What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[shesabrandybuck]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

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

You stole the words right out of my mouth. Yeah, to me it was a little disappointing that there wasn't Bombadil, not enough songs, and ruined my favorite character of Faramir (along with a bunch of other things), but honestly I think PJ did the best that anyone could have done (if not better). I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), that Tolkien himself said that LOTR was the unmakable movie, which is true in a sense, but PJ did an awesome job, IMO, about making it into a film.

[Galin]

(...) and ruined my favorite character of Faramir (along with a bunch of other things), but honestly I think PJ did the best that anyone could have done (if not better).

Hmmm, how many other things are included I wonder (Faramir 'along with a bunch of other things')

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think you're right, Coffeehouse, in a sense that some of us seem to enjoy the disappointment, though I'm not sure disappointment is the right word. I can only speak for myself, but I can be critical of a movie and still like it a lot.

I liked PJs movies enough to see Fellowship 9 times in the theater, Two Towers 5, and RotK 4, which includes an all-day marathon of all three back-to-back which I drove nearly two hours to see. Then I bought both the theatrical and extended editions of each.

At the same time, I feel like I can give them failing grades on many counts, especially in faithfulness to Tolkien, and enjoy bashing the Wingnuts for the films they made. So yeah, I guess I do love to hate certain parts of the films.

[Galin]

I originally jumped in here because, whether intended or not, to my mind some commentary I saw might imply that anyone who has a negative opinion of the films should be silent -- and also to react to certain things that I think are really basically agreed upon by most, before criticism begins.

I wanted to like the films and was thinking about possible versions likely before some here were even born (Jane Seymour for Arwen anyone?) -- not that that means anything really, but anyway the thread seemed to ask for what people thought was wrong with the movies, so once here, I tossed in a few things too... including something on the languages from an expert (Carl Hostetter) as possible food for thought.

I don't think I really post anywhere about the films much at all, and actually I don't remember them as well today, in any event.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

I think you're right, Coffeehouse, in a sense that some of us seem to enjoy the disappointment, though I'm not sure disappointment is the right word. I can only speak for myself, but I can be critical of a movie and still like it a lot.

I liked PJs movies enough to see Fellowship 9 times in the theater, Two Towers 5, and RotK 4, which includes an all-day marathon of all three back-to-back which I drove nearly two hours to see. Then I bought both the theatrical and extended editions of each.

At the same time, I feel like I can give them failing grades on many counts, especially in faithfulness to Tolkien, and enjoy bashing the Wingnuts for the films they made. So yeah, I guess I do love to hate certain parts of the films.

Looking at this I can only say this reminds me of my own experience I have only seen each of the motion pictures once in the movie theatre (including a really worthwhile attendance at one of the world premiere's of RotK, where I had the immense pleasure of sitting beside JRR Tolkien's great grandson!) but one of my sisters bought the Extended Edition for the entire trilogy and so I've seen it quite a few times. Usually sit down and watch the trilogy with my sisters during the Xmas holidays f.ex!

I have nothing against criticism of the movies, or nailing certain scenes. I for one find the inclusion of that greenish mass that was the Undead Army to completely ruin the Battle of the Pelennor Fields because up until that moment it had been one excellently filmed string of scenes. That for me put a damper on it, and so did the meeting at the Black Gates with Sauron's Mouth. In the Extended Edition we see this meeting and I find it horribly off what is in the book. It's also a rare case in the movies of poor acting, or at least a poor script. So yeah, I get what you're saying.

What I don't understand though, which some people seem to have a great desire for, is this sort of fretting over Peter Jackson as if he'd walked up to JRR Tolkien's grave and shown it the finger or something. It's okay with criticism of the motion picture, but let it be fair and keep in mind what the alternative could be (Not as you see it in your minds, where we all imagine the perfect scenes), but as how you could envisage that a living director could, with a living script and film team, produce a movie. Let it be fair, because JRR Tolkien's work, as Brandybuck wrote, is perhaps the unfilmable.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's okay with criticism of the motion picture, but let it be fair and keep in mind what the alternative could be (Not as you see it in your minds, where we all imagine the perfect scenes), but as how you could envisage that a living director could, with a living script and film team, produce a movie. Let it be fair, because JRR Tolkien's work, as Brandybuck wrote, is perhaps the unfilmable.

OK, but is what you think is fair criticism based on the level of faithfulness you think Jackson's team achieved -- based on what you think is realistically possible for a film with respect to adapting The Lord of the Rings?

I don't expect Jackson to see the languages exactly as I do, and thus consider all the details I raised in my response to your 'if only' remark -- that was a response to what seemed (to me) to be a de-emphasis of my perspective; and some people might read that commentary with a tone that I didn't write it in (which is why I edited in a smiley face incidentally). But I agree with Carl's commentary in the main and thus think he has raised a fair enough point, while others who disagree might think it's nitpicking or 'unfair'.

One man's nitpick might be the next man's rather notable miss.

As far as 'it could have been worse' -- to my mind this is another mutually agreed upon statement. A really great film could have been worse, a very terrible film could have been worse. And to a person who thinks the films failed much more than the next guy did, it was worse by that comparison.

[Harkov]

"Copy the book into the film is impossible, keeping to thebook spirit is very hard" is not an argument that will convince me of PJ being successful. That's a fact that when turning a book to a film you can't just copy, you are forced to make changes to adapt to the medium. But if each time someone finds faults to say the film didn't keep loyal to the film, saying it's very hard it's not a valid defense. The only defense is analyzing why the alleged difference was needed, not harmful or not enough to invalidate the film as a good adaptation.

Because if we were to conform to "it's very hard" as the answer, then we would have to accept if instead of what he did, PJ had taken Don Quixote and changed the names to those of LOTR, making Quixote Gandalf, Sancho Panza Frodo and Dulcinea be Arwen (though he could have had the guts of making Dulcinea be Faramir).

For example, I hate the way he dealt with Saruman in the extended version, to the point that I almost prefer the theatrical forgetfulness of it, which I hate, too. But I can accept it as something of an aftermath that, while fun and meaningful, is not essential to the world and the tale Tolkien tells us about.

But when you have a book that as one of the core tells you about the corruption that power brings to the point that even the strongest can fall to it, turning Denethor from a noble great man into a demented power hungry man from the beginning, Boromir a man who is victim to the thirst for power from the start and Faramir one who doesn't have to fight against the corruption of wishing the ring's power, making it so that those who fall were corrupted from the start and that the one who overcomes it not even sweating it, pretty much ruins it. The final fall from Frodo doesn't count; and while Galadriel has that trance, she's not as much about to fall to it as playing with the idea of walking the verge, teasing with going evil, more than being pulled by the ring and finally resisting it it's more like willing and knowingly letting her thirst be expressed openly to then refuse it, more a taunt to the ring that a real test of her heart.

Overall I don't rate PJ's work badly, though. Though as director he's crappy. I almost didn't resist watching ROTR when I saw it in DVD extended. As soon you take him out from a battle he can only make scenes one way, which has three flavours but are the same:

- Two actors facing away from the camera. The farther one speaks and then dramatic word he turns to face the camera.

- Two actors facing the camera. The closer one speaks and then dramatic word he turns to face the other.

- Two actors face each other, one to the camera and one away. Dramatic line, the closer turns to face the camera.

Again and again and again and again and again and again. I'd not be surprised if the actors drained the stocks of biodramine in NZ.

If the Hobbit is made I'm glad PJ won't make it. Also I predict a lot of fans yelling SW prequels syndrome.

[Attalus]

My main problem was depicting Sauron as a disembodied eye when PJ could have done some cool things with him.

[Harkov]

Well, I don't have a problem with that... until he decides to express the way Frodo feels his gaze by using a more than obvious spotlight. Gah, that was a hideous moment. So much money spent and then go and use the cheapest idea there is. Even nothing but Frodo shinking to hide would have worked. But not a spotlight that makes you even picture a guy behind Sauron's eye turning him around to see.

[EricD]

Well, the thing I noticed that was most wrong was how the Siege of Gondor and subsequent Battle of the Pelennor Fields was handled. From the books, I got the impression that though Gondor was in a very serious decline, her people were still valiant and her soldiers still brave and skilled. In the book, the Siege of Minas Tirith resembled the 1453 Siege of Constantinople: The Byzantines/Gondorrim were killing Turks/Orcs by the thousands, but were just being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Contrast that with the movie version, in which Gondor was going out like a punk. Sure, we see many orcs killed by arrowfire, but once the siege towers roll up, and the gate is breached, do we see the men of Gondor successfully defending their city at any point? I recall seeing precisely ONE orc killed by a Gondorrim soldier in close quarters. That would be after the gate is smashed by Grond, and the orcs charge through. You see orcs smashing against the Gondorrim all over, and then all of a sudden one Gondorrim soldier seems to say "Oh screw this,", lunges forward and impales and slams an orc onto the ground with his spear. After that, the orcs just plow through, making mincemeat of the Gondorrim, until the Rohirrim make their charge. For Lord's sake, we don't even see the Gondorrim using their swords on orcs, in the retreating to the second level sequence right before the Charge of the Rohirrim, the Gondorrim seem to be wrestling and punching orcs rather than fighting them with sword and shield.

If I had been in PJ's position, I definetely would've handled it differently. The shield wall in the courtyard would've held up to several charges from the orcs, and then the Witch-King would've landed on the field and asked Gothmog what the problem was. Gothmog would've made some complaint that his troops just couldn't break through the shield wall, and then the Witch-King would've rode in and had his exchange with Gandalf. Cue the charge of the Rohirrim, and as the Gondorrim see this, they are visibly heartened by the sight. Rallying behind Imrahil or Gandalf, they charge out of the gates simultaneously as the Rohirrim hit the Mordor flanks, and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields really begins. No Army of the Dead either, Aragorn would show up with the armies of southern Gondor and the battle would've been much longer, perhaps fading out to black and then fading back to show all the carnage after the battle is finished. Afterwards, I would definetely have a scene where Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas walk in the streets of Minas Tirith and there are huge mounds of dead orcs being piled up by Gondorrim workers cleaning up after the end of the battle.

Does anyone agree with me that Gondor was 'pussified' in the movies?

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I hadn't noticed that much among all the other problems but I agree, EricD.

[Earniel]

I have to say I don't remember noticing the Gondoreans not making any kill at the siege. But I remember that the charge, from which only a wounded Faramir returns, was just so totally rediculous and without any tactical or military purpose. I have to say it looked nicely dramatic when the cavalry walked through the city and people were throwing flowers before the horses' feet, but it was so pointless and did not at all give a favourable impression of Gondor's military mind.

I suppose one could -perhaps easily- explain this characteristation with the theme Jackson seemed to wish to introduce: that Gondor was just in total shambles with such a loon like movie-Denethor in command, and that they really, deperately needed someone like Aragorn to clean the mess up and lift Gondor back up to a higher level op competence. Personally I prefer the far more balanced view Tolkien envisioned, it's more interesting.

[The Black Captain]

Okay - I realise that there are MANY, MANY pages here, but I get the general gist of people's nuances with the movies from reading just the first 3 pages I believe. So I would like to just give a general summary of what I think in relation to the huge book vs. movie debate.


- Faramir
Some people here are saying that Peter Jackson and the script writers turned him into an evil character. There is a site that endless people keep linking to here (http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html) that explains pretty well why they changed it.

I read something else entirely about the issue: in the book, basically Faramir's reaction to Frodo and Sam's quest to destroy the ring is "Oh, very good, tell me all about it and let's sit down and have a cup of tea."

IT JUST ISN'T INTERESTING WHATSOEVER IN A MOVIE.

In essence, they didn't change Faramir, except perhaps made him a but sullen and grieving over the death of his brother. They changed Frodo and Sam's willingness to tell Faramir details about their travels. Honestly - what would you think if you saw Frodo and Sam out in a place like they were? A species notorious for not travelling about at all yet here they are in a place far from home and near the battle scenes of Gondorrim forces fighting the orcs from Mordor? Very suspicious. He treats them with apprehension just as a normal person would do. He doesn't need to be the stark polar opposite of Boromir for people to like him. He never treats the hobbits badly either, all he does in capture them and interrogate them to which they are of very little help. Yet despite this all he still comes to the final wise conclusion that Frodo and Sam are well intentioned and he shouldn't come in the way of these good intentions and give them his blessing when he finally lets them go - in the hopes that they are successful as he sees first hand how having the Ring himself will probably lead to his death, just like it did for his brother.

- Saruman
The way he died in the extended edition was just plain bad. We finally get to see a bit more of magic and spell casting (which PJ stated his adversion of) which is why it was surprising. Yet then they kill him off so pathetically. It would have been better to keep him in until the Scouring of the Shire where he can be humiliated that this once great wizard is now an outcast from his own palace and wonders now around the likes of hobbits. Even a bunch of hobbits overpowering him and "de-staffing" him would have been much better. Heck - i reckon the audience would erupt in cheers seeing the hobbits showing this nasty piece of work who's the boss!

- The Mouth of Sauron
Come on - he wasn't even that nasty or that hope-destroying, which is what he's supposed to be. If they wanted to ad-lib in the movie, they could done a much better job about it so it's much more painful for Aragorn to hear this spokeperson for Sauron's words. They way Aragorn killed him was pretty lame as the Mouth didn't really set himself up as a powerful adversary.

- The middle movie
It suffers the same fate as POTCMC does -- it just seems far too "middle movie." It relies far too heavily on the fact that FOTR was it's beginning and ROTK was it's end so it really doesn't work as a stand alone movie that well. I think the battle scene at Helm's Deep was much better filmed and the tension was many times greater than the comparatively disappointing battle of Minas Tirith / The Plennor Fields in the final movie. But this movie in general just doesn't try hard enough to have the same great "beginning-middle-and-end" storytelling.

- Wargs
Unlike everyone else here, I know it wasn't much like in the book, but I still thought that it was handled well in the movie. They just looked more like wolf-and-boar hybrids than Tolkien would have wanted.

- The Undead Army
When they came and just swept over the forces of orcs and other such enemies from Minas Morgul..... it was just a cop out. It was just really annoying to see this great evil force so pathetically eradicated.

- The Torches
Remember the scene where all the torches light up because Merry has lit the one in Gondor on Gandalf's orders? And we see this great, immense distance that the lights follow to get the message eventually back to Rohan? We are supposed to believe that Gandalf and Merry rode all this way in just THREE days!!!!! So unbelievable. Through snow capped mountains and all too! I know you want to make Middle Earth look very big, Peter Jackson, but here you just made it look too big. FAR too big!

- Duel between Gandalf and the Witch King
I've read somewhere a long time ago that Peter Jackson has an adversion to actual magic being performed. Which is why he took "spell casting", for all intents and purposes, out of the movie. I think he should not let his personal tastes get in the way of telling a great story. There needed to be much more of an actual fight between the two of them to show just how much more advanced the two bearers-of-magic are beyond the capabilities of mortal men. All we got was a lame shattering of Gandalf's staff.

- The Witch King fighting
He didn't!!! He just targetted King Theoden and that's it. We never get to see him in motion with his mighty morning-star taking out his enemy. No sooner does he attack a single person, he is killed. He goes out like a sissy. If they made him look more foreboding by letting him slaughter more of the Rohirrim et. al. this short ending would have been much better received.

- The eagles
Yet again, another cop out. They come just in the nick of time to save the Fellowship and Gondorrim from the remaining Nazgul. Puh-leeeeeeeease! Really terrible!

- Trolls from "The Hobbit" vs. trolls from "LOTR"
While I think the enslaved trolls may have just never learned to talk because of the way they live, I still think that there should have been some middle ground somewhere, as of course, in The Hobbit they spend all night talking and arguing about (eating?) who they have found. People will be seriously scratching their heads when it comes to seeing the far different version of them in GDT's The Hobbit.

- Shelob
It would have been nice if there was more of a mention that she is actually an ancient demon that takes the form of a spider rather than just let people believe that Shelob is nothing BUT a spider.

- Were they goblins or orcs coming out of the high vaulted ceilings of the Mines of Moria (just before the Balrog came along) ???

- The 3rd movie makes you think that almost all Gondorrim die. Refer to the people below me for why I was remembered about this.



Honestly - I didn't hate the movies though. I thought they were all good. The above just lists the most annoying things about the movies to me, otherwise I think it is a more than fair adaption from book to screen as IT IS very hard to preserve the same kind of story-telling in a book on a screen. I think FOTR makes the best stand alone movie out of the three of them.

[Galin]

Were they goblins or orcs coming out of the high vaulted ceilings of the Mines of Moria (just before the Balrog came along) ???

Well according to JRRT at least, there is no difference in any case

[Beor]

You know, I just recently re-read Lord of the Rings, and I realized that I am very very disappointed (wroth, even) as to how they portrayed Theoden King in the movies. Actually they messed up all the main people of the Mark, but whatever, I could go on. Anyway, Theoden in the book is freakin AMAZING. He is kingly, and wise, and does not despair, whereas in the movie, he is all like, "Man, we are all going to die horribly", and, "We have to stay in Edoras, because Helms Deep sucks." They make Aragorn (and I love Aragorn, he is much like Beren, they say) the main mover and shaker of Theoden. Dammit!! Why cant Theoden be strong on his own?! I understand the Wormtounge thing, thats cool, even the Saruman exorcism, it doesnt really matter, but after that, they could have done way better. He didnt despair, he loved battle, crazy old coot! One thing I did like though, was his expression at Helms Deep when it started to rain.

Also, they messed up his speech before they rode onto the Pelennor.

[Voronwen]

Indeed, so much was lost in "translation" from books to films...

While i am happy that someone made the films... And i do admit that i enjoy them, at least on the level that one would enjoy reading fanfiction, perhaps... i think maybe it was too ambitious a project to try to fit into three films. I think this is where we lose a lot, because of all the changes that needed to be made to condense everything down.

That is not to let anyone off the hook for all those mistakes, though.

[Beor]

I agree, Voronwen, I also enjoyed the films. I always expect the film industry to butcher books a little (ever see Timeline?). I think overall they were quite good. I just get a little nitpicky. They could have done each book (1-6) as a whole movie, but people would never have put up with all that, plus, it might have been a bit long...

[Voronwen]

I just get a little nitpicky.

That is entirely OK! Wait and see if anyone makes films about the Second Age and Numenor, how picky i would get!!! I'd be unstoppable!

They could have done each book (1-6) as a whole movie, but people would never have put up with all that, plus, it might have been a bit long...

That would have been great for us, but it's true, the general public would not have liked that very much.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Why wouldn't the public have watched six movies? They watched six Star Wars movies, four Indiana Jones movies, six Rocky movies, four Rambo movies, dozens of Bond movies, etc. It is the studios who wouldn't have paid for six movies. At least not up front. Not until they were sure all six would sell.

[Voronwen]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Why wouldn't the public have watched six movies? They watched six Star Wars movies, four Indiana Jones movies, six Rocky movies, four Rambo movies, dozens of Bond movies, etc.

Good points, and i have to agree. It does all come down to "selling", doesn't it?