Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I respect that there can be different opinions on this subject. But when a confessed Tolkienite says he doesn't like a movie that millions have embraced and that clearly captures the essence of Tolkien's great work, I question their objectivity and/or their motivations.

It is of my opinion that the movie did not particularly capture the essence of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Why? Because the Hobbits' POV was basically compacted down, and the POV shifted to a more action packed, humanistically focussed movie. It is this facet that makes me point out that the movie thus far fails for me.

I could also approach it from a more technical vantage point and say that by upping the action, PJ has created a very disjointed film, that in places is very patchy. It is my opinion that it does not flow well. Furthermore, I feel that some actors, ie John Rhys-Davies, Christopher Lee, and Ian McKellen (he was amazing in Gods and Monsters), just were not utilised to their full potential. They had some amazing actors in Fellowship, and it seems that these talents were used ad hoc. And let me not get into the script!

However, despite the film's blandness, I can appreciate that PJ is still an amazing director, and the sets are ... well... beautiful. When I got it out on DVD, and watched it, I may not have been overly enthralled with the flow of the film, nor the utilisation of some of the actors, but by god, that man can direct!

Regarding your rather silly point that "he doesn't like a movie that millions have embraced and that clearly captures the essence of Tolkien's great work, I question their objectivity and/or their motivations".... what are you? A fascist regime? People are allowed to hold differing opinions. Just because you think that the movie is gods gift to moviedom, does not make you right; any more than the fact that I find the movie somewhat blase makes me right.

And there's the "O" word again.

Finally, I'll leave you with the words of Ebert:

Such notions about Hobbits can be found in "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," but the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off center stage. If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.

The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
[B]Because the Hobbits' POV was basically compacted down, and the POV shifted to a more action packed, humanistically focussed movie. It is this facet that makes me point out that the movie thus far fails for me.

The Hobbit POV thing is really only true of Book I of FoTR and Scouring of the Shire/Grey Havens. In between the book takes on all perspectives with members of the fellowship as narrative anchors. In the movie, Book I was the most truncated/altered so that's, perhaps, where you get your impression.

[BeardofPants]

Perhaps.

[olsonm]

That Ebert quote is somewhat inaccurate and overstated. Especially the last line. Tolkien's ME had a more important work to it than LoTR; the Silmarillion; in which Hobbit's do not appear. So the Hobbit POV is hardly critical to visiualizing Tolkien's ME. However, if he had said "The movie failed to achieve the level of Hobbit POV in Book I of the FoTR" I'd agree.

If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits.

The first part of this sentence is wrong. The second part is true of both film and book.

[cassiopeia]

I would say that the first sentence of the quote is the wrong way around.

[BeardofPants]

I am aware that that particular sentence is wrong, but I chose to post it in it's entirety rather than snip and edit. It is the basic gist of what I am trying to say, inaccuracies aside.

I've decided to unsubscribe from this thread. I'd forgotten how fun it is to be the dissenting minority; and it's not that great having to justify everything down to every last rediculous detail. I knew I should have avoided this thread!

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I've decided to unsubscribe from this thread. I'd forgotten how fun it is to be the dissenting minority; and it's not that great having to justify everything down to every last rediculous detail. I knew I should have avoided this thread!

Should have stuck to what you first posted.

[Cirdan]

While I am one who easily accepts 90% as an adquate level of achievement, I still admire those who aspire to perfection. While I beleive PJ wanted to be as true to the book as possible, it was still done within the greater desire to create a popular and action filled adventure. This week on PBS they have replayed Ken Burn's "Civil War" series. The production of the series was as near to perfect to the original history, and as nearly perfect in it's presentation, as was possible. If the goal had been only to, as acurately as possible, depict the story as Tolkien intended it, it would have been a quite diffent film. I am satisfied with the film but then my expectations of the film industry. If BoP feels that the 90% mark isn't good enough then I respect that. Finally (really), if I were to give this the desert island test I would have to choose the book because the richness of the whole story would serve me best in the long run. No ulterior motive can I perceive to exist would serve anyone and the suggestion seems somewhat absurd, unless someone is planning to release their own film version of the story.

[bropous]

Jsut as Smeagol has his Deagol, bro has his pous....

bro posits: "What is a successful thread, and what is an unsuccessful thread? should this be a thread unto itself?

"For me, the most disinteresting threads are those where a statement is posted opening a thread, there are two or three two-lines posts which voice hearty agreement, and the thread dies.

"The more interesting threads are those where there is a running discussion of a particular aspect of the original premise, and the back-and-forth ensues, with many points of view either defending or assailing the original premise.

"I think this was a successful thread because of the contributions of ALL involved.

"And again, we can go back to the original premise, whether the film ENHANCES Tolkien. I say it does not.

"But again, one major missing piece of the puzzle has been overlooked in the counsels of the wise: We have only yet seen, at most, one-third of the total film. We have not seen the two other segments of the full story, and there are things we may be in store for which can sway our unfinished opinions 180 degrees in the opposite direction."

pous counters: "But dang it, let's face some facts here. If Jackson were to ENHANCE Tolkien, he would not only have to include every nuance of the original work in the film, he would also have to add to the original work without detracting one iota from any other aspect of the source. So, Glorfindel and Bombadil and the Old Gaffer and Lobelia Proudfoot all would have had to have been in the film as well, Arwen would have had her story relegated back to backbencher status, Frodo would have attacked the Lord of the Nazgul on Amon Sul, he would have resisted the gathered Nine at the Fords of Bruinen, Fatty Bolger would have shown his courage blowing the horn of alert at Crickhollow, Old Man Willow would have snapped up sleeping Hobbits, ad infinitum.

"Jackson completely changed the sequence of events at times, altered characters, infused viewpoints and material not found in the original source while still ignoring other aspects of the source material, and yet made an effective film which RETELLS the story the Master crafted over a lifetime of hard work and scholarship."

bro: "Agreed. But overall, the film IS quite effective. The flow of the story line, the development of the differing and conflicting interests, the introduction of characters we are going to see more over the ensuing two films, the use of a recognized "Tolkien artist's" vision for set and costume design, the occasional faithfulness to the original, and even, at points, the alteration of the story line make it an effective and entertaining film."

pous: "Well, I guess if you keep in mind that he was making the film so that folks who had not read the books would be drawn in too..."

bro: "Precisely my point. We both know that, at times, the original work does get bogged down at points to folks who have not been completely taken with Middle Earth yet. It is this 'casting of a larger net,' to pull in uninitiates, which required 'simplification' of this quite intricate and baroque plot and not necessarily the desire of the filmmaker. Recall also that PJ had to raise what, $300 million to bring these books to film? He had to make sure that his backers also saw that this was a film which would appeal to a wide enough audience that their original investment would be recouped, with profits."

pous: "And so it comes back to money."

bro: "Ain't it always?

pous: "Good point."

...at that point, the medication kicked in.

[Sween: I live in Colorado, USA, so a lot of times I have to see my English Premiere League games on replay on Fox Sports World. I was glad to see ol' Man U win against the Spurs though, even though Keller is one of my favorite goaltenders...]

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am aware that that particular sentence is wrong, but I chose to post it in it's entirety rather than snip and edit. It is the basic gist of what I am trying to say, inaccuracies aside.

I've decided to unsubscribe from this thread. I'd forgotten how fun it is to be the dissenting minority; and it's not that great having to justify everything down to every last rediculous detail. I knew I should have avoided this thread!

Well, as you can see from my response I agreed with the basic gist of it. My pointing out of the faults in it was directed at Ebert, not you. Everyone who posts on this thread has had their opinions questioned and has been asked to justify them.

[Cirdan]

Excellent dialog bro and pous! It does a good job of dramatizng what we all have done with the movie. Had it been perfectly in line with our prior expectations (by some magic) then we could only say, "well, there it is." It's much more fun to analyze the differences.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I've decided to unsubscribe from this thread. I'd forgotten how fun it is to be the dissenting minority; and it's not that great having to justify everything down to every last rediculous detail. I knew I should have avoided this thread!

That is just plain juvenile, BoP. Grow up. This is a DISCUSSION board for crying out loud. This board is about presenting alternative points of view. Your responses to me have been much more interesting to read than the chatty one-liners among friends that usually get posted around here. (Note - I think there should be a rule: No posts shorter than your signature line!) =)

Now we finally get a discussion that actually raises some interesting points (on BOTH side, I will admit) and then you whine, "You expect me to actually DEFEND the things I say?!?!?!...gee, that's no fun. So I'm going to take my toys and go home!"

I apologize if I've offended you by challenging you to a real discussion. Please feel free to go back to making your snide little comments about the film here on the LOTR movie board without worrying that I'll ask you to -- heaven forbid -- defend your remarks.

[Black Breathalizer]

bropous, great post. We may not always agree, but you are always interesting to read...with or without your medication.

[Lizra]

Hi BB, I don't think PJ "improved" Tolkien, but I sure do think he made one heck of a great movie! I LOVE it! I watched FoTR under ideal circumstances (I think). I read LoTR about 5 or 6 times in my late teens, then put it down and a LOT of water passed under the bridge (30 years worth) before the movie came out. I was excited about seeing my beloved Tolkien on film, but really didn't remember any "details". I remember trying to figure out who Strider was for about two minutes before it came back to me! My husband said "Strider?" (he's never read LoTR) and I just kept saying Strider is good! Strider is good! But I couldn't remember why! When he grabbed Frodo and pulled him in the room it came back.
Anyway, I plan the same approach with TT. I have not read the book since last year after the first movie, and don't plan to, Hopefully, that way I won't be watching for "every little thing"! I'm very excited and can't wait to see the next movie.

[Blackheart]

Hurk.

Hurk....

Choke.

Cough "Improved" cough.

Ooogh. Gads that was just stuck in my throat.

Frankly Tolkein would probably have been dead set against any dramatization. He thought it the absolute death of fairy stories.

Fortunately I think this one is strong enough to survive the manhandling.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Frankly Tolkein would probably have been dead set against any dramatization.

BB easily dispatches the evil Uruk-hai movie hater, Blackheart, with one mighty swing of his sword:

If the Professor was so dead set against any dramatization of his work he wouldn't have sold the movie rights.

[webwizard333]

Actually, he only sold the rights because he needed the money.

[Black Breathalizer]

I guess he wasn't so dead set against any dramatization of his work then, huh?

[bropous]

No, BB, I guess YOU have never had a family to support, bills to cover which simply grow and grow, increasingly failing health, a steadily deteriorating economic position, and an increasingly proximate appointment "with the universe."

You need to read the Letters of JRR Tolkien. You'll see that he was pretty adamant he didn't want ANY aspects of his masterwork changed in order to bring it to the screen. He stuck to his guns for as long as he could, but, finally, needed the money. Every time soneone tried to write a script and pass it by him, he chewed it up and spat it out, right up until he HAD to sell the film rights.

It's not because of some shallow sell-out to commercialism, he was stuck in a corner and he had to raise some funds, and the film rights to LotR was about all he had to use to raise funding. He was in a corner, and I for one, having been in a tight one or two myself over the years, can certainly understand why he had to do so, and it ain't because he suddenly got over his perfectionism when it came to his story.

I can guarantee you that he would have gotten angry and offended at the first variance from the story he worked so very long to create; I bet you a dollar to a donut hole he would have walked out of Jackson's film in the first twenty minutes. If he had stayed to hear Arwen say, "What's this? A Ranger, caught off his guard?" he would have thrown his pipe at the screen.

I do hope that in the future a remake will be embarked upon, keeping faithful to Ronald's original works and not creating new "accountrements" to hang on to an already PERFECT story. A film made of the books, true to the original, would ALSO draw in huge numbers of new fans. I just think he worked too long and too hard on these books to have all the changes Jackson made to the story line, not a single one IMPROVING on the original one iota. The story was perfect already.

[Black Breathalizer]

bropus, you've hit on the issue that I started a new thread on: The 'ownership' of mythologies like LOTR.

When a story is so powerful that it is embraced by society and becomes part of modern culture, the original creator of the story has to understand that its continuation as a modern mythology will depend more on the desires of the fans than the will of the author.