Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[IronParrot]

Some other major ways film differs from text:

- Perspective - First-person perspective, particularly in terms of what characters are thinking and feeling, is practically impossible in film. Voice-over narration is a tacky device as it is unless it's stylistically appropriate (as in Fight Club, which LOTR is not), or used in introductory/transitional/closing montages (as is actually very well demonstrated by LOTR). Tolkien's writing reached out to all five senses plus one. Especially the "plus one", since the Ring was so largely a psychological device, and so much of what happens to the characters happens at a deep psychological level. In film, you only have visuals at your disposal, and to a lesser extent, sound. You can zoom out as much as you want and paint on an epic canvas, but you can only zoom in so much.

- Narration - in addition to the aforementioned point about VO's being cheesy, film also doesn't have the liberty of "telling" so much. Film is all about "showing", because with visuals, that's all you do. The written word is a combination of showing and telling. Writing instructors would encourage the former, but it's still a balance, and Tolkien does tend to "tell" from time to time. Especially when you have characters telling selected parts of their life story to someone else, as in the Council of Elrond.

Somebody's going to say "flashback! flashback!" but in response to that, excessive flashback is also really bad. It's good if used appropriately: LOTR does it to just the right extent out of narrative considerations, though that's already making a sacrifice. The Godfather, Part II does it right because the flashback makes visual sense in a parallel, thematic manner. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has the only good extended half-hour storytelling flashback in any film because... well, actually, that's one of the weak points of an otherwise near-perfect film.

So in a movie, you don't have the luxury of being able to explain things openly. That means if you stick to the book, you have all kinds of questions drifting about that can't be answered very conveniently. Why doesn't Aragorn have a working sword? Why is Frodo so reluctant to leave the Shire during the summer? You can't just come out and explain everything. It's highly ambiguous and interpretable. It's just like how if you look at a picture, or any given frame of a film, everybody notices different subtleties about it. The written word is more explicit: there is a greater control over the focus of the verbal "camera", so to speak.

If Tolkien's fundamental assumption about film (i.e. different media not being that different) falls - and it does - all subsequent arguments that essentially amount to "because Tolkien said so" also fall.

By all indications, the only kind of movie "faithful to Tolkien's vision" (in the words of the purists) would be a really crappy movie. Obviously somebody's going to say that, well then, maybe LOTR should not be filmed, ever.

Some of you probably agree with that. I certainly don't. I love Tolkien's work. I love his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings to the core of my being. And that's reason why I'd rather see an excellent tributary production that truly excels in the cinematic medium, than so-so cinema that sticks to the source down to the letter. The current films belong to the former - and by cinematic standards, they are indeed unparalleled achievements, and that's an opinion that can be justified on purely objective and quantitative terms of merit.

[IronParrot]

Now for more directed responses to squinteyedsoutherner.

Just because Tolkien liked to answer fan mail questions and discuss his story as though it was real doesn't change the fact that the story is fiction and he is it's author- and changing the story is changing the story. (Tolkien does discuss writing the tale at great length in some letters even going into parts that were difficult for him and what he was thinking when writing certain passages, so this whole "the story is history" angle is nonsense as it relates to character and plot changes).

I don't see that it's nonsense. You're going to have to qualify that statement with something more concrete. Of course Tolkien had some difficulty with writing the thing. LOTR is extremely detailed and intertwined, and its complexity is virtually unparalleled in any work of literature I can think of. (Take that, Shakespeare-heads.) I would say that the amount of constructive detail and consistency he put into it was in the interest of the argument that "the story is history," simply because history has to be believable and consistent. Tolkien constructed an entire world and made it work, down to the very names of each individual character. Most of his fantasy-genre imitators just make up nonsense names and places without any regard for a historical approach to consistency and depth.

I'm not going to argue with the fact that LOTR is indeed a literary house of cards: take something out and you have a huge mess on your hands. Let's take a look at the nature of film once again: running time constraints. Now, I don't think the changes in the film were fundamentally out of a need to arbitrarily change Tolkien. The most severe restriction on how much the film could include was its running time. It has to take something out due to the running time issue - you can't just make a movie as long as you want, for contractual and budgetary reasons. DVD relaxes that a bit, and helps significantly - after watching the Extended version of FOTR, it was obvious to me that trimming it down to three hours for the theatrical release was clearly upsetting to the crew, having painstakingly shot all that extra material that was straight from the books.

But my point is: they have to take something or other out because of limited time. Because of LOTR's intricacy, that means they have to change a lot of stuff to compensate so the film makes sense unto itself, as an individual entity. Of course this is going to differ from the books. Of course it's going to detract from Tolkien's [Insert Mystical V-Word Here]. I won't claim that it's an improvement on Tolkien, but it's certainly an improvement on a hypothetical adaptation that remains 100% true to the rest of the text regardless of what's been cut, and regardless of matters pertaining to continuity issues.

[IronParrot]

I would pay money to see someone try to tell Tolkien that there is no absolute truth with respect to his characters and therefore they can be modified. I would love to see the look on Tolkien's face when Aragorn tells Elrond "I have never wanted to be king" Read some of his responses to readers who proposed alterations to his characters or questioned their choices Iron Parrot and your thesis is dead. He blasted Zimmerman for making ONE joke at the expense of the hobbits in his screenplay and it was no where near the level of some of the stuff in the film. Tolkien never responded favourably to a change made to his characters by someone else. You either used what he wrote or you left it out, that is clear from letters.

I take cheques.

There is a fundamental difference between readers proposing alterations to characters, and readers proposing interpretations - especially in a different medium. Nobody's changing Tolkien's work here (by work, I mean his text). The films are a distinct interpretive entity, and nobody's forcing them onto anybody else.

First of all, in the case of the frequently cited characters - Aragorn, Pippin, Gimli, Faramir - I remain unconvinced that their characterizations in the film directly, flatly, indisputably, completely contradict their characterizations in the book. And yes, I said Faramir. I'm not going to go into too much detail - Faramir is the same character under different circumstances, Pippin is probably less of a delinquent in the film than he is in the book, Gimli isn't exactly the be-all and end-all of seriousness, Aragorn lacks the lust for power that would make him vulnerable to the allure of the Ring, yada yada yada.

And I'm going to go ahead and say that it doesn't matter what Tolkien says about it. Before anybody tosses me into the fires of Mount Doom, I'm going to justify this by citing one important point that has been completely overlooked: despite his possessiveness and control over his own work, Tolkien was a staunch defender of interpretability and meaning being in the hands of the reader, not the author. From the most-quoted Tolkien statement of all time:

"I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
- You know darn well where he said this

Tolkien's intentions are of course the basic meanings and motivations behind LOTR, but if it's not in the body of the main text itself, it's all fair game for reader interpretation. Tolkien's interpretation of his own writing, even though it is the most informed take possible, does not preclude readers from taking a different perspective and flatly disagreeing.

With any given work of literature, the author's intent - especially when it is explicitly stated - is completely open to scrutiny and deconstruction. It is not to be held as some sort of gospel truth as to how a book should be read. Just because Tolkien didn't base anything on the Second World War, and is furthermore rolling in his grave every time somebody brings up that comparison, that doesn't preclude you from pointing out some of the eerier parallels. In that manner, there's nothing wrong with a distinct interpretive entity (such as the films) that analyzes his intents, motives, themes and characterizations a little deeper and decides to emphasize some things over others, and extend some of them in a logical progression. Especially when it's done out of necessity, as I already pointed out when referring to running times.

[IronParrot]

Helm's deep is perhaps the best single example of Jackson not at all being in accord with Tolkien. Jackson expanded the 11 page battle into 1/3 of the second film while Tolkien suggested to Zimmerman that he should leave it out if he didn't have enough time because battles can get boring and there is a bigger one in ROTK anyway.

Cutting Helm's Deep would probably provoke a bigger fan outcry than cutting the Scouring of the Shire. Or Tom Bombadil. Combined. Not saying that Peter Jackson should pander to the fans... I applaud him for not doing so too much, and staying within reason.

The question here is not are these good films (which is subjective) the question is do they adhere to "Tolkien's vision" The author has said no; what is left to discuss?

The quality of the films isn't as subjective as you'd think, first of all... there are many objective reasons why LOTR is an important cinematic work of art. Not everybody likes Star Wars (God forbid), but its significance to cinema is undeniable.

Of course, that's not the point of this discussion. The point is the whole "vision" idea. I posit:

a) "Capturing Tolkien's Vision" is impossible in any medium other than the written word, especially film;

b) "A Literal Interpretation" is not necessarily the same thing as "Capturing Tolkien's Vision", because Tolkien read into his own work a whole lot, as his many quotations from Letters in particular tend to prove;

c) Therefore, you might as well try for a best-fit interpolation and take Tolkien's route: personal interpretation and applicability to the reader.

"It could be argued that Jackson was more faithful to Tolkien's themes than the author himself"

What is this the twilight zone?

Not touching it... BB, this is your territory.

[IronParrot]

At this point, I congratulate anyone who was actually open-minded enough to read through everything I said above.

On a point of clarification, my thesis about changes being made out of necessity and time constraints could probably use an example. Try this line of thinking on for size:

Problem: Two hours a film? Impossible.
Solution: Negotiate with New Line for three.

Problem: Three hours a film? Impossible.
Solution: Too bad. Trim everything and save a bit for the DVD.

Problem: What to cut?
Solution: The journey from Buckleberry Ferry to Bree. Rationale: the stay in Crickhollow takes too long, and the Old Forest can be left implicit or even mentioned in passing later.

Problem: No Old Forest -> No Bombadil -> No rescue from Barrow-wights or cool weapons for the hobbits.
Solution: Aragorn can give the hobbits swords.

Problem: So Aragorn carries enough swords for four hobbits but doesn't even have one himself?
Solution: Okay, now he does.

Problem: What about Narsil? Surely he doesn't carry a working sword and a broken one at once.
Solution: Narsil's in Rivendell.

Problem: Then why hasn't it been reforged yet?
Solution: I'll get back to you on that in the third film.

And so on.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
[B]1)Cutting Helm's Deep would probably provoke a bigger fan outcry than cutting the Scouring of the Shire. Or Tom Bombadil. Combined. Not saying that Peter Jackson should pander to the fans... I applaud him for not doing so too much, and staying within reason.

1) I disagree. Many fans of Tolkien's works do NOT think it is wholly centered on fighting and battles, see? The Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil have probably had much more of an outcry than Helm's Deep would have, in my opinion. Especially considering that specific quote, made directly in the context of filming it. That quote proves that Tolkien did not think that fights and battles were not what the Lord of the Rings is all about, in my opinion.
And why not? The fans are the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works for years or decades. Why should PJ screw them over in favour of the audience? They have been those who loved Tolkien all of their lives, as opposed to those who wouldn't read a book the size of LOTR to save their lives. (Not all of the general audience, but a large number).
Too much? He didn't "pander to the fans", he "pandered to the larger amount of people", i.e. those he thought he could get the most money from.

By all indications, the only kind of movie "faithful to Tolkien's vision" (in the words of the purists) would be a really crappy movie. Obviously somebody's going to say that, well then, maybe LOTR should not be filmed, ever.

I love Tolkien's work. I love his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings to the core of my being. And that's reason why I'd rather see an excellent tributary production that truly excels in the cinematic medium, than so-so cinema that sticks to the source down to the letter

Well, if you think "cool movie" is more important than "Lord of the Rings", then that's business.

Ah, I see you're sticking with BB on the whole, "If you don't agree with me, bow down and worship PJ, then anyone can see that you're such a fake. You don't give a sh*t about Tolkien if you don't think the movies were perfect" deal.

[IronParrot]

"1) I disagree. Many fans of Tolkien's works do NOT think it is wholly centered on fighting and battles, see? The Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil have probably had much more of an outcry than Helm's Deep would have, in my opinion. Especially considering that specific quote, made directly in the context of filming it. That quote proves that Tolkien did not think that fights and battles were not what the Lord of the Rings is all about, in my opinion."

I don't think it's all about fighting and battles either. However, I don't think it's safe to make an assumption about the fans when a lot of other readers I know regard the Scouring of the Shire or Tom Bombadil to be ever so slightly more extraneous than Helm's Deep. That's open to debate.

"And why not? The fans are the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works for years or decades. Why should PJ screw them over in favour of the audience? They have been those who loved Tolkien all of their lives, as opposed to those who wouldn't read a book the size of LOTR to save their lives. (Not all of the general audience, but a large number)."

First of all, you can't assume that "The Fans" with a capital F are a homogeneous body that enjoys Tolkien for all of the same reasons. Therefore, to say that "PJ screws them over" is a far-reaching blanket statement. Once again, nobody's forcing you to interpret LOTR the same way Peter Jackson did. However, a lot of people seem to be forcing other fans to interpret LOTR the same way Tolkien did. Holy double standard, Batman.

"Too much? He didn't "pander to the fans", he "pandered to the larger amount of people", i.e. those he thought he could get the most money from."

If you think studios lay down $300M on a film project for profit, you have a serious misunderstanding of the movie business.

The claim that it's "pandering down to the larger amount of people" is a serious miscalculation of the modern layperson film audience's level of, what shall I call it, "civilization".

Watch mainstream cinema. Watch arthouse cinema. There are certain conventions that really differ between the two. Stylistically, the film of LOTR is so far on the arthouse end of the spectrum that any accusation of it pandering to the mainstream comes off as a sly and politically correct way of saying "people who haven't read the book suck, and they have no right to understand the movie if they haven't read it first."

"Well, if you think "cool movie" is more important than "Lord of the Rings", then that's business."

There's no contradiction there. There is a contradiction between "watchable" and "strictly adherent to the text". There is no contradiction between "really watchable" and "mostly adherent to the text".

A film of The Lord of the Rings that sticks to the letter would be a pretty boring movie. That seriously misrepresents the work more than any minor changes ever will, because if there's one thing everybody on this thread can agree on, it's that Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings was anything but boring.

"Ah, I see you're sticking with BB on the whole, "If you don't agree with me, bow down and worship PJ, then anyone can see that you're such a fake. You don't give a sh*t about Tolkien if you don't think the movies were perfect" deal."

Maybe you should read my posts before you reply.

You can dislike the movie all you want on your own prejudicial terms. That doesn't make the movie intrinsically worse. And I'd hardly call the films perfect - I have gripes with every movie I've ever seen, sometimes very minor. Except Casablanca, which actually is perfect.

I don't agree with everything Peter Jackson does, but I certainly admire how he does it, and I see his rationale. I don't think Aragorn's tumble off the cliff was particularly necessary, but I can see - or rather, am willing to see - why it was done.

An interpretation you disagree with isn't automatically a bad analysis. I think Peter Jackson's take on things is very defensible.

[IronParrot]

In the interest of fairness, I'm going to argue against Breathalizer and subsequently antagonize everybody on this thread.

BB, although I'm in the pro-film camp (so to speak), I would agree with your detractors in that you are being overly presumptuous with the term "Tolkien's vision".

To imply that every major theme in LOTR was a deliberate creation by The Professor Himself is a fallacy. Everybody reads into LOTR more than they should, and there even comes a point when The Professor Himself is completely sick of it. (The Second World War comparisons come to mind.)

So, I don't think what you are intending to say is that Jackson has somehow "improved on Tolkien's vision". That's just not possible, because if you improve on somebody else's vision, it's not their vision anymore. Einstein "improved on Newton's vision" of dynamics at the subatomic level, but that meant that it was no longer Newton's vision.

Your arguments would probably have a lot more merit if they were less extreme, because you are certainly at times trying to force your own interpretation of Tolkien's themes and motifs on other people. I have bashed those against the film (and to some extent, even Tolkien himself) for doing that, so I'm not going to spare you here. You can't presume

This is exactly why I think SparkNotes (and related resources) are absolutely horrible and should be avoided by anybody with any respect for literature, especially after reading capsule analyses of LOTR. That kind of thing encourages adherence to a certain interpretation without regarding the material itself in an original, creative manner.

Only part of the creativity in literature is attributed to the author. The rest is attributed to the reader. Tolkien supported this. In fact, he hated - nay, "cordially disliked" an author's dictation of what everything is supposed to mean.

This is a comment directed to both sides: if you don't realize that, then maybe you should read the book before speaking up.

The real issue isn't, "is Peter Jackson true to this mystical Vision thing everybody keeps talking about?" but rather, "does the film demonstrate an exceptional level of creative interpretation of the work, most of which has already been noticed by the reading audience, a large portion of which was intended by the author (but some of which was not)?"

Which is a quick and dirty way of saying: "Does the film notice major themes and motifs in Tolkien's work and bring them to light?" I say Yes, but nobody has the authority to say which ones "count" and which ones don't. Not even Tolkien himself.

In a discussion such as this one, we have to reduce the variables to as simple and general terms as possible. I think the whole crux of this thread is: focus on the big picture, not the specifics. Some would say that the specifics affect the big picture. Okay then, focus on the biggest picture, not the big picture.

The biggest picture is that
1) Tolkien wanted to tell a really good story;
2) Tolkien left the interpretation of it up to the reader.

I'd challenge you all to refute those two points, except you can't, so I won't bother asking.

And Breathalizer, if you're going to start a thread asking a very general question about thematic considerations, isn't it a bit of a contradiction on your part to reduce the whole thing to specifics? If you're going to lay the burden of proof on those against the film (and rightly so), at least respond to some of their more salient arguments instead of hitting the same point over and over and over again.

Let's have less rehashing on this thread. Haldir this, Faramir this, screw it all - let's talk about fundamentals. Let's have better general arguments - I think the likes of squinteyedsoutherner are a good start.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't think it's all about fighting and battles either. However, I don't think it's safe to make an assumption about the fans when a lot of other readers I know regard the Scouring of the Shire or Tom Bombadil to be ever so slightly more extraneous than Helm's Deep. That's open to debate.

And yet you make an assumption about the fans when a lot of readers regard the Scouring of the Shire alone to be an intrinsic part of the Lord of the Rings standard. I fail to see the difference.

First of all, you can't assume that "The Fans" with a capital F are a homogeneous body that enjoys Tolkien for all of the same reasons. Therefore, to say that "PJ screws them over" is a far-reaching blanket statement. Once again, nobody's forcing you to interpret LOTR the same way Peter Jackson did. However, a lot of people seem to be forcing other fans to interpret LOTR the same way Tolkien did. Holy double standard, Batman.

Yes, that was a bit harsh. But in no way does PJ favour them to the general audience.

-blink- Um...Tolkien WROTE the book. I don't know about you, but I believe that the wishes of an author regarding his book and his world are rather important.

If you think studios lay down $300M on a film project for profit, you have a serious misunderstanding of the movie business.

The claim that it's "pandering down to the larger amount of people" is a serious miscalculation of the modern layperson film audience's level of, what shall I call it, "civilization".

Watch mainstream cinema. Watch arthouse cinema. There are certain conventions that really differ between the two. Stylistically, the film of LOTR is so far on the arthouse end of the spectrum that any accusation of it pandering to the mainstream comes off as a sly and politically correct way of saying "people who haven't read the book suck, and they have no right to understand the movie if they haven't read it first.

If they don't want profit, then what do you think they want?

I've watched a large amount of cinema (I highly doubt it was all "arthouse", and PJ's LOTR never seemed to be all that really different to me. You have the hero (who, incidentally, seems to be Aragorn more than Frodo to me), you have the love interest, and you have the comic relief. And, of course, the monster scenes and battles.

Darn, you caught me. I despise every creature on earth that hasn't read the book. They are lesser forms of life, and everyone would be better off if they were dead.

There's no contradiction there. There is a contradiction between "watchable" and "strictly adherent to the text". There is no contradiction between "really watchable" and "mostly adherent to the text".

A film of The Lord of the Rings that sticks to the letter would be a pretty boring movie. That seriously misrepresents the work more than any minor changes ever will, because if there's one thing everybody on this thread can agree on, it's that Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings was anything but boring.

Mostly adherent to the text? Boy that's obviously subjective.

There is a contradiction, in your opinion. Personally, I think something which was "strictly adherent to the text" would be worth watching, simply because it was "strictly adherent to the text". But I think the best would be "mostly adherent to the text", which as I said before, is obviously subjective. (Or maybe I'm just too stupid to see it. )

[quote]Maybe you should read my posts before you reply.

You can dislike the movie all you want on your own prejudicial terms. That doesn't make the movie intrinsically worse. And I'd hardly call the films perfect - I have gripes with every movie I've ever seen, sometimes very minor. Except Casablanca, which actually is perfect.
quote]

You said before:

I love Tolkien's work. I love his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings to the core of my being. And that's reason why I'd rather see an excellent tributary production that truly excels in the cinematic medium, than so-so cinema that sticks to the source down to the letter

Which certainly seems to me to imply that if anyone really love Tolkien's work, then they'd rather see PJ's movies than something which was closer to the text.

Aha, so now people who don't agree with you are bigots, as well.

[IronParrot]

"And yet you make an assumption about the fans when a lot of readers regard the Scouring of the Shire alone to be an intrinsic part of the Lord of the Rings standard. I fail to see the difference."

The difference is that my statements are inclusive of both parties. I'm not saying that there's little to no outrage about the Scouring of the Shire. Search Entmoot a bit, and you'll find that I was the first one on this board to complain about the Scouring of the Shire being cut, a full year or two before such a prospect was even announced!

Your assumption, however, is that because Tolkien feels a certain way about Helm's Deep, the "real fans" do as well. Oh, so now the real hardcore fans have to agree with Tolkien, or they're not part of the Club, right?

"Yes, that was a bit harsh. But in no way does PJ favour them to the general audience."

In no way, eh? So what's the relevance of lines upon lines upon lines of material that could only be appreciated by people who have read the book (references to the Valar, "a shortcut to mushrooms", etc.) but aren't critical to understanding the plot? I'd say the status quo is a fine compromise.

"-blink- Um...Tolkien WROTE the book. I don't know about you, but I believe that the wishes of an author regarding his book and his world are rather important."

Important in that we know what the author was like as a person, and what he saw in his own work as the most critical reader of himself.

This is completely different from implying that Tolkien's views are the be-all and end-all of The Lord of the Rings. A number of reputed Tolkien scholars directly reject Tolkien's claims that LOTR is free of allegory.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Tolkien was a major proponent of freedom of analysis on the part of a given reader, regardless of the intent of the author.

"If they don't want profit, then what do you think they want?"

Do you want a list?

Harvey Weinstein is NOT Mark Ordesky is NOT Peter Jackson is NOT Philippa Boyens. One of those four names was profit-motivated, and he ditched the project.

In terms of profit, studio execs play a different part than the film crew. Studio execs are the ones making profit-motivated decisions, because since they are the ones who lay down the cash, they are the ones who get the bulk of the profit! (Unless you're John Lasseter or George Lucas.) Besides, in terms of percentages, it doesn't make mathematical sense.

If you can point out just how specific changes in the film were made to pander to the profit motive of the New Line execs laying down the $300M production budget (not counting the massive marketing costs), I await your proof. The only demand of theirs that I can clearly see was that the theatrical releases be kept to three hours.

Speaking in movie-making terms, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens had tremendous creative freedom, and were not bound by any studio pressures besides the three-hour limit (and perhaps the PG-13 rating). The typical Hollywood profit-driven system works like this: producer says, "it would be really cool to make this movie: I'll hire a director to do it for me." With LOTR: "I really want to direct this movie: I'll beg for cash - lots of cash - from a producer who is willing to put the whole studio at risk."

LOTR had a pre-sold audience in the fan base. If it abandons the pre-sold audience, then the fans would only see it once each, and it would not generate enough interest among non-fans to hit a combined total of about $650M in domestic grosses. In terms of audience patterns, you also have to analyze week-to-week depreciations and such - and in that arena, LOTR held up really well.

So learn about the film business before you say "he's doing it for money." This is almost as ignorant as the similar accusations against George Lucas. Almost.

I've watched a large amount of cinema (I highly doubt it was all "arthouse", and PJ's LOTR never seemed to be all that really different to me. You have the hero (who, incidentally, seems to be Aragorn more than Frodo to me), you have the love interest, and you have the comic relief. And, of course, the monster scenes and battles.

So you're willing to read into the book a little deeper (or are you? maybe you're just taking Tolkien's word for everything at face value) - but you're not willing to see anything in the film beneath the surface?

If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. Clearly, you need to watch more movies... or maybe you only watch really good ones, in which case you should continue doing so.

I just sure hope you're not one of those people who sees film as an inferior medium where brains and thinking aren't required. It scares me that a lot of people think that way. It does a great disservice to film as an art form.

[IronParrot]

Darn, you caught me. I despise every creature on earth that hasn't read the book. They are lesser forms of life, and everyone would be better off if they were dead.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but you do seem to imply that people who have not read the book are a secondary consideration. I fundamentally disagree. If the film can't stand alone as a work of art, it's either a) not a film, or b) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

The ideal condition is that you don't need to have read the book to understand the film, though it helps. Which is the status quo.

Mostly adherent to the text? Boy that's obviously subjective.

It's true that "mostly" is a relative term, but in the interest of a response: Mr. Jackson, meet Mr. Bakshi. QED. I, for one, appreciate the total absence of Aruman the Red.

There is a contradiction, in your opinion. Personally, I think something which was "strictly adherent to the text" would be worth watching, simply because it was "strictly adherent to the text". But I think the best would be "mostly adherent to the text", which as I said before, is obviously subjective. (Or maybe I'm just too stupid to see it.

Just because it's "strictly adherent to the text" doesn't automatically make it worth watching, especially if it throws all filmic conventions out the window and becomes a video edition of Books-on-Tape. Books-on-Tape are not distinguishable standalone works of art. If it's not a distinguishable standalone work of art, a filmic adaptation isn't even worth talking about, let alone watching.

Which certainly seems to me to imply that if anyone really love Tolkien's work, then they'd rather see PJ's movies than something which was closer to the text.

No. Read my earlier statement: a boring and faithful film of LOTR still misrepresents the text, simply because it's boring, and the text is not. That's all I'm saying.

Aha, so now people who don't agree with you are bigots, as well.

No, people who try to force Tolkien's interpretation of his own work down my throat are the real bigots.

I have not ONCE suggested that every Tolkien fan must like the film. I have, however, lost count of the number of claims above that something is intrinsically bad if it differs from Tolkien, and intrinsically good if it agrees with him - regardless of medium, regardless of context.

The book is better than the movie. I'm not denying that one bit. But it's better for a book to be better than a very well-crafted movie (in objective cinematic terms) than for it to be better than a celluloid shadow of itself.

[Black Breathalizer]

Our noble hero, Iron Parrot, and his joke-a-minute, dwarf companion, Black Breathalizer, sneak out the side door of Castle Entmoot and watch hundreds of Purists pounding on the door. Breathalizer turns to Iron Parrot:

Blackie: Come on, we can take 'um!

Iron Parrot: No, my stout-hearted friend. I can take these Purists on all by myself.

Iron Parrot "flys" into the fray and quickly destroys all the Purists' arguements with ease. Afterwards, Blackie says:

Blackie: You are the longest postingest, the cunningest, and most reckless man I ever knew! Bless you, laddie!

The End.

[IronParrot]

Hey, give them a chance to hit back before calling it game over...

[Melko Belcha]

Why do you think that a film that followed the book 100% would be boring? I would rather see a low-budget film with cheap special effects that was true to the book then a high budget film with the most advanced special effects to date, but changed, to me, some of the key elements in the book, characters are at the top of that list. I fully agree that LotR should never have even been tried to be made into a movie, the book has to many details and depth to be captured on film, IMO.

I think everybody here knew that there was going to be stuff cut out of the book, and many can be agreed with even if we don't like it, Bombadil, Old Forest, Crickhollow, but when key scenes from the book, that are very important to the plot and character development, are cut out for big special effects scenes that have nothing to do with the story or plot to me is not understandable, other than trying to please the everyday movie goers. Best example is the stairway scene in Moria over the gift giving scene for the theater release. I didn't mind the staircase scene to much when I first saw the movie, but after seeing the EE I couldn't believe they had cut that great scene, and for what? Action, special effects, and movie sales. For special effects it is an amazing scene, as for the story it had no place, it took out time that could have been used for character development or a number of things.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
[B]The difference is that my statements are inclusive of both parties. I'm not saying that there's little to no outrage about the Scouring of the Shire. Search Entmoot a bit, and you'll find that I was the first one on this board to complain about the Scouring of the Shire being cut, a full year or two before such a prospect was even announced!

Your assumption, however, is that because Tolkien feels a certain way about Helm's Deep, the "real fans" do as well. Oh, so now the real hardcore fans have to agree with Tolkien, or they're not part of the Club, right?

Did I say that there wouldn't be any outrage over the removal of Helm's Deep? If I did, I beg your pardon, it was late at night.

What I am saying is that Lord of the Rings is Tolkien's work. And if Tolkien feels a certain way about his work, and thinks that it should be treated in a certain way, than I think that reasonable people will, if not agree, than at least respect the intent and purpose of the creator.

In no way, eh? So what's the relevance of lines upon lines upon lines of material that could only be appreciated by people who have read the book (references to the Valar, "a shortcut to mushrooms", etc.) but aren't critical to understanding the plot? I'd say the status quo is a fine compromise.

You almost had me there. But when I thought about it more, what really are those? It seems to me that they're just a few bones thrown to keep the savage, hungry fans happy.

Important in that we know what the author was like as a person, and what he saw in his own work as the most critical reader of himself.

This is completely different from implying that Tolkien's views are the be-all and end-all of The Lord of the Rings. A number of reputed Tolkien scholars directly reject Tolkien's claims that LOTR is free of allegory.

I disagree. Personally, I think that if someone creates a world or a story, that world or story is, in a way, "sacred" to them, that they should be almost revered in regards to that story. Certainly, I would think Tolkien would have jurisdiction over say, Lewis' Space Trilogy. However, as he created the Lord of the Rings, I think that out of at the very least courtesy, if not any actual respect for him, his views and wishes should be respected, and placed higher than those of one who decides to make movies on his works, or those who study his works. Personally, I find claiming to know someone better than they themselves know them pretentious.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Tolkien was a major proponent of freedom of analysis on the part of a given reader, regardless of the intent of the author.

He was against allegory. But I do not think that he meant for his story to be analysed, dissected, observed, taken apart, etc., but for it to be read and enjoyed. Though if you provide good evidence to the contrary, I'm sure I will listen to you.

Personally, I think that the author dictating what everything is supposed to mean is greatly separate from the author dictating what everything is.

Do you want a list?

Harvey Weinstein is NOT Mark Ordesky is NOT Peter Jackson is NOT Philippa Boyens. One of those four names was profit-motivated, and he ditched the project.

And do you have actual proof for this, or am I just to take it for granted?

In terms of profit, studio execs play a different part than the film crew. Studio execs are the ones making profit-motivated decisions, because since they are the ones who lay down the cash, they are the ones who get the bulk of the profit! (Unless you're John Lasseter or George Lucas.) Besides, in terms of percentages, it doesn't make mathematical sense.

Yes, I thought I said that the studios would be more profit-motivated...

If you can point out just how specific changes in the film were made to pander to the profit motive of the New Line execs laying down the $300M production budget (not counting the massive marketing costs), I await your proof. The only demand of theirs that I can clearly see was that the theatrical releases be kept to three hours.

I could cite plenty of examples which have been stated by the Jacksonites to be needed to make the film more popular (which, as a natural result, brings more profit).

Speaking in movie-making terms, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens had tremendous creative freedom, and were not bound by any studio pressures besides the three-hour limit (and perhaps the PG-13 rating).

No comment, no comment, no comment...!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The typical Hollywood profit-driven system works like this: producer says, "it would be really cool to make this movie: I'll hire a director to do it for me." With LOTR: "I really want to direct this movie: I'll beg for cash - lots of cash - from a producer who is willing to put the whole studio at risk."

LOTR had a pre-sold audience in the fan base. If it abandons the pre-sold audience, then the fans would only see it once each, and it would not generate enough interest among non-fans to hit a combined total of about $650M in domestic grosses. In terms of audience patterns, you also have to analyze week-to-week depreciations and such - and in that arena, LOTR held up really well.

So learn about the film business before you say "he's doing it for money." This is almost as ignorant as the similar accusations against George Lucas. Almost.

Then call me an ignorant moron. I prefer the written word to the moving picture, and don't have the time to learn about both.

So you're willing to read into the book a little deeper (or are you? maybe you're just taking Tolkien's word for everything at face value) - but you're not willing to see anything in the film beneath the surface?

By all means, no. While I strongly hold that the Lord of the Rings is a story, and is meant mainly (if not entirely) to be so, it also undeniably has some very big themes. The movie also definitely has themes, but they are not as instrinsic and as much of a part of it, in my opinion. I suppose this is the difference between the themes slipping through by accident to manifest themselves in glorious genuinity as opposed to one attempting to place the themes within (which, by the way, is not at all wrong in the least, but indeed commendable. But I think that inserting them can never be as good as them just making their own way in.

If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. Clearly, you need to watch more movies... or maybe you only watch really good ones, in which case you should continue doing so.

I don't know that watching more movies is really a necessity. But I have most certainly watched a very large number. And they are not by any stretch of the imagination all really good ones. But very many movies have themes and similar things in them, regardless of quality.

[quoteI just sure hope you're not one of those people who sees film as an inferior medium where brains and thinking aren't required. It scares me that a lot of people think that way. It does a great disservice to film as an art form. [/B][/QUOTE]

That depends on what you mean. I most definitely think that movies can be made very well, and cause people to think. But I also think that having the visual images provided for people tends to cut down on the brainwork and the imagination required. But when films make people think, it is about things more important than visuals. I still think that while it is not necessarily the case, movies do tend to be somewhat less "intellectual" than books.

So I probably fit into the "Narrow-minded fool" category on this one.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I wouldn't go quite that far, but you do seem to imply that people who have not read the book are a secondary consideration. I fundamentally disagree. If the film can't stand alone as a work of art, it's either a) not a film, or b) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

I think they should be a secondary consideration, though I certainly do agree that it should be able to stand alone. But the people who have read and loved Tolkien's works all their lives, I would think should be thought of first, when making a movie of his works, rather than the "general audience" (I could go into this some more, but I just don't have the time at the moment.)

The ideal condition is that you don't need to have read the book to understand the film, though it helps. Which is the status quo.

In a way, yes. Though I think the most important is that it remains true to Tolkien (by which I do NOT mean a word-for-word filming). However, this is VERY closely followed by the ability to stand alone, which I think is necessary to the movie.

It's true that "mostly" is a relative term, but in the interest of a response: Mr. Jackson, meet Mr. Bakshi. QED. I, for one, appreciate the total absence of Aruman the Red.

-laughs-

True, true, that's one thing I believe that it could certainly do without. Though I do feel inclined to point out that it seems to have been valid to a degree (as I have spoken with a number who have constantly mixed up Saruman and Sauron). I don't

Just because it's "strictly adherent to the text" doesn't automatically make it worth watching, especially if it throws all filmic conventions out the window and becomes a video edition of Books-on-Tape. Books-on-Tape are not distinguishable standalone works of art. If it's not a distinguishable standalone work of art, a filmic adaptation isn't even worth talking about, let alone watching.

That is your opinion. Personally, I think that it does. But, evidently, I am wrong, as you present this as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Unless I missed an "I think", "In my opinion" an "I believe", or something along those lines...I wonder what departing so far from the definite truths makes me...but I digress.

No. Read my earlier statement: a boring and faithful film of LOTR still misrepresents the text, simply because it's boring, and the text is not. That's all I'm saying.

Ah. I see now. Thanks.

No, people who try to force Tolkien's interpretation of his own work down my throat are the real bigots.

So then, you know more about Tolkien's works than he did?

I have not ONCE suggested that every Tolkien fan must like the film. I have, however, lost count of the number of claims above that something is intrinsically bad if it differs from Tolkien, and intrinsically good if it agrees with him - regardless of medium, regardless of context.

The book is better than the movie. I'm not denying that one bit. But it's better for a book to be better than a very well-crafted movie (in objective cinematic terms) than for it to be better than a celluloid shadow of itself.

There were parts of it that I would not call "well-crafted", but anyway...Whew! Done! I thought I'd never be finished! -collapses-

IP, would I be correct in guessing that you plan in going into the field of film? You certainly know a whole lot about it.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Iron Parrot

1. you asked me to be concrete on the LOTR as history issue. You brought up the Trojan war vs the Iliad. It may be the case that at some point in his life Agamemnon said "I do not want to be king, I have never wanted it" then again maybe he said no such thing. I really don't know. I do, however, know with 100% certainty that Aragorn never said it. That is the difference between history and fiction.

2. I did not bring up Helm's Deep to argue that it should have been removed because Tolkien suggested it to Zimmerman. I brought it up to highlight the fact that the very thing Jackson decided to expand into the center-piece of his film was the very thing Tolkien believed expendable. I believe that puts to rest any claim that Jackson understands Tolkien's vision.

3. I brought up Bree to highlight the fact that a significant number of changes made to the film are not due to the particulars of cinema vs literature (and I couldn't agree more with Tolkien that many films are ruined by exaggeration) but are due to the director's love of Horror and darkness. I also wanted to point out that in the commentary Jackson clearly declares that a specific change was made because he didn't like Tolkien's version. I believe that statement to be VERY significant and I suspect that it is the real root of many of the film's changes.

4. Like and /or dislike of ANY film is subjective. A film's importance in history is a different issue. Titanic was a huge cultural moment, but I hated the movie and so did many critics.

I'm out, later............................................. .....

[IronParrot]

MB:

"Why do you think that a film that followed the book 100% would be boring? I would rather see a low-budget film with cheap special effects that was true to the book then a high budget film with the most advanced special effects to date, but changed, to me, some of the key elements in the book, characters are at the top of that list. I fully agree that LotR should never have even been tried to be made into a movie, the book has to many details and depth to be captured on film, IMO."

A jolly singing guy in yellow boots is a really great idea on paper, but I can't name a single director who could pull off Tom Bombadil on film with a straight face.

Some things in LOTR are indeed unfilmable. That doesn't suddenly mean the whole thing is unfilmable.

You also fail to note what I have talked about time and time again - that contractual time constraints will prevent a cover-to-cover film of LOTR "true to the book" from ever being made. So you have to cut in order to fit the time constraints. But when you do that, you don't just leave everything else intact, because there's a chain reaction to deal with: other things have to be rearranged to compensate. Read my earlier example about ten posts up.

As for whether LOTR should have been filmed at all, we'll just have to agree to disagree there: I'd say that an excellent production (in terms of artistic merit by itself, regardless of the adaptation) is far better than no film at all. I refer once again to The Wizard of Oz, which is one of the least faithful adaptations there is, but is a highly regarded film that has perhaps transcended the original source.

What you are proposing is that you'd rather see LOTR turned into a television miniseries - it fits your description of it having a low budget, and the necessity of it being really, really long. That's a different discussion entirely; there are a number of reasons why the TV miniseries is a different (and arguably inferior) medium. We're talking about film here.

So with a "faithful" adaptation, there are two options:
1) it goes on forever
2) some parts are left out due to time, but the rest sticks to the text anyway

... and in the context of film, neither works. In the context of film, you're sacrificing cinematic artistic merit for the sake of sticking to the content of a vastly different medium.

"I think everybody here knew that there was going to be stuff cut out of the book, and many can be agreed with even if we don't like it, Bombadil, Old Forest, Crickhollow, but when key scenes from the book, that are very important to the plot and character development, are cut out for big special effects scenes that have nothing to do with the story or plot to me is not understandable, other than trying to please the everyday movie goers. Best example is the stairway scene in Moria over the gift giving scene for the theater release. I didn't mind the staircase scene to much when I first saw the movie, but after seeing the EE I couldn't believe they had cut that great scene, and for what? Action, special effects, and movie sales. For special effects it is an amazing scene, as for the story it had no place, it took out time that could have been used for character development or a number of things."

To assume that every change was made to "please everyday moviegoers" is a ridiculous argument. The bit in Moria was indeed gratuitous in a way, and the fact that the gift-giving scene was nudged out was a problem I had with the original theatrical release. But it was solved, so that's not even worth discussing... the Extended Edition takes care of a lot of issues.

Whether or not the gift-giving scene was "key to the plot" is a different issue. Except for the Phial of Galadriel, which was in the original cut, everything there was covered implicitly. They all left Lothlorien with the Elven cloaks, for example. The restoration of that scene in the DVD was much welcomed, though.

[IronParrot]

GW:

"What I am saying is that Lord of the Rings is Tolkien's work. And if Tolkien feels a certain way about his work, and thinks that it should be treated in a certain way, than I think that reasonable people will, if not agree, than at least respect the intent and purpose of the creator."

Tolkien didn't know enough about film to make a qualified decision, and furthermore, LOTR was indeed unfilmable while he was alive. Things have since changed.

"You almost had me there. But when I thought about it more, what really are those? It seems to me that they're just a few bones thrown to keep the savage, hungry fans happy."

And there's something wrong with that? Additionally, they total up to a lot more than "just a few bones". There is an incredible amount of verbatim dialogue that non-fans would not recognize as verbatim. That alone allows those familiar with the book to have an additional layer of appreciation for the material.

I believe I did have you there, thank you very much.

"I disagree. Personally, I think that if someone creates a world or a story, that world or story is, in a way, "sacred" to them, that they should be almost revered in regards to that story. Certainly, I would think Tolkien would have jurisdiction over say, Lewis' Space Trilogy. However, as he created the Lord of the Rings, I think that out of at the very least courtesy, if not any actual respect for him, his views and wishes should be respected, and placed higher than those of one who decides to make movies on his works, or those who study his works. Personally, I find claiming to know someone better than they themselves know them pretentious."

I'm not claiming that I (or anybody else) know Tolkien better than he does. Nobody's claimed that - especially the people working on the film itself. As I've said on numerous occasions, they don't know Tolkien better than Tolkien, but they sure as hell know cinema better than Tolkien. And as the film is an independent artistic entity first and an adaptation second, as it rightly should be, this is the right direction.

"He was against allegory. But I do not think that he meant for his story to be analysed, dissected, observed, taken apart, etc., but for it to be read and enjoyed. Though if you provide good evidence to the contrary, I'm sure I will listen to you."

I believe the burden of proof is on you, if you're to make such a statement. All works are subject to analysis. All works worth mentioning, anyhow. If Tolkien didn't mean for us to analyze and dissect his work, let's delete Entmoot to comply with his wishes, why don't we?

Tolkien was an English scholar himself. His theses, particularly regarding Beowulf, were largely founded on the idea of looking at the historical and cultural significance of languages and literature rather than quibbling about trivial details on a microscopic level. Compare this to, say, your approach to the film.

"Personally, I think that the author dictating what everything is supposed to mean is greatly separate from the author dictating what everything is."

The latter case does not exist.