Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Black Breathalizer]

We seem to have a few Mooters here who are unable (or unwilling) to see the difference between a screenplay that strictly adheres to Tolkien's story on a scene-by-scene basis and one that captures the essence of Tolkien's great work. Capturing Tolkien's vision is not about whether Bombadil was included or whether Arwen took Frodo to the Ford but about nailing the themes that were important to Tolkien.

If you want to argue that Peter Jackson didn't follow Tolkien's story in filming the flight to the ford or the breaking of the fellowship, I will agree with you. (Although I would argue that PJ's changes were actually better for a movie adaptation.) But if you want to argue that PJ hasn't captured Tolkien's vision, I think you're all wet.

To illustrate my point, I would encourage any Mooter who would argue that Jackson hasn't captured Tolkien's vision to please provide specific examples of plot deviations that CHANGED THE UNDERLYING THEMES of Tolkien's story.

Let's see what real differences we come up with.

[Elvengirl]

I pretty much agree with you. I thought FOTR was great.
No PJ did not change the basic plot of the story and I understand that he couldn't put every single part in the movie (Tom Bombadill). I think the scenes that stayed true to the book (or as close as possible) were very well done and did capture Tolkien's vision.

But the changes he did make were not for the better, such as Arwen's flight to the ford, Faramir and Osgiliath, Haldir's death, and Aragorn's cliff scene. They were ridiculous changes that did nothing to enhance the story. They were a waste of time that could have been used to include some of Tolkien's great work. That is what I am disappointed about.

[Celebréiel]

well, IMHO, its impossible (damn hard) to say totally specific themes that Pj changed, because everyone that read the book has a different interpretation of it and what they got out of it. It depends also on where you are in life, your outlook. I know personally that re-reading lotr very recently I had a really different view of it and how things happend than when I first read it. Its annoying b/c Pj was all this is how Tolkiens work is and this is tolkiens work. Its one guys(a group of peoples *shrugs*) interpretation of it and what they viewed the themes to be... Even the most literal interpretation of the book probably wouldnt have nailed it down for everyone...maybe it would have been best to not make a movie at all.
Some people liked it...some people didnt,no matter how many times this topic is discussed.. its that simple.

[Elvellyn]

The movies -as movies- were great!
The movies -as interpretations of the books- were...uh so-so.

[olsonm]

I've rarely seen a literal film adaption of a lengthy book (or a historical event for that matter). Tolkien felt the story needed to be altered to make a good film. But there is no blue print for such alterations. Each adaptor must make those choices for themselves and for their story telling style and strengths. I feel PJ has done a good job in adapting the story while playing to his strengths as a story teller. I feel some of the complaints are unfounded because they critique parts of the story that PJ never attempted to adapt. However, I do believe there are some who genuinely don't like PJ's movies from an enterainment point-of-view.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The first theme I think of off the top of my head is Hobbits. Tolkien specifically stated that the Lord of the Rings was about Hobbits; indeed, in the prologue, he as well as says it.
Another is Characters. In his Letters, Tolkien said that he would hate the defamation of the characters more than the ruining of the plot, IIRC.
I could mention the Orcs as a follow-up to characters, but that couldn't really be described as a Theme, but rather an intrinsic part of the world.

[BeardofPants]

*Yawn* This has been done so, so many times before. My biggest problem is with the reduction of the role of the hobbits, and the shift to the "world of men." I have several others, but really, BB, you're a waste of space, and I can't be arsed going through another cyclic tirade where I try and argue, and you flame me, and slither around like the slimy little wormtongue you are. Oh whoops, was that OT?

*round, and round, and round we go...*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To quote a certain Istar: "If only he could be cured."

[azalea]

I'm going to give a pre-emptive warning here about this topic. everyone seems to get very emotional and upset when discussing it, for some reason. I just want to go ahead and remind everyone not to flame, to stay civil and on-topic, or just don't bother posting. I hate to have to keep closing valid threads due to their ruination caused by flaming and off-topic silliness, so Crickhollow and I may have to decide instead to take action against specific people, rather than close the thread. I guess it will just depend on how it goes. Please don't post if you cannot say something constructive. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. *End rant*

On topic: I think olsonm made an excellent point about the storyteller knowing his style and strengths, and producing work that uses those strengths, rather than trying to fit a mold and producing a lesser work as a result.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by azalea
On topic: I think olsonm made an excellent point about the storyteller knowing his style and strengths, and producing work that uses those strengths, rather than trying to fit a mold and producing a lesser work as a result.

Thanks azalea. I'm glad someone reads my babblings.

[azalea]

Well, you know, being a moderator, now I have to read everyone's babblings! But that was no babble, that was a good post. And this is coming from one who babbles frequently.

Anyhoo... back on topic (or I may have to take action against myself for off-topic silliness! )...

[IronParrot]

"The movies -as movies- were great!
The movies -as interpretations of the books- were...uh so-so."

It's more important that they're excellent films than excellent adaptations. For an example of the exact reverse, take a look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

My take is that Tolkien's vision, above all, was that The Lord of the Rings is a buried part of history: a fabricated, extrapolated cultural mythology, so to speak. (I could point out all the specifics but it would be faster for you and me if you were to get a hold of some of Tom Shippey's writings on the matter.) In the context of LOTR, even Tolkien paints it in the perspective of being an English translation of the Red Book of Westmarch, a chronicle of something that really happened.

I think the intention with the Peter Jackson films - as stated in several interviews and documentaries by Mr. Jackson himself - was to look at the events of LOTR as if they actually happened. This is the same perspective Tolkien took: a retelling of a timeless myth.

Therefore, it's safe to say that the films were "based on the same pre-historical events as Tolkien's LOTR" rather than just based on Tolkien's text itself. Think of it as if it were a chronicle of the Trojan War called The Iliad that wasn't strictly based on Homer's Iliad verse for verse.

That said, I think the approach to LOTR was no different than the necessary filmic approach to any historical piece, like Lawrence of Arabia or Braveheart for instance: it filled in gaps, it put its own spin on certain subjective things, it played some themes common to Tolkien more than it played others, and it did it all in a very cinematically sensible way.

In the interest of LOTR's foundational principles - and Tolkien's work in general, with the study of language as a link to faded cultural legends - I think Peter Jackson did the story a great service by having the courage to take some liberties and demonstrate excellent filmmaking. Just as Tolkien wrote a long-lost mythos with the language of words, Jackson painted it with the language of cinema.

For that, as a Tolkien fan, I commend the film and forgive its differences from the book.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But folk always seem to ignore things which were specifically warned against by Tolkien, and which PJ with no regard to the author did anyway.

It's more important that they're excellent films than excellent adaptations

Normally, I might agree (note the word might). But this is the Lord of the Rings: in my humble opinion, at least, a part of the greatest literary work (Middle-earth) ever produced by human mind. It is something special, and special means must be taken to ascertain that it is treated properly. But even in a different story, I don't know that I would agree. I believe very strongly in the sanctity of sub-creation, that what one makes should NOT be tampered with, changed, or screwed up. Not to say that if it was not purely accurate, it would be worthless. But as I stated previously, Tolkien said something along the lines that the ruination of the characters would anger him even more greatly than the destruction of the plot. And who can possibly claim that the character's were preserved? In what way was "funny short person" the same as Gimli son of Gloin, save in stature? In what way was "stupid Scottish hobbit" the same as Peregrin Took, save in furriness of toe? In what way was "boob-flashing warrior elf-princess" the same as Arwen Undomiel, save that she carried a gem? In what way was "afraid of who I am" the same as Aragorn son of Arathorn, save that both were raised by Elves?

[Melko Belcha]

PJ never even bothered to follow the authors wishes in how his work should be treated if ever turned into a movie, PJ did what he wanted and pushed Tolkien out the door. All PJ saw was a chance to make a big movie that he would be remembered for, not because of any respect to the author and all the hard work he put into creating the story. As Tolkien has said, he wrote the story the way it really happened, all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right. PJ claims that he is a Tolkien expert and then in interviews he says things that proves he has hardly done any research on him, all he does in guess. PJ might be a fan of LotR, but he has no respect for the author, his family, or all the fans who have been reading and studying LotR over the past 40+ years.

[Lizra]

"Boob flashing warrior princess"? We saw different movies!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
PJ never even bothered to follow the authors wishes in how his work should be treated if ever turned into a movie, PJ did what he wanted and pushed Tolkien out the door. All PJ saw was a chance to make a big movie that he would be remembered for, not because of any respect to the author and all the hard work he put into creating the story. As Tolkien has said, he wrote the story the way it really happened, all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right.

Hear hear!

Liz, I presume that you refer to the 'boob-flashing' part?

[azalea]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
all of PJ's rewrites is his way of saying, I can do it better then Tolkien did, Tolkien didn't get it right.

I disagree with this particular statement. I think PJ thought many of the changes he made were in the interest of making a viable movie. I happen to disagree with him for the most part, but I don't think he was intentionally trying to make LotR as if it were his own creation. He also stated in the commentary, etc. on the dvd that, for instance, they thought they'd have to "fight" to keep the pipe-smoking in. This tells me that he felt he had to do at least some of what he did to keep the money people happy, unfortunately. There were, of course things he changed or "interpreted" differently that were for his own satisfaction. IOW, he conciously made the changes, but I don't feel that his motive was to improve on the book. Fortunately for me it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the movies.

[Lizra]

I never saw a "boob flashing warrior princess" in the Arwen parts of these two films. Who did?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I forgot to mention "schitzo".

First Movie: We (I, at any rate, and as BB has defended this I presume even he) get the impression that Arwen is a very capable warrior at the Ford. Of couse, the other parts I had no problem with, either in consideration with her "Xenarwen" side, or her character in the book. 1: "Capable warrior" and "Noble lady" can easily mix well, IMO. 2: She seemed much closer to the book Arwen there.

Second Movie: She comes off to me as sort of a blubbery teenager, a rather weak character. Which does not fit at all with either "Capable warrior" or "Noble lady".

As for the "boob-flashing", she wears a see-through dress in TTT, and at one it focusses on her, ahem, chest area.

[Lizra]

If that's it, then I think you are exaggerating a bit.