Re-reading the book after watching the film

[IronParrot]

Now, we've had a lot of threads around here about how people felt about the book if they only read it for the first time after seeing the film. We've also had countless discussions within those who were familiar with the book before watching the film regarding how faithful it was or wasn't.

Before The Fellowship of the Ring was released in theatres, I'd read The Lord of the Rings from beginning to end perhaps five times, every time in successively increasing detail. Several weeks ago I finally read the whole thing cover-to-cover for the first time since I watched the film, and I noticed many, many things.

What surprised me the most was that although, even as a staunch defender of the film, I knew there were a lot of things that were different... it wasn't the differences that stuck out, it was the similarities.

What absolutely floored me, in effect, was just how faithful to the book the film was. (And keep in mind that at this point, I'd only watched the first film, and not even the Extended Edition at that.)

The visuals were obviously taken care of to a great extent, in terms of "creating" the sets of Middle-Earth on screen. Having watched the film in fact highlighted visual details that I'd never really retained before. About this matter, there is little debate.

What impressed me the most, though, was the dialogue. The writing of the film was far closer to the book than I'd ever imagined. Even the opening lines of Galadriel's narration are grafted from something Treebeard says in ROTK, something I'd never noticed before. The experience of having watched the film just highlighted how elegant Tolkien's writing originally was, and how quotable it yet becomes when one hears it spoken in context.

In fact, reading the whole thing over again made me appreciate the film even more.

Those of you who haven't tried this yet, I recommend that you do so immediately.

[cassiopeia]

I agree with you, IP. I too was struck by how close the dialogue in the movie was to the book. When I read the book after seeing the movie, I was thinking, oh that was in the movie. The dialogue that I liked which was in the book and movie were: Sams telling Gandalf not to turn him into anything unatural, Galadriels mirror scene and Gandalfs 'fool of a took'. I am so glad they put in Frodo's 'looks fairer but feels fouler' remark in the extended editon. That should have been in the theatrical version.

[Nibs]

Very true... and I like to think that any changes they made to adapt it were not made flippantly or with the intent to alter the books we know and love. They just made a great story fit into three separate three-hour intervals.

I liked the Extended Version even better, because it gave a little more depth to the characters as they interacted. Especially the Aragorn/Boromir scene.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I found that re-reading had the opposite result. I was struck by how much was missing and by how much of the film was not in the book at all. The Sauruman scenes could have been cut way back to allow more time for the characters to develop. Afterall, Sauruman is an "offstage" character in the first book, and could have better been handled with flashbacks at Rivendell and by descriptions from other characters.

I find over and over in the film the director and co. opted for "formula" action scenes whenever they could, and when they got to points in the books where there were none, they either left those sections out (as in the case of the three consecutive chapters Old Forest, Bombadil and Barrowdowns) or they invented stuff, like Moria fights, collapsing stairs and orc births.

How anyone could think a sword fight on weathertop was a better idea than the suspense filled scene in the book of the company seated backs to the fire waiting, fearing, the wraiths would appear is beyond me and a perfect example of bombastic over subtle. Not to mention the burnt robes that grow back!

The inclusion of direct dialogue form the book was a noble attempt but serves only to highlight the "average Hollywood writing" that makes up the rest of the film. The inclusion of Frodo's "seem fairer feel fouler" comment about Aragorn in the exteneded cut is a great example of this momentary poetry.

[Elf.Freak]

i loved the movie, but there were some things that weren't in the movie that were in the book. i wish they'd done the book exactly as it was (and made the film last AGES! not that we mind... )

[Sween]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I found that re-reading had the opposite result. I was struck by how much was missing and by how much of the film was not in the book at all. The Sauruman scenes could have been cut way back to allow more time for the characters to develop. Afterall, Sauruman is an "offstage" character in the first book, and could have better been handled with flashbacks at Rivendell and by descriptions from other characters.
I find over and over in the film the director and co. opted for "formula" action scenes whenever they could, and when they got to points in the books where there are none, they either left those sections out (as in the case of the three consecutive chapters Old Forest, Bombadil and Barrowdowns) or they invented stuff, like Moria fights, collapsing stairs and orc births.
How anyone could think a sword fight on weathertop was a better idea than the suspence filled scene in the book of the company seated backs to the fire waiting, fearing, the wraiths would appear is beyond me and a perfect example of bombastic over subtle. Not to mention the burnt robes that grow back!

saurman as written in the book would not work in the movie. you in film need a certain pressence of evil (a big eye is not enough) some of the shots round isengard were beautiful and showed his decline into darkness very well.

Now the old journy to bree is well done on this site and ill let you off cos your new here but we are all pretty much in agreement that they would not of worked in a film it would of ended up been about 5 hours long for them to of been done well and would of taken away most of the flow of the movie.

they did not invent the moria fight its in the book. In fairness to the written word for skirmishes like that they are dificult to write and dont quite transfer like in the movies. the battle sceans just catch your eye more in a movie thats it.

I thought it was great they had them all fightingin the film at the end. Frodo and Aragorn got there moment together which i thought was a master stroke and aragorns and bormoirs goodbye took on a lot of meaning.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I like your Jackson quote of the eye not being enough of a villain. But I didn't buy it when he tried it either. The villain in the first book is not an eye, the villains are many, 9 ringwraiths, a spy in Bree, orcs in Moria, a Balrog etc. It is typical Hollwood thinking that one must have a single person represent the villain in a film. Hollywood can't handle many of the "themes' in these books. Where was the Fear of the wraiths? A brilliant creation by Tolkien, an entity that overwhelms one with fear itself, not fear of the entity. why not explore this?

The fight in the book is a quick skirmish with 13 orcs, not a full blown brawl with a cave troll, and that is my point. Action expanded characters diminished.


I also liked Jackson's quote that he thought a physical fight between old wizards would be "humerous" I don't think humour was Tolkien's intention when he invisoned a confrontation between these two characters. Jackson does not have the "spirit" of this story whatsoever.

[jerseydevil]

I agree with squinteyedsoutherner. For one thing the Moria fight was invented. The fellowship nebver fought the cave troll. The fight seen was much smaller in moria against the orcs. Even walking into Moria was overblown in the movie. The didn't know anything had happened until they got to Balin's tomb in the book - whereas you know right away that the dwarves have all been killed in the movie the moment they walk through the gates.

I've never disagreed that Jackson did a great job at bringing the scenary of Middle Earth alive - but as far as I'm concerned - he did that and little else.

He could have built up the suspense. Look at a lot of the great horror movies - such as Halloween. That is the way I think the Ringwraiths should have been portrayed - particularly on weathertop. They weren't an "active evil" - and I think a better director (as long as they truly were a fan of the books) could have brought the suspense to the movie and kept it closer to the books. As I pointed out on another thread - Aragorn himself lights a fire and tells the hobbits that it will bring some protection in the book.

I also noticed and pointed out on various threads that the black riders cloacks miraculously appear unburnt in the flight to the ford scene.

After listening to Jackson talk about the making of the movie on the Directors commentary - I was wondering if he was TRULY a fan of the books or if he just thought it would make a cool movie. His knowledge of the books seemed to be lacking when he would talking about various things.

Sorry - I stand by my feelings that Jackson turned a great book into an action movie.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I was shocked at the commentary! I have often wondered;

did the writers suffer from hubris or ignorance?

Now I know.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I like your Jackson quote of the eye not being enough of a villan. But I didn't buy it when he tried it either. The villan in the first book is not an eye, the villans are many, 9 ringwraiths, a spy in Bree, orcs in Moria, a Balrog etc. It is typical Hollwood thinking that one must have a single person represent the villan in a film. Hollywood can't handle many of the "themes' in these books. Where was the Fear of the wraiths? A brilliant creation by Tolkien, an entity that overwhelms one with fear itself, not fear of the entity. why not explore this?

The fight in the book is a quick skirmish with 13 orcs, not a full blown brawl with a cave troll, and that is my point. Action expanded characters diminished.


I also liked Jackson's quote that he thought a physical fight between old wizards would be "humerous" I don't think humour was Tolkien's intention when he invisoned a confrontation between these two characters. Jackson does not have the "spirit" of this story whatsoever.

I guess you were typing this as I was typing my post.

In the commentary - Jackson says that he hates wizards using magic in fantasy movies. He might want to be reminded that Gandalf never used "magic" except on the Misty Mountains - and even then he says "'...I at least am revealed to them,' he said. 'I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.'"

Jackson makes no sense - in one breath he says that having a "fireworks" fight between Gandalf and Saruman would be too humurous and people would laugh - then he gives us the ridiculous wizards duel (and break dancing Gandalf). If he doesn't like wizards using magic in fantasy movies - then why did he bother to add in things that weren't even in the books - such as Saruman calling up the storm as they cross Caradhras?

Concerning the eye and the villians - I agree. There have been many horror and suspense movies where the villain wasn't clear cut. The fact that he said that the audience needed Saruman to be the main evil character is ridiculous. He could have built up the pyscological horror of the ringwraiths - as they are in the book. He could have had the eye a little more the way it is in the book (more as if it's searching and the longer you have the ring on the closer it gets to finding the wearer), instead the eye is in your face all the time.

[IronParrot]

This is less ignorance on Peter Jackson's part than it is misinterpretation on your part, I'm afraid. In your argument, you're using a tautological approach to the word "magic" to support your point. That doesn't hold water.

Obviously what Peter Jackson meant by saying that he didn't want a "fireworks" duel between Gandalf and Saruman is that he didn't want them shooting visible beams at each other. Why that's so difficult to understand, I can't see.

And as for Saruman bringing the mountain down, perhaps you don't remember that in the book, it was left ambiguous as to the cause of the storms that impeded them on Caradhras, and it was in fact suggested that Sauron himself could be responsible. I don't see how there's any sort of contradiction going on here. (It's yet another point that I only picked out from the book this time, I should note.)

Once again, some of you don't have the crucial appreciation of the intrinsic difference between film and the written word as storytelling media. Film is drama, and drama is based on interactions spurred by conflicts. Film has less room to be expository. It only makes perfect sense that everything be reduced to identifiable conflicts in order to move the story along. That's why you need Saruman as an identifiable villain in the first film - and besides, even within the film itself, I don't see how he's somehow "more" of a villain than Sauron. Sauron is identified as the major villain from the very beginning.

I would like to ask jerseydevil at this point - how would you shoot a scene of the Eye roaming Middle-Earth searching for the Ring? A wide shot of the map with the Eye roving back and forth?

As for the Cave Troll, on a visual level, that certainly made Frodo's saved-by-the-mithril stabbing look a lot more painful than if he was just speared by an ordinary orc.

"His knowledge of the books seemed to be lacking when he would talking about various things."

I don't see any indication that your "knowledge" of the books is any better.

Once again, liberties are absolutely necessary for visual storytelling alone to envelop all of the various senses that words are free to describe. Otherwise, the film would have ended up as another Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - so slavishly faithful to the original source that editing it to a reasonable runtime resulted in a choppy film that wasn't all too interesting from an original, artistic perspective.

You could go on and on about how Lawrence of Arabia should have stuck to The Seven Pillars of Wisdom scene-for-scene, but then where is there room for personal interpretation, the foundation of all art?

And once again, I hold to the position that a closer examination of the book reveals that the most important element, the essence of the story's themes and dynamics, is about as intact as it gets.

It's amazing how much material I originally thought was new, was actually in Tolkien's text all along.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by IronParrot
This is less ignorance on Peter Jackson's part than it is misinterpretation on your part, I'm afraid. In your argument, you're using a tautological approach to the word "magic" to support your point. That doesn't hold water.

Obviously what Peter Jackson meant by saying that he didn't want a "fireworks" duel between Gandalf and Saruman is that he didn't want them shooting visible beams at each other. Why that's so difficult to understand, I can't see.

I perfectly understood what jackson was referring to. I just think it's ridiculous to claim that having fire spouting from their wands is ridiculous - yet he has Gandalf spinning on the ground on his head. I personally think that the wizards duel should not have even have been in the movie - with or withouth fire spouting from their wands.

And as for Saruman bringing the mountain down, perhaps you don't remember that in the book, it was left ambiguous as to the cause of the storms that impeded them on Caradhras, and it was in fact suggested that Sauron himself could be responsible. I don't see how there's any sort of contradiction going on here. (It's yet another point that I only picked out from the book this time, I should note.)

I agree that the book is not very clear on this - but Tolkien seems to say that it's the mountain itself that is angry that they are attempting to cross. Again I don't think it was necessary to have Saruman calling up the storm.

(Gimli) 'It was no ordinary storm. It is the ill will of Caradhras.'
...
....with a deep rumble there rolled down a fall of stones and slithering snow...when the air cleared again they saw that the path was blocked behind them.
...
...with that last stroke the malice of the mountain seemed to be expended, as if Caradhras was satisified that the invaders had been beaten off and would not dare return.

I would hope that even Jackson knows that the weather can play the anatagonist also. Instead he has to have Gandalf and Saruman battling against each other.

Also - there was no reason to have the fellowship completely covered in the avalanche. It's also pretty impossible for them NOT to have gone over the edge in that scene. I have been on edges like that at Mt Rainier and they would have been over it in a second.

Once again, some of you don't have the crucial appreciation of the intrinsic difference between film and the written word as storytelling media. Film is drama, and drama is based on interactions spurred by conflicts. Film has less room to be expository. It only makes perfect sense that everything be reduced to identifiable conflicts in order to move the story along. That's why you need Saruman as an identifiable villain in the first film - and besides, even within the film itself, I don't see how he's somehow "more" of a villain than Sauron. Sauron is identified as the major villain from the very beginning.

Oh yes - the identifiable villian. Do you know how many movies would never have been produced if it was a requirement to ALWAYS have an identifiable villian? There are tons of suspenseful movies that have faceless nameless villians. The problem is it takes a director with more talent to make it. It's a lot easier to throw together special affects and action scenes - no matter what the level of detail is - than it is to actually make people sit on the edge of there seat and keep them in suspense.

I would like to ask jerseydevil at this point - how would you shoot a scene of the Eye roaming Middle-Earth searching for the Ring? A wide shot of the map with the Eye roving back and forth?

No - I thought it should be portrayed as originating from Mordor - searching - with fast flight sequences over Middle Earth as it gets closer and closer to Frodo. Then it shows that the eye is searching for Frodo - but it hardly ever finds his exact location.

As for the Cave Troll, on a visual level, that certainly made Frodo's saved-by-the-mithril stabbing look a lot more painful than if he was just speared by an ordinary orc.

Yeah - he made it more action oriented - even with the stupid slow motion as frodo screamed in pain.

I don't see any indication that your "knowledge" of the books is any better.

Well I guess that's your opinion that I don't know the books.

If you can show me where Aragorn is running from his heritage, where Gandalf acts like Saruman's whipped dog - then okay, maybe then I'd agree with you.

I do have to reread the book again - I've only read it 13 times.

[jerseydevil]

Once again, liberties are absolutely necessary for visual storytelling alone to envelop all of the various senses that words are free to describe. Otherwise, the film would have ended up as another Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - so slavishly faithful to the original source that editing it to a reasonable runtime resulted in a choppy film that wasn't all too interesting from an original, artistic perspective.

You could go on and on about how Lawrence of Arabia should have stuck to The Seven Pillars of Wisdom scene-for-scene, but then where is there room for personal interpretation, the foundation of all art?

And once again, I hold to the position that a closer examination of the book reveals that the most important element, the essence of the story's themes and dynamics, is about as intact as it gets.

It's amazing how much material I originally thought was new, was actually in Tolkien's text all along.

I disagree with you - and I DO understand the differences between film and book. But a lot of things could have been done to bring out the suspense. Halloween is more of a psycological horror movie than a slice and dice. LotR% was turned into a slice and dice movie.

And it annoys me that people keep acting as if I wouldn't accept any deviation from the book. That isn't true - but the thing is - so much that was changed didn't have to be. There could have been enough psycological suspense in the movie to keep people entertained with action sequences interspersed. Instead Jackson just had action sequence after action sequence.

[Erawyn]

What is wrong with changing a few things anyways? Why is it such a big deal if Jackson changed some things to make his movie? I agree with IP about the Harry Potter thing. That movie was horribly boring, just key scenes from the book acted out, with none of the feeling or detail that made the books moderately good. Jackson succeeded, if by altering things, to give the movie at least some of the detail and feeling that was in LOTR, much more than columbus and co. did by sticking unfailingly to the harry potter books.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
What is wrong with changing a few things anyways? Why is it such a big deal if Jackson changed some things to make his movie? I agree with IP about the Harry Potter thing. That movie was horribly boring, just key scenes from the book acted out, with none of the feeling or detail that made the books moderately good. Jackson succeeded, if by altering things, to give the movie at least some of the detail and feeling that was in LOTR, much more than columbus and co. did by sticking unfailingly to the harry potter books.

You can't compare The Lord of the Rings with Harry Potter. I can hate the movie or dislike it all I want - even if it's "Jackson's" movie. I didn't think it was as good as it could have been or should have been. It was good as an action movie - that is all.

[Lizra]

Boy, I sure wish I had tons of free time to re-read the books, watch the movie, maybe listen to the books on CD, watch the movies again, Since I don't, all I can add to this is.... I loved the books, and have been thrilled that someone made this beautiful film. I went thirty years between first reading of LoTR and seeing the new movie. I almost forgot Tolkien at different times in those 30 years, but now thanks to the movies (and forums!) I'll never forget the pleasures of Tolkien's work. Though the film is not perfect, it's given me lots of pleasure. Bilbo, is so wonderful in the film!

[Nibs]

There was soooo much action and characterization and background to introduce... into just three hours! I think P.J. and the crew did a fine job of giving a stunning visual "Reader's Digest" version of Fellowship of the Ring (you know, skip a chapter here, omit a character there), and I look forward to viewing the sequels.

After all, if all of us were to abridge the story contained in The Lord of the Rings to fit, say, a three-hour interval, we'd all have different views on things to include or omit (or alter)... just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong, flawed, or inferior.

[Amandil]

Reader's Digest indeed. *buried head in hands*

Here's my summary of this thread: Peter Jackson made a movie (not a film) for the weak of mind. Sounds like Holywood generally.

Oh, and regarding the "personal interpretation as the foundation of all art" idea, I beg to differ. "Personal interpretation" didn't even show up in the history of art until the late Renaissance (or so) when people started signing their names to works. That this sort of hubris was absent in the preceeding millenia of human history, I submit, means that either there was no art in human history until around the Renaissance, or personal interpretation is entirely contingent to good art. If Peter Jackson reallly loved the works of Tolkien, he wouldn't have been so concerned with putting his own mark on it. Did anyone give a rat's ass about Peter Jackson before they knew he was going to make these movies, and why should we give a rat's ass about his personal opinion now? What, is the slob some kind of genius? Somehow I doubt these films are going to put PJ in the Hitchcock-Kurosawa (sp?) category of great artists...

...but I rant.

[Maren]

I too am reading the books again after seeing the movie countless times!

Re-reading really makes me appreciate the grandeur of the story again, and it refreshes me to watch the movie because I can notice the fluid truths in the film more easily.

Reading the books again also make me really wish they would have put Glorfindel in the movie, and it makes me love the books even more than I did before!

Maren

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Jackson may have made the only kind of film you can make when this much money is at stake. That is the only defence one can seriously present. I am sure the pressures of the studio and their investors are formidable.

The arguement that all the changes made in the film are cinamatic necessities is nonsense.

I once read in letters that the original title of the rings was "Let's Hunt Some Orc!" So I am glad to see that little bone thrown to the fans.