What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Curufin]

Again, I agree with DPR.

There were plenty of changes I was fine with:

1. Bombadil.
2. Cutting Gildor (I know this is minor, but I like the guy. ).
3. Arwen at the Ford (I know this is a big issue for some, and while I don't particularly like it, I understand why he replaced her with Glorfindel...)

I even understand why he felt he had to restage 'Window on the West' - it was all talking in the book and would have been dead boring on screen.

But none of these things changed essential themes. None of these things (with the possible exception of Arwen, which is debatable) changed any characters. They condensed, perhaps, but they didn't change Tolkien's ideas.

Faramir, on the other hand, and the inclusion of Elves at Helm's Deep, did.

There are also many I like, including many that involve personality changes to main characters that (in my purely subjective view) are overly idealized by Tolkien in the book (Faramir and Elrond are two characters along those lines for me).

Two things - First, I don't quite understand what you mean by 'over-idealized.' Faramir's just a noble guy, and Elrond is the son of Elwing and Eärendil, descendant of the House of Finwë and the race of the Maiar. He's not just Arwen's protective father, or some annoying elf. He's the culmination of all three races, and something of a special-case. I don't like how PJ portrayed him at all. Very badly done.

Secondly - if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Secondly - if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.

That's not necessarily a fair analogy. It would be more akin to someone making a historical movie on the Civil War, and interpreting Robert E. Lee's personality and motivations for fighting for Virginia in a different way, say, because of a personal vendetta with someone, or something. Things like that happen all the time. Gladiator was hardly an extremely historically correct movie, from what I hear. But it was still a good movie.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Curufin

if PJ starts changing the basic motivations and reactions of Tolkien's characters, that seems to me like it should be the literary version of libel! I mean, seriously, what if someone decided to make a historical movie based on, say, the American Civil War, and decided to change the motivation of the south to something. For instance: 'Oh, the South isn't going to secede because of States' Rights and Slavery Issues this time, but because they want to form the first Scientology Theocracy!' It might be an interesting film, but it's certainly not about the Civil War. And if someone called it 'The American Civil War' or something similar, people would be pretty upset. Because it's falsely potraying the reality. Just as PJ completely changing characters and their motivations has made it so that his world falsely portrays Tolkien's.

This is one of those "OMG moments" for me. Before I type another word, please tell me you are not seriously comparing the reality of the American Civil War to the LOTR fiction. Because if you are, brother, it explains almost everything. Though not entirely everything, because even so, the genre of "alternative history" fiction (where the author riffs off of reality but changes an event here or there to generate an alternative world view, e.g., a book I read recently premised on the Spanish Armada defeating the British as opposed to being defeated) is a quite well-established genre that is anything but libel.

[Jon S.]

Well, I will certainly admit to many misunderstandings in my day. I do, though, appreciate the difference between objecting to changes per se and being troubled by changes perceived as being poor. The former is more a philosophical orientation, the latter personal taste (in which the individual is pretty much always right for him or herself!).

Frankly, there are changes in the movies from the books that I, too, dislike. There are also many I like, including many that involve personality changes to main characters that (in my purely subjective view) are overly idealized by Tolkien in the book (Faramir and Elrond are two characters along those lines for me).

Benjamin Franklin said many years ago, "There are two kinds of fools. One says, 'Old and therefore good.' The other says, 'New and therefore better.' " I believe essentially the same thing about film differences vis-a-vis the books.

P.S. At this very moment, I'm 2/3 of the way through Philip Jose Farmer's take on Oz, A Barnstormer in Oz. Different from both the Baum's books and the movie and very cool!
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...._AA240_.L.jpg

I also absolutely love Fred Saberhagen's take on the Arthurian legends in Merlin's Bones (would love to see a movie made out of that one!).
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...A240_SH20_.jpg

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I confess I haven't read Baum's complete series in a number of years and The Wizard of Oz was maybe a year ago. I never claimed to read these books before seeing the movie. I don't think it matters which was done first.

One thing this thread has done successfully is motivated me to go back and revisit the Oz books. So there's something positive here.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

One thing this thread has done successfully is motivated me to go back and revisit the Oz books. So there's something positive here.

If I may wax Olde English, niggardly art thou with thy assessment of this thread, Dread PR, to find only this positive aspect of our ongoing dialogue.

[Curufin]

This is one of those "OMG moments" for me. Before I type another word, please tell me you are not seriously comparing the reality of the American Civil War to the LOTR fiction. Because if you are, brother, it explains almost everything. Though not entirely everything, because even so, the genre of "alternative history" fiction (where the author riffs off of reality but changes an event here or there to generate an alternative world view, e.g., a book I read recently premised on the Spanish Armada defeating the British as opposed to being defeated) is a quite well-established genre that is anything but libel.

It was simply an example, and I'm afraid you've missed my point. Moving it back into fiction for easier analogy, let's say that someone made a movie of, oh, Les Misérables, and had Javert, instead of killing himself because his overly-simplistic notions of good and evil have been violated, kills himself because he was secretly in love with Cosette and was broken-hearted that she didn't return his love. People are going to be mad, because this is interfering with one of Hugo's major themes, therefore changing the story irrevocably. That is what those of us who complain about the changes to the characters (particularly Faramir, but there are others as well) are complaining about. A change in the character that drastically changes what Tolkien meant to express with that character.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

A change in the character that drastically changes what Tolkien meant to express with that character.

hummm. On what would one base "what Tolkien meant to express with that character?" I'm suspecting you'll reference some of those tedious books by Christopher.

[Curufin]

Well, I won't now, as they're thousands of miles away and I'm knackered.

But yes, there are comments and notes written by Tolkien in The Histories of Middle Earth volumes as well as letters that can be found in Letters (shockingly ) that can give us a pretty good idea of Tolkien's intentions.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Not only that but the text itself, the context if you will, is hardly ambiguous about the motivations of the characters and the points that are being made.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Well, I won't now, as they're thousands of miles away and I'm knackered.

But yes, there are comments and notes written by Tolkien in The Histories of Middle Earth volumes as well as letters that can be found in Letters (shockingly ) that can give us a pretty good idea of Tolkien's intentions.

See, I'm a textualist in this regard. And, personally, I'm not at all concerned with 'intent', particularly literary intent. Get it on the page or leave it alone.

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Not only that but the text itself, the context if you will, is hardly ambiguous about the motivations of the characters and the points that are being made.

Here's one of the places we disagree. I think the text is highly ambiguous as to the characters' motivations. That's a strength of it. The reader inserts motivations that make sense to her or him.

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Thanks for your response, Curufin - this is perhaps a good time to reemphasize explicitly what we would hope would be implicitly obvious anyway that discussions like these are intended in a positive spirit of further enjoying Tolkien's works and being exposed to new and alternate viewpoints on them. You have been really cool throughout this thread in that respect, thanks again for it.

Well, thank you. I hope I don't come across as some vicious movie-hating Nazgúl.

Faramir is a perfect example. I agree with the author of the piece I referenced earlier that Faramir's essential nature did not change materially between the movie and the book. Rather, what changed were various circumstantial facts to which Faramir reacted. To me, those changes are in no way "drastic" relative to Tolkien's basic themes. What they are is cinematic.

And I have no problem with making the movie cinematic. I've directed both for the stage, and amateur film, and I understand that translating into another media necessitates changes. But I think that Faramir's essential nature did change. He was tempted by the ring, after all.

`What in truth this Thing is I cannot yet guess; but some heirloom of power and peril it must be. A fell weapon, perchance, devised by the Dark Lord. If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle. I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it. Alas that ever he went on that errand! I should have been chosen by my father and the elders but he put himself forward, as being the older and the hardier (both true), and he would not be stayed.
'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No. I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'

From 'The Window on the West.' That doesn't sound like the Faramir in the movie to me...

But whatever freaks your peaches.

Likewise with the Elves joining in at Helms Deep. To you, that change eviscerated your interpretation of that battle, as best as I can construe it from your posts here, as a or the defining moment when men assumed their ascendancy in ME and established their independence from the need for inter-racial alliances to defend themselves...But for me, I just don't buy your interpretation of Helms Deep at all. To me, a key theme of the LOTR book was, and will always be, to emphasize the good in when people of different races bury old emnities and join together, based on common values, to oppose evil.

See, I don't see this as a theme of Lord of the Rings. Well, maybe a minor theme, but not a major one. I guess I'm also looking at it as the final part of The Silmarillion. After the Lord of the Rings, the part of the Elves in Middle-earth is over. In the years soon following LotR, the remaining Elves sail west. They are convinced by the victory of men in the War of the Ring (including Helm's deep) that the time of the elves is over (to quote the movie), and that the time of men has arrived. Helm's Deep is the beginning of this realization. It is the first major battle that has been won in Middle-earth without the help of the Elves (with the exception of Legolas, of course, but that's a bit of a special case) in the entire history of Middle-earth. And it rankles me that PJ felt the need to change this. And isn't it pretty obvious that 'the Last Alliance' was supposed to be 'the Last Alliance'?

It was also cool as s-. In fact, when I saw the movie (twice), the elves arrival got the biggest audience reaction in the entire film and, if your going to be honest, it did when you saw the film too, didn't it? That's because you may like prefer PJ, given a choice, but the man flat out knows how to make a movie.

No, sorry, I didn't. I was horrified by this the first time I saw the film, and continued to be. Likewise with Faramir. And I disagree with the last statement there as well. He may know how to manipulate emotion, but that's not necessarily the mark of a good movie-maker.

There were numerous other references and scenes in the films that served, independent of Helms Deep, to reinforce the notion that the end of Sauron and the Ring meant the ascendancy of the race of man. This is why I repeat, for me, the glass is half full on the change there. For you, the arrival of men at Helms Deep apparently negated the impact of these references and scenes.

Well, it certainly negated the purpose of Helm's Deep. Heck, he could have just skipped it and had another Warg Attack.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

See, I don't see this as a theme of Lord of the Rings. Well, maybe a minor theme, but not a major one. I guess I'm also looking at it as the final part of The Silmarillion. After the Lord of the Rings, the part of the Elves in Middle-earth is over. In the years soon following LotR, the remaining Elves sail west. They are convinced by the victory of men in the War of the Ring (including Helm's deep) that the time of the elves is over (to quote the movie), and that the time of men has arrived. Helm's Deep is the beginning of this realization. It is the first major battle that has been won in Middle-earth without the help of the Elves (with the exception of Legolas, of course, but that's a bit of a special case) in the entire history of Middle-earth. And it rankles me that PJ felt the need to change this. And isn't it pretty obvious that 'the Last Alliance' was supposed to be 'the Last Alliance'?

As "The War to End All Wars" was supposed to be that?
Encyclopedia Brown had a mystery once where the answer was revealed because someone supposedly contemporaneous said "the First Battle of Bull Run."

"The final part of the Silmarillion."

*sigh*

Well, it certainly negated the purpose of Helm's Deep. Heck, he could have just skipped it and had another Warg Attack.

Swell costumes on those elven warriors, though. *ducks, giggling madly*
Maybe the purpose of Helm's Deep in PJ's universe, was to show Theoden's wounds were deep, and have Gandalf fly in so nicely. And the elves left in, because so much eleven stuff had been removed. where's my shrug smilie?...

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Curufin

But whatever freaks your peaches.

Excellent - thanks for the new expression!

Bet you didn't know many view the biblical Song of Songs as the original source (though undoubtedly the psalmist, too, heard it from someone else) for the expression, "Really like your peaches want to shake your tree."

"Your stature is like a palm-tree .. I will climb up into the palm-tree and take hold of the branches." [redacted]

P.S. The quote you post of Faramir from the book, it sounds quite like the Faramir of the movie, only after the Osgilliath incident which, of course, is my point.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You're just difficult, Jon S.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

See, I'm a textualist in this regard. And, personally, I'm not at all concerned with 'intent', particularly literary intent. Get it on the page or leave it alone. Here's one of the places we disagree. I think the text is highly ambiguous as to the characters' motivations. That's a strength of it. The reader inserts motivations that make sense to her or him.

Are you speaking of texts in general or specifically LotR?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Are you speaking of texts in general or specifically LotR?

In no particular order, lol :

I evaluate LOTR the movie in the context of LOTR the text.

I see LOTR in a formalist way. If it's not in the text, I don't add it in.

This is for evaluation. As a person, I'm more interested in the potential for interpretation, but I consider that a separate activity. You can say "Gandalf reminds me of my grandfather, he was awesome" in relating to the text. But to say "Gandalf is intended to be the greatest of the Maiar" is begging the question, imo. It's a resort to authority and extra-textual.

[Curufin]

*sigh*

Well, it is.

Jon,

But that wasn't supposed to be Faramir after he had some silly "change-of-heart" after seeing Frodo offer a ring to a Nazgul (or whatever he did, I've only seen that movie a couple of times). That was supposed to be how Faramir was, without prodding.

[Jon S.]

Thanks for your response, Curufin - this is perhaps a good time to reemphasize explicitly what we would hope would be implicitly obvious that discussions like these are intended in a positive spirit of further enjoying Tolkien's works and being exposed to new and alternate viewpoints on them. You have been really cool throughout this thread in that respect, thanks again for it.

Now back to the substance.

A bit part of our differing viewpoints concerning the book and films, it seems to me, is that you interpret many changes in the movies as "drastically altering what Tolkien meant to express" that, to me, do not at all affect a drastic alteration.

Faramir is a perfect example. I agree with the author of the piece I referenced earlier that Faramir's essential nature did not change materially between the movie and the book. Rather, what changed were various circumstantial facts to which Faramir reacted. To me, those changes are in no way "drastic" relative to Tolkien's basic themes. What they are is cinematic.

Likewise with the Elves joining in at Helms Deep. To you, that change eviscerated your interpretation of that battle, as best as I can construe it from your posts here, as a or the defining moment when men assumed their ascendancy in ME and established their independence from the need for inter-racial alliances to defend themselves.

That's fine, if you want to interpret it that way. If everyone bet on the same horse, there wouldn't be horse races. Nor Entmoot threads. And both racing and forums would be the poorer for it.

But for me, I just don't buy your interpretation of Helms Deep. To me, a key theme of the LOTR book was, and will always be, to emphasize the good in when people of different races bury old emnities and join together, based on common values, to oppose evil.

That was a key theme of the decision at the council at Rivendell to establish the company of 9. It was a key theme in Tolkien describing elsewhere how dwarves, elves, and men all fought against Sauron and his forces in their own lands. This theme, to me, was buttressed, not undercut, when the elves arrived, in the movie, at Helms Deep.

It was also cool as s-! In fact, when I saw the movie (twice), the elves arrival got the biggest audience reaction in the entire film. Be honest now - it was the same when you saw the film too, wasn't it? That's because, whatever else one may say about PJ, the man knows how to make a movie.

There were numerous other references and scenes in the films that served, independent of Helms Deep, to reinforce the notion that the end of Sauron and the Ring meant the ascendancy of the race of man. This is why I repeat, for me, the glass is half full on the change there. I appreciate that, for you, the arrival of men at Helms Deep apparently negated the impact of these references and scenes.

Different strokes for different folks.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Because of PJ, Boyens, and Walsh's views of Men in general. It was stated several times in the movies from beginning to end. Opening narration: "The hearts of Men are easily corrupted." Elrond: "Men are weak." Aragorn about the Ring: "We can't wield it. No one can." None of these views of men were Tolkien's view, and this is just a small sampling of quotes, nevermind all the other "Elves and Ghosts bail out Men" scenes throughout the movies.