The Irony of Jackson Bashing

[Black Breathalizer]

I find it ironic that some fans of the books cannot come to terms with the changes that Peter Jackson has made to their beloved story. One would think that true "Book Purists" would be more accepting of the changes since the inevitability of change was the overriding theme of JRR Tolkien's story. In Tolkien's Middle-Earth -- like our own world -- nothing ever stays the same, even for immortals.

Ironically, by getting so worked up by what they see as Jackson's failure to rigidly adhere to a page-by-page, scene-by-scene replay of the books, they have lost sight (or never really truly comprehended) what Tolkien was telling us in the first place.

[Falagar]

I've never said anything about this, this'll be my first post on the subject.

Not all changes are for the good. Lots of people think that those changes that were done were bad changes. Why else would they complain? If it was a good change they would still like the movie, perhaps some small muttering about "that's not how it was done in the book" and then gone back to see (and enjoy) the movie again.

I've read a couple of threads on this topic, and as far as I have understood it has been discussed many times before without a good result. This thread looks suspiciously like a flame-bait.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I find it ironic that some fans of the books cannot come to terms with the changes that Peter Jackson has made to their beloved story.

1) Not my story, its JRRT's story . I wondered at the reasons chosen by PJ&Co to film LOTR the way they did. In some cases the choices made in the film do not make sense (if one was attempting to do a book adaptation to film)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer One would think that true "Book Purists" would be more accepting of the changes since the inevitability of change was the overriding theme of JRR Tolkien's story. In Tolkien's Middle-Earth -- like our own world -- nothing ever stays the same, even for immortals.

2) True: . . .nothing remains the same.
Some changes that PJ&CO. made are fine, by me anyway :
Removing the old forest, Tom B., and the Barrow wright.
Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen.
as two examples
Some changes that PJ&CO. made do not make sense:
Flight to Ford
Weathertop
as two examples

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer Ironically, by getting so worked up by what they see as Jackson's failure to rigidly adhere to a page-by-page, scene-by-scene replay of the books, they have lost sight (or never really truly comprehended) what Tolkien was telling us in the first place.

3)I disagree with your assessment. (though you may be correct with some people )

I think some people are upset since they were "sold" goods under false advertising.

It was reported that PJ was a fan of LOTR and would film LOTR based on a fans perspective. I think this raised many fans expectations of how the films would adapt LOTR to film.

Since these films were expected to be a good adaptation of LOTR, when people go and see what has become of certain characters, places and events in the book they are naturally upset.

Some changes that were done for time constraints can be understandable. Tom B. & Old Forest being cut out is one example.

Some changes that contradicts what occured in the book is not forgivable, especially when doing the scene correctly would have taken as much time as doing the scene incorrectly. "Flight to the Ford" is one example.

Some additions were aggravating especially when they came at the expense of bringing material from LOTR to film.
Trip to Osilgoth(sp?) compared to the scant amount time given to Fangorn forest and the Ents is one example.

Bakshi's version of the first half of LOTR (even with all its problems) at least added very little if any additions of his own to LOTR. You may complain that too much was dropped from LOTR in his version ( and I would agree), but I think IMHO that an effort was made to stay true to the spirit if not the actual text of LOTR.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Falagar
This thread looks suspiciously like a flame-bait.

You are probably right.

[Black Breathalizer]

Obviously, my point has escaped at least one poster. Let me try again:

Tolkien was notorious for writing different versions of the same events in Middle-Earth. In fact, his son Chrisopher has made a career editing his father's writings on the subject of Middle-Earth. Tolkien admitted he did this for his own amusement. I'm sure it also came from his understanding that the oral and written histories of any culture are very different depending on who you ask and their point of view. To illustrate this, we see a world that has different version of events, different names for people, and different perspectives. In every way, shape, and form, Tolkien was a champion of diversity and understood that change is not good or bad, it is simply the nature of things -- in our world as in Middle-Earth.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Obviously, my point has escaped at least one poster. Let me try again:

Tolkien was notorious for writing different versions of the same events in Middle-Earth. In fact, his son Chrisopher has made a career editing his father's writings on the subject of Middle-Earth. Tolkien admitted he did this for his own amusement. I'm sure it also came from his understanding that the oral and written histories of any culture are very different depending on who you ask and their point of view. To illustrate this, we see a world that has different version of events, different names for people, and different perspectives. In every way, shape, and form, Tolkien was a champion of diversity and understood that change is not good or bad, it is simply the nature of things -- in our world as in Middle-Earth.

Indeed, and I personally think that Jackson did a good job with FotR (and I enjoyed TTT, when I managed to separate it from Tolkien's books). Actually waiting eagerly for RotK, having slept in queue for tickets.

But, as I mentioned, haven't this been discussed before? And always with it resulting in flaming...

[LuthienTinuviel]

flame bait? BB, no! never!

[hectorberlioz]

Tolkien was notorious for writing different versions of the same events in Middle-Earth. In fact, his son Chrisopher has made a career editing his father's writings on the subject of Middle-Earth. Tolkien admitted he did this for his own amusement. I'm sure it also came from his understanding that the oral and written histories of any culture are very different depending on who you ask and their point of view. To illustrate this, we see a world that has different version of events, different names for people, and different perspectives. In every way, shape, and form, Tolkien was a champion of diversity and understood that change is not good or bad, it is simply the nature of things -- in our world as in Middle-Earth.

I dont see what this has to do with Jackson having a right to change the story.
It was tolkiens world, he can change it if he wants.
Jackson, on the other hand was supposed to be putting the story on film. He was trusted with it. Midlle Earth is not his to change.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Some changes that PJ&CO. made do not make sense:
Flight to Ford
Weathertop
as two examples

How do those not make sense? I'm trying to figure out how they don't. I thought they both did, especially Weathertop, I really liked the way Weathertop was done...Please explain...

[Melko Belcha]

mithrand1r I agree with what you said. One of my biggest complaints of the films is the character changes, but to me the capturing of the characters is the most important thing when bringing a book to film. But it is not as much the changes and the stuff that was cut out that upsets me, it is all the additions. I know everybody here agrees that filming the whole book word for word was not going to happen, there are even some scenes from the book I don't think would have translated well to the screen, like Bombadil, even though I love his part in the book. I can agree with the Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow-downs being cut, it sucks, but I can live with it. It is when these long, time consuming additions come up that do nothing to drive the story further along and fall short of the original story that it makes me mad. Every addition takes time away from something from the book that could have been filmed, and then we hear the excuse that "well the whole book couldn't have been filmed". No it couldn't, but we could have had more of the book then all this other stuff that has nothing to do with the original. The first interviews I read of PJ's when I first heard about the films he said that his intention was to bring Tolkien's book to life, but after the movie comes out I hear him say that this is his adaptation, his version of the story. What happened to bringing Tolkien's story to life? I guess the reason I am upset the most is because I feel that Tolkien's LotR could make a great film, and there is enuff in the films out now to prove it could be done, but what we have right now is not Tolkien's LotR', it is a re-written LotR. Maybe by the time I'm 60 someone might do a film more true to the book, but I don't see it happening, unless maybe a CG movie like the Final Fantasy one, I can only hope.

[Dúnedain]

My biggest problem with the Movie bashing is that there is so much negativity about things that were changed and not any positives given to the great things that have been accomplished.

First and foremost, this masterpiece of a work by Tolkien was brought to life. Second the beauty of the story is something we can all see. For instance, think about Edoras, that was unbelievable how detailed and beautiful that was. I always pictured Edoras as being gorgeous, but the movie totally outdid what my imagination was of it. They built that thing for 8 months, filmed on it for a matter of days and yet they still had the sense to put in the most minute detail that will probably never be seen on film and then they tore it all down. Why are things like that never given great credit? Instead people like to sit back and bitch about a change here or there.

Yes, some changes I didn't like either, but at the same time there are so many more positives for me than a couple things here or there that are negative or changed. Also, like someone said above, not all the changes were negative.

At first I hated that Glorfindel wasn't included and was replaced by Arwen. However after seeing the movie more and reading the books again and again, I like the fact that Arwen was given to us more in the movie, because she was such an integral role to the life of Aragorn, which you can closely read in the Appendices about Arwen and Aragorn's tale.

My favorite part of LotR's, which is "The Passing of the Grey Company" and the tale of the Paths of the Dead, is going to be changed in Return of the King, but I am sure I will still like the outcome, because the story still isn't changed, only scenes are.

In addition to that, I remember when the movie first came out, people were bitching about Dialogue, well hello, Tolkien didn't always write in dialogue for certain scenes.

I don't know, maybe I can just see past things better than others. For me the movies are more of a celebration and not a critique. They bring to life one of my favorite books of all time and I commend the effort, time and research put into them. Ultimately, the world of Tolkien has only been helped by this and more people can understand his true greatness in the art of writing...

[Melko Belcha]

Dúnedain I understand and respect everything you said. I do give credit to the special effects, the sets, and all the small details of costume. Whether or not I liked the way the character was portraid in the film , I though the cast was fantastic. But as I said above the number one thing to me is capturing the characters. All the rest, the sets, costumses, weapons, are all secondary to the characters. And it is all the stuff that you pointed out that makes me even more upset with the changes. They took the time to make this stuff for this film, and this story deserved that attention to detail, but then not to have the story I had been praying for and heard I was suppost to get made every change and addition that much worse. If this was a low budget film and did not have the level of detail, I probably would not have cared as much. But it goes the other way to, if it had been a low budget film with good acting, bad special effects, but stayed true to the book I would probably be praising the movie right now. Every good thing done in the films have made the changes and additions that much worse.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
How do those not make sense? I'm trying to figure out how they don't. I thought they both did, especially Weathertop, I really liked the way Weathertop was done...Please explain...

To be clearer:

The Flight to Ford scene, I would have prefered it if it left Frodo with the lines he had and showed his defiance to the Blk Riders. The line by Arwen seemed a little out of place, IMHO.

Weathertop:

I should not have used the word contradict for this instance. My apologies.

I would have prefered it to how it was described in the book.
I think I am nitppicky with this scene, so take it for what you will.

[brownjenkins]

i don't think being "true to the book" has anything to do with making a good movie (kubrick's "The Shining" is a great example of this... especially when you compare it to the much-worse yet much more literal version that stephen king put out a few years back)

i loved the first two movies... sure, i would change some things and truely disliked a few (probably the casting of galadriel the most, maybe sam second)... that said, they still rank among my favorites... i loved the opening sequence... i thought merry and pip added a good bit of humor that is really needed in a movie of this kind... the flight to the ford thing was not like the book, but still exciting in its own way

i really try to approach it with the "would i like this if i knew nothing about the book"

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i really try to approach it with the "would i like this if i knew nothing about the book"

By that std. the movies are enjoyable.

Scenery very good
Music very good
Some corny jokes (ie drawf tossing)
Acting is generally good.

[jerseydevil]

YOu know- I have really been giving this a lot of thought lately and I must say - I am starting to see BB as being right. I'll have more about this later. I need to run off and watch FotR and TT back to back right now.

[Telcontar]

I still don't get all the complaining. The main part of the story is unchanged, and more than 75% of the events occurred just as in the book. You gotta remember that this movie was made to not only entertain LOTR fans, but to entertain a wide range of audience. It could not be made solely for book enthusiasts, otherwise the movie would've been 8 hours long. Frodo still got to Rivendell despite being hurt at Amon Sul, Gandalf fell, Boromir fell in pretty much the same manner, etc. Plus, a lot of the lines from the books were used in the movie. PJ did not sell out, I'm sure there was pressure from the studio to make it more appealing to a wide audience. Think of how gay Tom Bambadil would've looked on screen prancing around and singing.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
YOu know- I have really been giving this a lot of thought lately and I must say - I am starting to see BB as being right. I'll have more about this later. I need to run off and watch FotR and TT back to back right now.

Anyone else saw that? Or am I going mad?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
My biggest problem with the Movie bashing is that there is so much negativity about things that were changed and not any positives given to the great things that have been accomplished...

Excellent post, Dunedain. You nailed it. I particularly liked your comments about Arwen. Rather than bash the flight to the ford, book purists can return to their book whenever they need a new 'flight to the ford' fix. Yet they can also revel in the magic of a relationship that defines Aragorn that has been brought to the big screen. This is a time to celebrate the individual joys of the books and the films and the wonderful way the two compliment each other.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Telcontar
Think of how gay Tom Bambadil would've looked on screen prancing around and singing.

LOL! That is so damn true