Could Tolkien himself please some?

[bropous]

I assert that some had gone into the theaters with the set intention of finding every fault, every variation, every inconsistency possible to justify their rage that they were not consulted by Mr. Jackson personally on each and every nuance.

Tolkien himself cared little for the fans who took the books as if they had written it themselves, did he not? Those who placed an illegitimate claim upon his masterworks offended the great Master himself. I think we may be seeing a few of that variety of Tolkien lovers popping up railing against the film, taking potshots at Mr. Jackson for this or that change.

Okay, I never cared for Liv Tyler, was pretty darned disappointed she was cast in this film. Did she destroy it? Nope. The lady did a pretty good job, in my humble, hobbitish opinion.

The screenplay strayed from the books, admittedly. Okay, those who know Tolkien's world better than he did himself, how would YOU have made this film? Would you have, in an exact copy of the books, been able to keep the first installment under three hours? Would you have reached the part of the audience who never read the books? Would you have made it, as Mr. Jackson did, an invitation to thoise novices to pick up the books and tread all the way to Mordor with Frodo and Samwise?

The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and this Christmas pudding is telling. How many books were sold this year compared to last year? And, in my humble, hobbitish opinion, most of those sales were old Tolkien fans brushing up on the books prior to the film. NEXT year's book sales, counting from this year's December 19 on, should reflect those wonderful novices, new to the rich tapestry of Tolkien's Middle Earth, without whom the Master's works would fade, eventually, into obscurity.

I think, perhaps, just a few of us are just highly offended that the rest of the world have been invited into "our" world. Some revel in exclusivity, enjoying the thought that somehow they accessed that which was not so accessible, had trod a path taken by few, and relished knowing far more than anyone else about a road not frequently stepped upon even briefly, much less travelled to its end.

Now, millions more fans will be born, like the Firstborn awaking blinking in the rays of the newly-created Sun, emerging out of the dark forests over which night and starlight had held sway since the Beginning. This film is like Telperion herself blooming, spreading the light of Middle-Earth into the darkness of unknowing.

As I have said before, Mr. Jackson has done sterling work in the retelling of this incredibly baroque masterwork. He has introduced so many, who would have not kept attentive at a verbatim regurgitation, to the richness and depth of the Master's world. So many have left the theater and gone in search of the books, my dear friends, that our ranks are swelling by the thousands daily. The hosts of Tolkien fans are growing by leaps and bounds by the actions of another one of us, one who loves the books as deeply and as faithfully as do we.

Let us put down our swords and begin to forge a new alliance, an alliance welcoming others into our limited fold. Let us throw open the doors to Middle Earth and embrace the New Peoples as they populate "our" lands and learn of "our" quest.

And let us reach out and embrace Peter Jackson, and all the rest of the wonderful people who poured their hearts and souls into this quest, to bring to the screen that which we all so dearly love. Let us appreciate his labours and not nitpick the poor guy to death. No matter which one of us had been granted the wonderful opportunity, whomever did so would have ended up ticking off other fans.

So how would you have done different? And can you truly say that you would have been as successful in reaching those who never read the books as has been Mr. Jackson?

Again, in my humble, hobbitish opinion.

[HOBBIT]

I think that maybe some of the older more obsessed tolkien fans that have been making tolkien their life for so long, nothing would be good enough. Only their version or how they saw it would do for them.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

While I admit it was disappointing not to see my favorite quotes of the book in the movie. I would have to agree with bropoups... I had 4 friends buy the book and read it.(3 right before,1 After).
It was a terrific movie and like bropoups said it brought people to be interested in the books.

Im not saying that everyone who doesnt like the editings is an old stick in the mud but there maybe a few hypercritical...

The box office was 94mil. in the first week. If(which I know it won't) It stays at this rate it will make 564mil$ in the next 6 weeks.

[Walguy]

My main problem with this film is not what was edited out (such as the whole Bombadil/Old Forest sequence, which I thought was a very reasonable decision), or even what was added (such as the incredibly silly wizard fight), but in how what WAS taken from the book was so badly butchered. There's really no short answer to your question, but I could have taken the same scenes used in the movie and rewritten them so that the charcters and events were presented much more faithfully. A lot of the Saruman stuff (not just the fight) could have been easily eliminated, with Gandalf recapping the major points in visual flashbacks at the Council of Elrond (as in the book). The other fight scenes, especially the cave troll sequence, could have been significantly shortened. The time saved by these things could have been used for better character development, because it's the characters above all else that make LOTR so special. Getting the audience as involved with the characters as possible is something even professional wrestling understands. Why the logic of this basic element of presentation seems to have been lost on PJ is beyond me.
Yes, it's a very good thing that the movie has inspired greater book sales, but virtually ALL major movies made from books do that, regardless of quality. Perhaps many who read the books for the first time as a result of seeing the first movie will decide, based on how horrible an adaptation the first one was, that they don't want to see the other two, and the box office receipts for those movies will be sharply down from the first. That would certainly be poetic justice.

[bropous]

Thanks, Hobbit and Carden. Good points.

I wonder just how hamstrung Mr. Jackson may have been by the existence of the Ralph Bakshi cartoon. Recalling that film, many of the quotes were correct. Albeit a cartoonish and slightly melodramatic effort at times, I feel that whomever wrote the script for that one made the best use of Tolkien's language directly from the pages.

It is perhaps possible that Mr. Jackson was maybe steered away from using too many quotes directly from the books because of copyrights, either those held by the Tolkien family or those held by Mr. Bakshi's group over their version of the screenplay?

Plus, with the Tolkien family trying their best to obstruct the making of this film, is it not possible THEY might be at least a bit responsible for some of the shortcomings of the film? That maybe had there been at least some slight cooperation between, say, Mr. Jackson and Christopher Tolkien, that this film might have been more true to the books?

I am interested in what you folks think on these points.

[Hapira_Brandybuck]

I never thought of that maybe PJ was only given rights to certain chars (ie. no rights to Bombadil and without Bombadil there wouldn't be a barrow-downs or an Old Man Willow) and places

I I think the stuff with Gandalf vs. Sarumann and the rape of Isengard fits in very well otherwise there wouldn't be an explanation for Gandalf's delay and the Ents' vengence until the second or third movie

[andustar]

hmmmm I seem to remember reading that Christopher Tolkien and the rest of the Tolkien estate didn't want to co operate so that the film would not be seen in any way as an "official" version. Please if someone can find this... It was definately online, not in a printed newspaper...

I have to agree that the buisness with Saruman (both the orc stuff and the wizard battle) was a mistake. IMO it should not have been put in, but I'm not up in arms about it... there's only those parts and the scene with Aragorn and Arwen that were seriously bad, and that's a damn good score. Also, non Tolkieny people that I talked to didn't find them in any way "worse" than any other scene, and remember the point if these films, let me try to be clear here:

It is NOT to slavishly copy the books. That would NOT make a good film. It is also NOT only made for Tolkien fans. Therefore the additions and the cutting out of stuff was appropriate. I personally didn't like the stuff I mentioned above, but what film is absolutely perfect? and more than that, perfect for every single person who watches it? nope, not possible.

As for how "true" it was, I'm not going to repeat what people have already said about such things as Harry Potter trying so hard to be "true" that all the magic was lost. As long as the films manage to get the POINT and the MESSAGE and the STYLE (etc etc) of Tolkien's world accross to all, fan's and non fans of Tolkien,(and IMO they do) then they have succeeded. I'm not too bothered about the actual lines and if they are really word for word.

I still by indescribably far prefer the books, but a book and a film are such different ways of telling a story that the words they say in the books are often NOT GOING TO WORK in the film. I like the book better, but hey, I have yet to see a film that betters the book ( I said yet!) It would actually be impossible for any film to better the books in this case, and for me

so, that's my speech for the day. One of them, actually. I seem to be writing very long posts today, dunno why


andustar

[Walguy]

The only movie I've ever seen that was better than the book that inspired it was 'Field of Dreams.' 'Shoeless Joe' was a fairly good book, but in that case the alterations and omissions made in writing the screenplay actually improved the flow and made the story better. The screenwriter(s) also took what was a relatively minor issue in the book and used it as the payoff at the end, and this worked wonderfully well.
So I fully acknowledge that many alterations and omissions are required to transfer a story from page to screen. It is unquestionably possible to try too hard to be faithful to a book when making a movie. My problem with the LOTR movie is that it seems to me they didn't try at all. They must have started with a basic formula (action-adventure), and built the screenplay around that plan, instead of starting with the story and characters of the LOTR books, and adapting and cutting as necessary to turn it into a screenplay. Changes must be made, but there were just far too many unnecessary ones made in this case for anyone to credibly argue that the filmmakers cared at all about whether or not they were being faithful to the book.
It is impossible to capture all the magic of LOTR in any movie, but this one captured very little of it. I contend this is because doing so was simply not important to those who made it.

[bropous]

Personally, I feel the interwork between Saruman and Gandalf to have been exceedingly effective in laying the groundwork for the power that saruman has over Gandalf, as chief of the Istari order. Even the much-maligned "battle scene" between the two wizards, I feel, added to the depth of the conflict between the two powerful wizards, and explains to the uninitiated in the audience why Gandalf couldn't simply break out of Orthanc using some variety of wizardry. It shows he was truly bested by Saruman and translates the torment of Gandalf's being imprisoned in Orthanc.

I thought the Saruman scenes with the making of the Uruk-Hai to have been well-conceived and inseparable from the version of the story being told on the screen. This lays the groundwork for the treason of Saruman in The Two Towers, not only to the Free Peoples but to Sauron himself. Saruman out for himself, no matter what, two-faced bastige that he is!

I cannot think of a better choice to play Saruman than Christopher Lee. Fantastic!

[Walguy]

I think the perfect actor to play Saruman would have been Yul Brynner, with that wonderfully deep, melodic voice he had. Sadly, he's long gone now.

[bropous]

(smile) I can see him now, stalking about regally, a pharoah's hood on his bald pate, fake beard bristling from his chin, booming to his orcs, "Tell Moses and the Israelites they can have straw toi make bricks when I have in my hand the One Ring....So shall it be written, so shall it be done!"

I disagree lightheartedly. Christopher Lee would be a better Saruman, even were the esteemed Mr. Brenner still wrapped in this mortal coil....

[Arwenfan]

I totally agree with everything you said, Bropus. Speaking as one of the disdained Tolkien virgins! I adored the movie, which I'm going back to see as soon as I can. It's also made me buy the second book, and I'm sure, the third.

[bropous]

A hearty Entingish thanks, Arwenfan, you are obviously quite an insightful hobbit! [wink!]

[hama]

Random thoughts regarding the above posts:

1) Character development...please don't judge Jackson's character development in FotR versus that of LotR as a whole in written form. Remember you have only seen one third of the movie.

2) Tom Bombadil...If you have to make cuts which Jackson obviously had to, cutting out a character who never re-appears in the story and during his appearance in the source material does little more than dance around spouting inanities seems a rather easy cut.

3) What is all of this about the Tolkien Estate. They sold the rights to Saul Zaentz, d/b/a Tolkien Enterprises of all character and place names. Anything that is not strictly prohibited by J.R.R. Tolkien's Last Will and Testament is fair game. The Tolkien Estate has absolutely no control over what is produced and/or how it is produced/presented.

Bit of a rant so my apologies but I have actually sat down and suffered through adapting one of the greastest literary works of the last century to a different medium and therefore have little patience for "foolish Tooks" who sit back and take pot shots without offering constructive alternatives.

All in my humble opinion.

[bropous]

I'm curious as to how you had "...actually sat down and suffered through adapting one of the greastest literary works of the last century to a different medium...". Would you elaborate, hama?

I had heard the Tolkien family has been rent by this film, with Christopher Tolkien refusing to even speak to his son and grandson, who supported making the film. I can think of no one who knows the works of the Master better than Christopher, but I find it sad that the film would wound Ronald's family as it has done. I had also heard, and I am sorry but cannot recall the source, that the family had done its best to hamstring this project. How they would be able to do so, I am not aware.

Again, I think there had to be SOME obstacle to the use of direct quotes from the books in the film. There had to be SOME obstruction, either by copyright by Bakshi's screenplay [which did an excellent job of using direct quotes, BTW] or by the family not allowing some quotes to be used.