure in having Elvish as a language, he has achieved something remarkable: Several languages that now have taken on a life of their own. We can debate whether he meant them to evolve this way or that, but I think it is erroneous and narrow-minded to assume that the Elvish in the motion pictures somehow are 'cheapened' versions of Tolkiens passages just because they are not the exact Elvish laid down in the books.

But 'just because they are not exact Elvish laid down in the books' is not exactly the argument. And I could spend time, for example, making an argument grounded in intense respect for Tolkien and his work to justify why Welsh was substituted for Sindarin in some film version (if it theoretically was).

The tough part of the sell with this or other justifications however, would be why Sindarin was taken out in the first place, and how a different order of language (at least in a cumulative sense with respect to amount), taken in tandem with largely substituting Tolkien, can be regarded as a 'faithful' approach to both Tolkien as an artist, and the tone and feel of the particular source being adapted.

__________

On another note, Jackson fans do not necessarily reflect Peter Jackson himself with respect to his decision making (whether their arguments are compelling or not). For instance, the Wizard-fight:

Having Saruman betray Gandalf increases the level of danger, especially since Frodo knows nothing about it. Having him do so brutally, makes it clear that Saruman really is more powerful than Gandalf, and that the threat is not abstract but terribly real.

OK that's a reason (lifted from the web), even a film-based one -- having him do so 'brutally' makes is clear visually -- but whatever one thinks about that, my point here is to compare the reason from a Jackson fan to what Jackson himself said about Wizard-fu: 'I thought it would be funny, and more interesting, to see two old guys just beating the crap out of each other.' (quoted in Thompson 'Fantasy, Franchises, and Frodo Baggins: The Lord of the Rings as Modern Hollywood.')

[Coffeehouse]

I can't say there is much point in debating this answer, since really what I find you arguing is that Peter Jackson's degree of direct JRR Tolkien-written quotes, passages, etc. isn't high enough. As far as I can see you aren't completely disagreeing with Peter Jackson's usage of Elvish, just the degree to which he was faithful.

That's an okay argument though the main thrust of it seems to be that 'if only Peter Jackson had used more actual quotes'. I think what you should ask yourself though is why you think Peter Jackson, having so much resources at his disposal, chose to create dialogue not present in the books. For me the answer would be because probably more often than not the dialogue Peter Jackson wanted for this and this scene just wasn't present in the book in Elvish. That doesn't mean it wasn't written as a direct quote or nearly the same in English in the book.

What your insinuating though it seems is that Peter Jackson, instead of having Elvish dialogue (not present in the book) to suit particular contexts out of necessity, instead chose Elvish not present in the book because he could, it was his movie which again demonstrates some sort of act of unfaithfulness. Now there may be valid arguments that Peter Jackson has taken longer routes at times when the shorter one would have worked just as well, but all in all I find much of the sort of degree-arguments to come off as nitpicking contrary to being criticism with actual substance.

Edit: I must say that the last quote with Peter Jackson concerning the conflict between Gandalf and Sarumann obviously comes off as humour on Peter Jackson's part. I think it's quite incredible that you're using that quote to show Peter Jackson's primary intentions for that scene. Let's get out of the ivory tower for a moment shall we?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

(...) That's an okay argument though the main thrust of it seems to be that 'if only Peter Jackson had used more actual quotes'.

I prefer my arguments, as I choose to phrase them Yes, 'if only' Jackson had not largely substituted actual Elvish, found right there in the book -- Tolkien's personal art where he decides not only the aesthetic of a language as a whole, but for a given statement, and idiom, and in what context he's going to employ Elvish at all.

If only Tolkien's work on the languages, comprising decade after decade of his life, and especially those portions which he finally decided to publish himself (for he was a natural niggler of details, and publishing something made it a different animal, so to speak), was put first and foremost above fan-fiction and what Jackson 'wanted', then maybe I might not have posted in a thread entitled 'What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR'

I think what you should ask yourself though is why you think Peter Jackson, having so much resources at his disposal, chose to create dialogue not present in the books. For me the answer would be because probably more often than not the dialogue Peter Jackson wanted for this and this scene just wasn't present in the book in Elvish. That doesn't mean it wasn't written as a direct quote or nearly the same in English in the book.

What Peter Jackson wanted once again ended up leaving too much Tolkien on the doorstep. He 'wanted' Arwen to put her sword to Aragorn's neck too, and deliver her 'fan fiction' lines there, and then he wanted Frodo to become mere baggage at the ford. Jackson wanted a lot of things, that doesn't mean I have to agree with him that they were either faithful, or the most faithful route he could have taken.

Now there may be valid arguments that Peter Jackson has taken longer routes at times when the shorter one would have worked just as well, but all in all I find much of the sort of degree-arguments to come off as nitpicking contrary to being criticism with actual substance.

Well actually I've seen the 'nitpicking card' thrown into plenty of criticism with real substance IMO. You don't agree, OK; but I don't think my argument here is nitpicking.

Edit: I must say that the last quote with Peter Jackson concerning the conflict between Gandalf and Sarumann obviously comes off as humour on Peter Jackson's part. I think it's quite incredible that you're using that quote to show Peter Jackson's primary intentions for that scene. Let's get out of the ivory tower for a moment shall we?

Well maybe it's obvious to you, and I'll grant that you might be right, but I'm not so sure Jackson is not being purposely irreverent at times, admitting elsewhere that he used Gimli 'as my kind of foil to get a bit of irreverent humour out there.'

When I saw this scene there were points in it that seemed purposely ridiculous, which unfortunately some people might find funny. Looking at Jackson's 'humor' elsewhere in the films, I have to say I'm not necessarily in any ivory tower here.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Galin

I prefer my arguments, as I choose to phrase them. Yes, 'if only' Jackson had not largely substituted actual Elvish, found right there in the book -- Tolkien's personal art where he decides not only the aesthetic of a language as a whole, but for a given statement, and idiom, and in what context he's going to employ Elvish at all.

If only Tolkien's work on the languages, comprising decade after decade of his life, and especially those portions which he finally decided to publish himself (for he was a natural niggler of details, and publishing something made it a different animal, so to speak), was put first and foremost above fan-fiction and what Jackson 'wanted', then maybe I might not have posted in a thread entitled 'What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR'

What Peter Jackson wanted once again ended up leaving too much Tolkien on the doorstep. He 'wanted' Arwen to put her sword to Aragorn's neck too, and deliver her 'fan fiction' lines there, and then he wanted Frodo to become mere baggage at the ford. Jackson wanted a lot of things, that doesn't mean I have to agree with him that they were either faithful, or the most faithful route he could have taken.

In this type of criticism Galin you are staying true to that hopeless endeavour of setting the motion picture up to the standard of the book. This way a fan of JRR Tolkien, myself included, could go on indefinitely without getting nothing but disappointment because the movies are not the books, will never be the books and cannot be compared to the books as anything else than an adaptation. An adaptation is not a direct translation into f.ex. the cinematic media and does not pretend to be. By comparing the motion picture to the book with an eye for the complexity, the depth and the fineness that is present in JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth one can only achieve a verdict of different shades of inadequacy.

By all means pursue that (fruitless) route, but as criticism of a motion picture one should avoid drawing lines to all the instances where a literal translation from the book to the motion picture did not take place. Why? Because it is neither fair to the motion picture as an adaptation, fair to the comparison itself or especially constructive. I mean you could literally go on for ever doing it!

Peter Jackson:
"The book is regarded as being [...] incredibly dense and detailed and rich, which is why it has such a huge fan following and I've tried to catch the feeling of Tolkien for the people that like the book but simplify it to the extent that you don't have to have read the book to enjoy the film, so, it's a fine line. You cannot please everyone, and I'm sure that we haven't, but you can only ultimately, I think, make the best film that I could."

Edit: Let me end on that quote by Peter Jackson with a comparison for a person and whoms literature I have admired since I was 16 years old: T.E. Lawrence or 'Lawrence of Arabia'. Having studied his years in the Middle East (Arab Revolt, 1916-1918) rather meticulously I was really excited to find that there was a 1962 motion picture, Lawrence of Arabia biographing that same period. I can tell you that my first impression of the motion picture was that as a motion picture it had some of the most beautiful, sweeping cinematic takes I had ever seen. There is a shot (set in slight fast motion though it doesn't seem like it) of the rising sun from the horizon and up into a pristine blue sky above the Arabian desert. That kind of imagery I gladly watched, just as I looked in fascination when the Fellowship entered Lothlorien in the movies. But, joining my feelings of awe for the cinematic beauty was a real annoyance at the complex character that T.E. Lawrence really was but which became simplified in the motion picture. Many months of journeying which I had read in his biography/diary called Seven Pillars of Wisdom were just gone from the movie and I can remember being pretty mad about that.

But I realised that comparing the motion picture to the books by T.E. Lawrence (he wrote poetically and in vast detail about his stay in Arabia during WWI) was going to lead to one place: inadequacy! Instead I've come to accept the movies as a simplified version of something I can read about with greater richness and pleasure in the books themselves, yet the motion picture also provides imagery and a musical score that is on par or perhaps even better than the sweeping scenes and musical score that was in the Lord of the Rings movies

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

In this type of criticism Galin you are staying true to that hopeless endeavour of setting the motion picture up to the standard of the book. This way a fan of JRR Tolkien, myself included, could go on indefinitely without getting nothing but disappointment because the movies are not the books, will never be the books and cannot be compared to the books as anything else than an adaptation. An adaptation is not a direct translation into f.ex. the cinematic media and does not pretend to be. By comparing the motion picture to the book with an eye for the complexity, the depth and the fineness that is present in JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth one can only achieve a verdict of different shades of inadequacy.

Hmmm, back to 'it's a movie, not a book' but I don't think movies are books, or that an adaptation need be a direct translation.

And 'comparing the motion picture to the book with an eye for the complexity, the depth and the fineness that is present in JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth', is not the same as essentially saying: how about copying the actual Elvish in the book -- that's a relatively simple approach for any filmmaker concerning a somewhat unique matter that's easily open to direct translation, and just asks for a bit of creativity to work some of it in, in an interesting way.


Incidentally I would recommend (or would have recommended) for example, a Saruman scene appear before the meeting between Gandalf and Saruman -- before the one where Saruman is revealed I mean. I have my own ideas about how a film could approach the journey from Bree to Imladris -- it doesn't follow the book -- but I think it's more faithful to it than Jackson's version. I also have my own ideas about Gandalf's confrontation scene with Saruman, not exactly described by Tolkien, but not the Wizard-fight Jackson gave us.

In my opinion there is a very well done scene in film two that was not in the book, for instance, and one I could applaud Jackson for. He cut if from the theatrical release in any case.

More generally, I think a film could be much truer to Tolkien (than Jackson's films) and have less to do with the specific storyline of the book (less than Jackson's did).

"The book is regarded as being [...] incredibly dense and detailed and rich, which is why it has such a huge fan following and I've tried to catch the feeling of Tolkien for the people that like the book but simplify it to the extent that you don't have to have read the book to enjoy the film, so, it's a fine line. You cannot please everyone, and I'm sure that we haven't, but you can only ultimately, I think, make the best film that I could."

Jackson uses 'feeling' here; and as I read things at least, IIRC no one yet has really disagreed with Carl's implication that the sum feel of Jackson's use of the languages is different from the books. Justifying Jackson's choice to add notable amounts of dialogue seems to me an attempt to give it a green light despite that it is different, mutely agreeing with Mr. Hostetter on that much. Giving a reason why it was done -- to make the languages feel more alive -- does not in itself dispute that the films and books are different in feel and tone here, as in Carl's original quote.

With respect to Jackson's quote I must disagree. In places, yes; in certain areas, like some (not all) of the imagery, yes; but in my opinion he did far more than simplify the book to the extent that non-readers could enjoy the films.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm basically with Galin here.

It isn't that Jackson added some stuff and left out some stuff. It is what he added and how he added it, then justified some of the leaving-outs with a tired, "there wasn't time for everything" line.

Indeed, it is rare for any film to live up to its literary counterpart, but some films come close, either in faithfulness or in quality and even more rarely in both.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

I'm basically with Galin here.

It isn't that Jackson added some stuff and left out some stuff. It is what he added and how he added it, then justified some of the leaving-outs with a tired, "there wasn't time for everything" line.

Indeed, it is rare for any film to live up to its literary counterpart, but some films come close, either in faithfulness or in quality and even more rarely in both.

Yes some in here keep saying this, but anyone can find something that made quite the difference for them in reading the book, yet which was left out in the movie. For me the trip between Bag End and Bree undertaken by the hobbits was the best part, and it wasn't even remotely close to being portrayed right in the motion picture.

But you know I made the decision, for my own pleasure and to avoid falling into this fruitless circle of disappointment after disappointment (which a few seem to enjoy) by reminding myself that New Line's Lord of the Rings had to capture the main plot, namely the power of the ring and its journey, and several other important subplots like the struggle of Men and the chaos of a world disunited against darkness. It's what I would expect of the movie and it seems to be what the great majority of Tolkien fans expected as well as I've seen a whole lot more positive response from ardent Tolkien readers than negative.

And the reason is that I think most Tolkien fans have come to the movie theatre, lowered the shoulders and taken the movie as an adaptation and to enjoy visual glimpses into the vastness of the universe Tolkien created in his works.

The movie gave us, I believe, as good an adventure as a cinematic adaptation could give (just think about all the things they could have done wrong! That list is endless too) readers of Tolkien. I'm glad Peter Jackson and his team did the movie. It has so many visual and musical pluses that despite the at times loose paralell between scenes (and the sometime exact parallel in others) I have decided to enjoy what it can give me instead of fretting over all the things it didn't give me because as I keep saying that list is endless and the satisfaction from having a go seems to be next to nil

I'm signing out of this debate now, just wanted to put some perspective