Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Draken]

bropous

"But then again, the Hitchhiker's series, while extremely witty, insightful and entertaining, simply isn't in the class that Lord of the Rings is, but I don't think you were implying"

Quite right, no such implication intended. Just an interesting example of the original writer happy to adapt to the medium.

"But then again, maybe ol' Ronald was just a lot more stubborn, a lot more willing to not let his works be remade unless done properly, and, frankly, far crankier and grumpier about the "ownership" [oooo, full circle] of his own creation to allow someone else to alter it for the sake of distributing his works to the "unwashed masses." "

Maybe. Probably, in fact. But couldn't he then have taken measures to never sell the film rights? (that's a genuine question, I'm not sure how feasible that is after the death of the author). Also this sort of debate always brings to mind Philip K Dick, reputedly a very cranky and awkward man, whose misgivings about a cinematic version of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" disappeared when he viewed the early rushes of "Bladerunner".

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by bropous
1. It is impossible to argue the premise, "Peter Jackson has Improved Tolkien" WITHOUT it being a book v. film argument. Your premise draws a quite clear distinction between Jackson's film, which you have presented as a purification of the incomplete works of the Professor.

A lover of the film can admire the way Jackson handled various aspects of the story without feeling the need to accept or reject the entire enterprise. I can enjoy the way that Boromir is protrayed in the film and state that Sean Bean's performance enhanced my appreciation of the character while at the same time wishing the Old Forest had been included. The two points of view are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by bropous
2. You persist in using changes to the initial story line as proof that Jackson enhanced Tolkien's storytelling. Again, Jackson has DETRACTED from Tolkien's original story by IGNORING the already tremendously perfected books, taking liberties to twist Tolkien's characters into sad masquerades of what the Master originally scripted, perverting the original story line to "punch it up" for rap-blinded cultural Orcs in the audience, and by taking portions of the story far, far away from the intent which is spelled out, quite clearly, in the books. This holds for your assertions of both Merry and Pippin and Frodo. Frodo was repainted as a wimp. Period. That enhances Tolkien's character of Frodo in NO way.

You are entitled to your point of view of this. I would venture a bet that I'm not the only fan who enjoyed Frodo's movie portrayal or the way Merry & Pippen were used in the breaking of the fellowship scenes. If this makes me part of the 'unwashed ignorant masses' that you are your elitist bunch despise, so be it.

Originally posted by bropous
Finally, again we come back to this weak and unsupported assertion that Tolkien's works were ENHANCED by the Jackson films. Simply dumbing down the story line, and that is EXACTLY what Jackson did, does not add any ENHANCEMENT to the original. Simply making the dialogue more appropriate for some Hairy Potty film or some other piece of celluloid tripe currently issuing forth from the nether regions of Hollyweird in no way brings ANY improvement to a fantastic work of literature like Teh Lord of the Rings, the greatest work of literature penned in the twentieth century.

I think the book and the film go together beautifully. The film ENHANCED my appreciation of the book and I enjoyed the changes Jackson made. I gave you some specific examples of why I feel the way I do. And the box office for LOTR would indicate I'm not alone in my feelings. Having an objective discussion on movie opinions is difficult, but not impossible. Perhaps you can share with me why Merry & Pippen's support of Frodo DIDN'T WORK or why Frodo's character RUINED the movie for you or why Boromir's movie portrayal WASN'T more wellrounded than the book. Simply harping that these things weren't in book doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by bropous
Grade D? Try F, cowboy.

Figures. I never was too good in school. Guess I spent too damn much time daydreaming about hobbits and magic rings.

[Snowdog]

I read the title of this thread and thought.. 'Are you kidding?' But for Sean Bean's performance adding depth to Boromir's already fine character in the book, no other actor/actress or storyline change "improved" the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien. it is Peter Jackson's adaptation of the books, and nothing more. Is the movies good? yes, are they an improvement on what Tolkien presented us no matter how incomplete? Absolutly not.

[Earniel]

If this makes me part of the 'unwashed ignorant masses' that you are your elitist bunch despise, so be it.

It seems to me that that's your answer to everything. Purist here and elitist there. Can't you write one post in a discussing that doesn't degrade other poster's opinions? You say everyone is entitled to an opinion but you do not even respect those opinions. And I find that very, very sad. How can you ever hope to hold a decent discussion if you constant belittle the participants?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
It seems to me that that's your answer to everything. Purist here and elitist there. Can't you write one post in a discussing that doesn't degrade other poster's opinions?

Forgive me for calling bropous an elitist. Please attribute my inappropriate response to his remarks to the fact that I'm part of the rap-blinded cultural Orcs in the audience he mentioned.

[BeardofPants]

I'll just mention something here about casting the first stone. From the very beginning of the thread you have been belittling anyone who actually had the gall to have a differing opinion. I don't even need to go back through the thread and count the amount of times you called ME a purist to offer an objective argument on that - you like those right? And then, when I got sick of your puerile arguments and threw down the surrender flag, you said:

BB:
That is just plain juvenile, BoP. Grow up.

Now perhaps I could have bailed out better, but with such classy responses like this:

BB:
You discount any significance to academy award nominations yet profess to be objective?!?!?!?!? Ooooooooooookay.

I guess it's hard for some Tolkienites to share their ivory towers with the unwashed masses.

....Well, I just figured that it wasn't worth wasting forum space on you.

[bropous]

Additionally, O Sable Device for the Determination of Serum Ethanol Levels, you have again and again ignored the second side of my double-edged argument, that although the film in no way enhances Tolkien, and in many ways detracts from the imagination infusing the original, the film STILL remains an effective film. For Me.

One can take the position that Jackson did a GOOD job on every aspect of the film, and yet still have quite severe reservations as to whether the changes made to the storyline, characters or chronology were either necessary or in any way brought an enhancement to the original story.

Each and every detail of the books could not be brought to the screen, that is completely logical. But in making such essential changes to books so revered by such a huge cadre of Tolkienites, Jackson BEGS attack.

Was the death of Boromir effective? Absolutely. Was the use of Merry and Pippin effective at the breaking of the Fellowship, and did it bring tears to my eyes to see 'em dragged off to pain and torment by the Uruk-Hai? You bet. Was I touched by the acting skills of just about everyone involved? Most assuredly.

But again, here is your original premise: "Peter Jackson has Improved Tolkien." You did not lay out ANY qualification that he enhanced Tolkien for YOU, you implied that the film enhanced Tolkien period, and I bet you've learned by now that making such a broad assertion and then refusing to argue constructively the incoming critiques don't win points.

Believe me, we all make mistakes on the Moot as we learn the crowd. But I'll hope to see in future you've moved past a two-note samba of "elitist" and "purist" every time someone thinks the films may not be all that hot as other folks do.

[Black Breathalizer]

Obviously, there are key issues that Peter Jackson had to address in converting the books to workable screenplays. So I'm not going to rehash the necessary changes he made to successfully bring an adaption of the Lord of the Rings to the big screen. If you want me to, I will. But let's just address the story itself and forget the different mediums involved.

Areas where I liked the movie version better than the book:

The Brandywine Ferry chase. It added to the tension and drama of the moment to have one of the riders chase Frodo to the Ferry. The book gave you a sense of dread and forboding, but Jackson's scene added more drama and fear to the mix.

Bilbo's Gifts. I thought the way Jackson presented this scene added to the drama and emotion of the moment. It also showed a very touching moment between Frodo and Bilbo.

The Fellowship camp scene. This scene didn't exist in the book but it added to my appreciation of Boromir's character to see him playing around with Merry & Pippen. It also was a nice tie-in to what would happen later. One of my favorite Boromir lines from the movie is his death scene exclamation, "They took the little ones!"

Boromir. Sean Bean rocked. Jackson and Bean added a whole new dimension to the character of Boromir that really touched fans of the movie. Rereading Tolkien, it wasn't really a departure from the books but Jackson highlighted the character's good points more than the Tolkien did. The result was a more humanized character that people related to better IMHO.

Frodo. Much has been written about how Jackson made Frodo a wimp. As I mentioned earlier in another post, this was done for screenplay purposes. But regardless of the reasons behind it, it worked! Audiences (both newbies and longtime LOTR fans) responded to Elijah's portrayal. The emotional climax of the movie involving Frodo's decision gave the audience a sense of closure to Part One even though the story was far from over.

Besides the Breaking of the Fellowship which I mentioned earlier, those were a few of the things that stood out for me. Before you all rip into me, let me remind you that I love the book and also still like some of the book parts better than the movie parts. I'm simply saying that there ARE areas where Tolkien's work was enhanced.

[Snowdog]

We actually agree that Sean Bean added depth to Boromir's character.

The only thing missing from your post Black Breath is to end it with in my opinion.

I will even agree it was/is a good movie, but again I say, it isn't the story Tolkien envisioned, it was the one Peter Jackson envisioned when he read Tolkien's work. There is no 'enhancing' or 'improving' for they are really and effectively two different beings in my opinion.

Another aspect that I think has been lost to many artists who saw the movie first and read the books second is they 'see' Orlando as Legolas and Elijah as Frodo, and hence theiur art reflect that. Gone are the days of people's mind's eye drawing the picture of the characters for them, and instead we get a knock-off of PJ'vision of the books.

[cassiopeia]

BB: you titled this thread "Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien", yet now you say Peter Jackson has enhanced Tolkien. I think the meanings are different. Improved means (to me) that PJ made changes which were better than the book, for example Arwens increased involvement or them ommission of Tom Bombadil. Enhanced means (to me) that the movie gave you a better appreciation of say, Boromir, but not necessarily made the movie better than the book. I was wondering which you mean.

[Black Breathalizer]

Both. I think Jackson enhanced fans' appreciation of the story and its characters. I read the books usually once a year and discovered this spring that my reading enjoyment increased thanks to the visuals that PJ and Company gave us. The two go together very well.

I also think there were some aspects of the movie that worked better than the book. This is not meant to be disrespectful of JRR Tolkien. Jackson painted Middle Earth using the Master's brushes and canvas. But its not sacriliege to note that some of Jackson's inventions worked better than the originals.

Everything we say here are opinions. But I believe even the most dieheard book lovers would have to admit there were at least a few instances where PJ improved the story, particularly for a screenplay.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I also think there were some aspects of the movie that worked better than the book.

I'd agree with you, BB. Specifically re:

- the effect of putting the ring on
- Boromir
and
(ducks under parapet expecting tirade of abuse..)
- Galadriel, and elvishness in general

In particular, the last of these was so effective that it made me re-read the books and think again about what the elves were.

I think we all agree that books and films are different media, and therefore you have to tell stories differently.

Frankly, I think the weakness of the film was not making enough changes. To the uninitiated, it's hard to follow why they're doing what they're doing and comes across as a succession of action set-pieces. For example, the context of Moria (Balin's tomb, Durin's Bane, etc.) is entirely lost. It might've been better to cut the Pass and Watcher scenes (not to mention the "This underground realm will self-destruct in 5 minutes" cobblers) and spend more time on Aragorn's misgivings and Gimli's hopes of finding Balin. That would've made a decent sub-plot which made some sense to the punter-at-large.

However, other things I liked about the film, such as Legolas', Arwen's and Saruman's enhanced roles, were a result of making the story more filmic. Someone mentioned Blade Runner: a classic case of a great book which was made into a great film. The book, however, is massively different from the film: Deckert is a neurotic obsessed with buying his wife an electric goat.

There were some scenes, such as the Flight to the Ford, which were crying out for a meticulous rendition but were just done badly.

So, for me, he improved one important aspect of Tolkien's creation: elvishness.

cheers
D

[Draken]

A related point - we've been discussing screenplay, but what about the effects of direction and acting? Even had the screenplay faithfully copied the original book, including the dialogue, there would still be room for interpretation by director and actors. I think it was it Welles who told Anthony Perkins to play the suspect in the film version of Kafka's "The Trial" as "guilty as hell" - completely contrary to traditional views of what the book is about.

I only mention this because, as a few people have mentioned, Sean Bean gave us an interesting insight into Boromir. But as people in Britain might know (especially Napoleonics buffs like me!), "Sharp" gave him plenty of practice in playing a slightly aloof warrior hero!

[LuthienTinuviel]

well this seems to be.. well... yea.

BB i have always liked to hear what you have to say, and most of it is highly intelligent material, but this thread seems to be one that shows your gritty side. im certainly not an elitist, or purist, in fact if i met any of them, they would probably LOATHE me. yet i share some of the opinions of those that you are accusing of being "elitist" and "purist"

YES boromir's character was so improved, that this time i actually cared when he died, not like the first time i read the books, and thought that the everyone was better off with out him. YES Sean Bean brought depth and meaning to the character.
YES, the ring affect was better than i'd imagined OK I AGREE WITH YOU

But there are changes that i do not like. this is to be expected, seeing as our minds are two and not one.

i didn't like the way he prtrayed the elves on the whole, they were much to ambiguous (sp?) and cold for my taste.
i did NOT like the flight to te ford scene with arwen taking frodo under her wing and "giving him grace" or whatever B.S. she 'gave' to him to spare him. i have said over a million times by now (not all of them on the moot, aren't you all glad? )
the scene should have been left how it occurs in the book, merely replacing Glorfindel's character with arwen.
i have other reasons, which i will not bore everyone with here, as to why the books are better than the movie(s) and youve probably all heard them before anyway.

but i wll have you know that i do not side altogether with your so called "purists" here, BB, i think that Merry and Pippen were a crucial set to unlocking the personality of the hobbit race. Remember, hobbits joked at everything even at inappropriate times. their hearts were light, you can't blame them. i thought that it was mindful of PJ to include some of this, even if t was subconsciously.(sp?)


if you look at half my posts, i love the movie, if you look at the other half, i love the movie, but to say that it can surpass the books is like beating up your mother. ripping the heart out of the thing from where you came.
i think that PJ is a clever boy, and that he did a marvellous job on the movie itself. But when standing next to the books, the movie can only be seens what PJ is.... clever.


well now that that's done, i don't think that what ive said here is any different than what everyone else is saying, i will return to lurking now. good bye

p.s. BB, just because some of the motters disagree with you is not reason to get all huffy and pissy, get off your high horse and realise that other people think in other ways.

[Black Breathalizer]

First off, I am NOT being pissy or huffy!!!!!!!! WHATEVER GAVE YOU THAT IDEA?!?!?!?!?

This board is meant for entertaining exchanges among Tolkien fans, not life or death. I've never meant for anything I've posted here to be taken personally and I don't take any of this stuff personally myself. We're nothing more than anonymous screen names from around the globe posting opinions and observations. And when you stop and think about it, taking offense or getting angry over something posted anonymously on a message board is rather silly.

For those of you familiar with American TV, this is Entmoot's version of CNN's Crossfire. I'm the articulate voice of reason from the left and bropous is that pompous, reactionary, conservative voice on the right.

Regarding labels, purist is simply a way to describe a Tolkien fan who believes passionately that the books are not to be messed with and give a reactionary thumbs down to the movie because it's "not the way Tolkien would have done it."

I've used "elitist" once in a while to describe posters who act that way. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, squawk like a duck, and generally act like a duck...when then, you shouldn't mind being called a duck.

Lastly, Luthien Tinuviel, I don't claim that the movie (soon to be movies) are better than the books. I agree that the book shines over the movie in many places. I'm simply disagreeing with the purists out there who say that no screenplay invention of PJ's is an improvement over the original.

[bropous]

"Lastly, Luthien Tinuviel, I don't claim that the movie (soon to be movies) are better than the books."

[Nasal Irish Voice] The flag us up from the sideline referee...the referee staff are conferring on the sidelines...the coach of the BB team is arguing with the line judge....looks like the ref is reaching into his pocket...he's got cards in his hands, looks like there's going to be a booking....yes, there it is, BB have been cautioned.....this has got to be BB's lucky day....that sure looked like a red card offense to me.....yellow card for BB......and darn lucky BB is that there was not an own goal there....[/Nasal Irish Voice]

Resume play. [Referee blows whistle.]

Okay, BB, you ain't tossed out of the game, but you sure committed a major foul.

If it were to hold that Jackson improved Tolkien, AGAIN YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION, then the logic holds that the films ARE better than the books, even if the improvement has been amended to only a subjective improvement in your perception.

Syllogism:
An improved thing is better than the original.
The Jackson film(s) improved Tolkien's books.
Ergo, the Jackson films are better than the books.

Cogitum, ergo non-sequitur, BB?

[Irish Nasal Voice] Lookin' at the replay there, I dunno....looks to me like a clear hand ball in the box....from the reverse angle you can see clearly BB assisted the ball getting past his own goaltender there....very messy defending on the part of the home team....ya can't get away with that kind of sloppy defending at this level of play.....the top of the group is very tight, and if BB doesn't address some serious ball-handling deficiencies could be headed right back to relegation, and that's not good for a first-year club....[/Nasal Irish Voice]

[LuthienTinuviel]

oi, i knew i should have held my tounge, forgive me for putting my opinion out there.

[azalea]

My opinion on the matter is that yes, the movie ENHANCED the book in the sense that ANY well made movie version could (and did) bring to life visually the characters and places in a way that a book cannot. Because of the very nature of film, it enhances written works, showing things and presenting visual information that would be undoable or unnecessary in a book. (It's the old "showing people going to the bathroom and eating, etc." thing -- people do these things in a movie, but not in a book unless it actually adds to the plot. Did that make sense?)

But there is no way that a movie version done by anyone than Tolkien himself could IMPROVE upon the book, since the book is a work of art. I believe that no work of art can be improved upon by anyone but the artist himself, because the piece of art is his vision. So although I might do a picture of people walking on the ceiling after seeing an Escher exhibit, and it might be really really good, I am not IMPROVING on Escher's work, because his picture came from his vision, not mine. It was merely my own vision using his idea, although it may be really close. Or not. Each person who viewed my work would be the judge of that.

Am I making sense to anyone but myself? Does it matter?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by bropous
Cogitum, ergo non-sequitur, BB?

Beg your pardon, Mister bropous. I don't speak Elvish.

[bropous]

Apparently, neither have you been exposed to Latin nor Descartes.

Nor the English Premier League.

Looks like it was an own goal after all. Enjoy relegation.

"Peter plus haut que son col."