Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As long as I get to hit something on the head.

[IronParrot]

Question:

Is there any reason why the naysayers have completely disregarded my earlier post?

Is it, perhaps, because all of your arguments are based on the fundamental assumption that Tolkien's work represents the absolute, indisputable, literal "truth" of Middle-Earth - an assumption I soundly refuted above, with my historiographical analysis of what Tolkien's foundational goals were regarding his work?

Could somebody please address this instead of picking on poor Breathalizer, who's probably feeling like "the easy target" right now?

Because so far, the main complaints I've heard about the changes in the films was that they were... HUSH... changes!

That looks a bit circular and tautological to me. "The adaptation was bad because it was different" (to paraphrase most/all of you) is hardly a valid argument.

I'll attack specifics later. Please at least attempt address my core arguments first.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Really, it comes down to the fact that NO-ONE can know what Tolkien wanted.

So does this mean all of you who claim Jackson has trashed Tolkien's vision don't know what you're talking about?

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
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.

There have been many examples (Harry Potter comes immediately to mind) of screenplays that, in your words, WANT to make a real adaptation by altering as little as possible. The results have been lukewarm at best. Why? According to you, this is the best way to make it REAL. Then why didn't the first Harry Potter movie capture the public's imagination in the same way LOTR did?

The answer lies in the subject of this thread. Capturing a story's heart and soul for the big screen lies far less in a slavish following of the author's words and more on creatively illustrating on film what the author's story was really all about.

BTW, IronParrot is my new hero.

[Lizra]

I have seen Harry Potter mentioned many times as a bad (boring? ) adaptation. I've never read the book or seen the movie, but I take it the movie is not good? If someone said the same about LoTR, and I never saw the movies because they "were different", I think I would be missing out! That's just my opinion though!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Question:

Is there any reason why the naysayers have completely disregarded my earlier post?

Is it, perhaps, because all of your arguments are based on the fundamental assumption that Tolkien's work represents the absolute, indisputable, literal "truth" of Middle-Earth - an assumption I soundly refuted above, with my historiographical analysis of what Tolkien's foundational goals were regarding his work?

Could somebody please address this instead of picking on poor Breathalizer, who's probably feeling like "the easy target" right now?

Because so far, the main complaints I've heard about the changes in the films was that they were... HUSH... changes!

That looks a bit circular and tautological to me. "The adaptation was bad because it was different" (to paraphrase most/all of you) is hardly a valid argument.

I'll attack specifics later. Please at least attempt address my core arguments first.

Well, since Black Breathelizer ignored many of our posts, I don't see why our side can't ignore your side.

BB, you know precisely what I meant, and you just threw that in to try and try and sound terribly clever.

Lukewarm at best, according to YOUR definition. See, some of us actually believe in literature, and believe in authors, and believe that their will should not merely be thrown to the ground and ground into the dust, as Jackson has especially done with the characters, but to a lesser degree with many other things. Some of us believe that remaining true to the story and tale is more important than having a "l337 movee, d00d". If you consider special effects, cheap laughs, making sure the movies are half composed of battle scenes, and other similar things more important than the story which is told and staying true to the wish of the author, then by Eru's halls, this movie is made specifically for you, BB.

Put simply, Harry Potter is a story written for children. One cannot expect it to be tremendously popular today, especially considering how most of the people of today view such stories. Also, Rowling just isn't as good an author as Tolkien.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

For me, the film's problems are not (just) thematic. Take the scenes in Bree. A warm, charming and inviting Inn is transformed into a dark, muddy, rainy ominous place. The actions leading up to Frodo putting the ring on are changed from the original song to a Hollywood cliche falldown, one of 5 or 6 in the first film alone for Frodo. Then, in the commentary, the change is defended by Jackson saying "I never liked the idea of Frodo standing up and singing and accidently slipping the ring on his finger" Multiply this over two films and you have my point of view.

I also can't help notice the grammar of the initial post. "Tolkien's vision" which is possessive meaning belonging to Tolkien. Letter #210 clearly ends any debate on where Tolkien would stand on the changes to the story. I like the company.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
BB, you know precisely what I meant, and you just threw that in to try and try and sound terribly clever.

You caught me.

This thread is beginning to sound a lot like the other Purist threads. I asked for specific examples of how Jackson's movie failed to capture the heart, and soul of Tolkien's work. Personally, I see a big difference between a Gimli joke or an unexpected Arwen appearance from "the big picture" so to speak.

I keep hearing, "well, Tolkien would have hated this and hated that." Oh really? How do you know? JRR Tolkien sold the movie rights to LOTR to Saul Zantz before he died. He understood that he wouldn't have editorial control over its presentation. He was comfortable with that or he wouldn't have made the deal. As great as Tolkien was, he was no different that thousands of other novel writers who have sold their movie rights over the years. Many film adaptations of great books have disappointed fans of the source material while only a select few haven't. For most fans, Jackson's films fall in the "select few" category. IMHO, the movie trilogy is forging its own identity apart from the books as a modern-day film classic.

My personal view is that Tolkien would have appreciated the tremendous love, passion, and group commitment, the filmmaking team put into telling his tale. Would he have agreed with 100% of the changes they have made for the film version? Probably not. But I think he would have been the first to say that Jackson has done a good job of capturing the essence of his story on film.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

You are ignoring facts. You can't argue that Tolkien would have liked the screenplay after reading letter #210, in fact, it seems likely he would have lashed out at least as hard as he did against Zimmerman's screenplay. You also can't discuss "Tolkien's vision" and then ignore the man's own written views and expect to be taken seriously.

"Strider does not whip out a sword (on Weathertop) his sword was broken. Why then make him do so here in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons"

"Gandalf does not say they should leave as soon as they can pack, 2 months elapse. The elapse of time should be indicated, if by no other means than the change to winter in the scenery and the trees"

"Seasons are carefully regarded in the original and should be the means by which the artists indicate the passage of time"

"the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration and the intrusion of unwanted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies"

JRR Tolkien from letter #210


Notice that Tolkien is arguing that small changes have a significant effect on the whole. That the Weathertop swordfight undermines the psychological fear of the wraiths. That time passage can easily and quickly be shown by season changes which also relate to the theme of the tale. This letter goes on to suggest Helm's Deep be removed if time is an issue since the battle in the final book is more important and battles can be repetitious. That geography and time cannot be compressed without damaging the story. That the script contains way too much fighting. That Frodo's quest is more important than all the other action in The Two Towers. That if Saruman's death is to be changed then there is no point in killing him at all, as well as many other elements of HIS vision. Your arguement is not supported by the facts whatsoever.

[Melko Belcha]

I agree with squinteyedsoutherner.

All of the small and large themes in LotR plays to the full vision of Tolkien's, to change one of those themes is to change the vision. Look at Frodo's resilience to the Morgul wound, in the book when Frodo was attacked at Weathertop he struck at the Witch-king with is sword and called on Elbereth after he was stabbed, in the movie Frodo falls on the ground screaming after he was stabbed, in the book Frodo carried the splinter from the Morgul blade for 17 days, a wound that would have overcome even the strongest of men, and still resisted the Witch-kings comand at the Ford, in the book he had to be carried to the Ford and saved by an Elf. What does this have to do with the theme or vision? How about the weak will preveil where the wise can not.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I see a big difference between a Gimli joke or an unexpected Arwen appearance from "the big picture" so to speak.

Very true. But what about Gimli becoming a joke, and Arwen making Frodo look, as I said before, like a spineless wimp? Honestly, doesn't our beloved Ringbearer have any mettle at all?

[Elfhelm]

Making Gimli a bafoon is an easy, cheap trick. Tolkien would not have done that. Tolkien's vision, especially as regards Gimli and Legolas, is how two vastly different people can learn to appreciate each other's culture. We are meant to respect them both and hope they overcome their prejudices, and when they do, it is hoped we will take a lesson from it. Where are the Glittering Caves? Why didn't Legolas see more of Fangorn? Or is it just that this particular vision of Tolkien's is not profitable to New Line Cinema? (Or am I just prosletizing my heterodoxy again.)

[Black Breathalizer]

The real issue here is that you Purists are so focused on your individual little peeves that you are unable to step back and appreciate the beauty of the collected whole.

Tolkien's book was about many things, among them was:
--the power and beauty of self-sacrificing friendship;
--of the ability of the smallest person to change the world;
--keeping hope and faith alive in the darkest of hours;
--how industry and technology are destroying our spiritual connection to nature; and
--the importance of understanding and appreciating our differences.

There are many more I haven't touched on, but you get the idea. Personally, I think Jackson's adherance to these and other critical themes from the books is much more important than whether Arwen had a sword. In contrast, the underlying messages of a book tend to be the first things that get ignored in many big screen screenplay adaptations.

Thank goodness, Peter Jackson truly understood Tolkien.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, if he truly understood Tolkien, he must not given a rat's behind about him, seeing as how so many things Tolkien specifically mentioned he threw the creator into the corner and did it HIS way, regardless of what Tolkien said.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The real issue here is that you care nothing for Tolkien since Jackson came along, if you ever did. A true disciple of the PJ indeed.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

No, the real issue here is that you, breathalizer, are factually incorrect (as usual) when you use the term "Tolkien's vision". Letters (which I can tell you have not read) does not support your initial post. Tolkien believed that the small details could not be seperated from the larger themes. He was very specific on this, even to the point where he would get involved in the translations of his books into other languages, often complaining about word choice.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, since Black Breathelizer ignored many of our posts, I don't see why our side can't ignore your side.

listen to yourself

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Who is, squinty?

I can't, I type, not speak.

[Celebréiel]

BB, after reading all this I think people are putting forth really good points supporting why they didnt like the movie, and the themes they thought were changed...If were all 'too focused on little peeves' your just as focused on worshiping the ground PJ walks on and need to take a step back yourself .
Like many people have said before no one can say they 'truely' understands Tolkien and what he 'truely' meant to say and do with his works. Anyone who claims that is full of it.
We can only view it from our own perspective and what we got out of the books (or movies) so no matter how PJ did it, even if it was totally accurate to the books, somepeople wouldnt like it. Cant we just accept the fact that some people like the movies and some people dont?

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Who is, squinty?

I can't, I type, not speak.

My point was your acting like a two year old.

[Elf Girl]

BB, will you please say something about the point I have made many times about the Elves at Helms Deep destroying the whole fading-of-the-Elves business? And maybe stop repeating yourself and counter our points? If you do not, I will be forced to listen to my growing suspicion that you are merely out to cause trouble, and not actually debate.