It's wrong to change the story for film, but what about Fan Fiction?

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Although I do agree that Jackson's Aragorn-I'm-not-sure-I-can-be-king was in any case a more realistic and preferable interpretation than a no-doubt Conan-like Aragorn.

hoooboy! this is controversial stuff!
sits down with some popcorn awaiting the wayfarer ...course now i said that he'll no appear ...

i, too am glad ...

i, too am glad that PJ's Arargorn did not go, say .... the Incredible hulk route ...

as i say, controversial and high brow ...

(best BB x )

[Jon S.]

I love that name wayfarer, BTW, sounds like someone out of WWE (World Wrestling Exhibition).

Seriously, have y'all ever read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter Thompson. There's this awesome chapter in the book where, after writing in gonzo journalistic style until then, Thompson prints (in italics even, if I remember correctly), the actual transcript of what really occurred. And it's frankly relatively banal. Then he returns to his gonzo style and it's back to hyperbole and action.

To me, the more introspective/self-doubting and humorous scenes in the movies are akin, stylistically, to a deliberate withdrawal, from the heroic/epic style to realism and then back again, similiar to what Thompson did in F&LILV. Do you have to like it? Of course not. But it ain't no crime.

[Rosie Gamgee]

There are a lot of times in PJ's films when the only difference, really, is the style in which a story is told. This I don't mind so much. Take the film Hunt For Red October for instance. It was a much better movie, IMHO, than the book was a book, mostly due to the different style in which it was told on film as opposed to the text. In that case I actually prefer the movie. Style is one thing. But to go and change someone else's story/characters/etc.... How can you say you are being faithful to a story if you mess with it? And changing one small thing can demand that you make huge changes further on that detract from the story completely.

[brownjenkins]

I agree on Hunt for Red October. I prefered the book to the movie as well.

But I think that in terms of LOTR, some change had to be done. It was just too much to fit even into three movies. I don't think PJ made all the right choices, but he had to make some.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree on Hunt for Red October. I prefered the book to the movie as well.

I was saying that I liked the movie better than the book.

But I think that in terms of LOTR, some change had to be done. It was just too much to fit even into three movies. I don't think PJ made all the right choices, but he had to make some.

Oh, yes. I do agree that some condensing had to be done. I have no problem with him taking out such things as Tom Bombadil, who really doesn't affect the story at all, except to pass out swords. Or those sometimes tedious 'singing' scenes where five different people get up and recite poetry. I don't mind that PJ and his writers cut out things. It's when they added needless stuff that bothers me. Why do you want to take up film time inserting your own incorrect point of view, therefore having to cut out and alter the original thing?
Such as Aragorn's over-done guilt/insecurity thing. Or Arwen dying because Sauron is getting stronger? Or Frodo yelling at Sam and telling him to go home. Or Faramir dragging aforementioned hobbits ALL THE WAY TO OSGILIATH only to tell them, "I've changed me mind; you can go now." Why was it so difficult for them to explain that the ring simply has no allure for some?
I read once (in an autobiography by Leonard Nimoy, actually) that no element, especially in film, should be kept unless it adds to the story somehow. Squeezing the lemon is one thing; but to add things--'twists', whatever--that only detract from a storyline, delay it from going forward, these are needless and tedious. And it's only worse when you hack another person's story to insert them.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

I was saying that I liked the movie better than the book.

That's what I meant to say.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Such as Aragorn's over-done guilt/insecurity thing.

There was a bit of that in the book, so it didn't bother me too much.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Or Arwen dying because Sauron is getting stronger?

Agreed. That was just weird and pointless. As were most of the dreamy cutaways with Arwen or Elrond. That said, her part with the riders that many malign was different but not a bad change in my mind. Throwing in a Glorfindel, who then basically disappears for the rest of the story would not have worked as well in a movie.

Even in the book (blasphemy warning! ), I've always thought that Glorfindel would have been a better member of the Fellowship than Legolas.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Or Frodo yelling at Sam and telling him to go home.

That was pointless too. You could have shown the Sam/Gollum dynamic without going that far.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Or Faramir dragging aforementioned hobbits ALL THE WAY TO OSGILIATH only to tell them, "I've changed me mind; you can go now." Why was it so difficult for them to explain that the ring simply has no allure for some?

I agree, that whole part added a good 30-45 mins or more of screen time that could have been better used. I think it was done to add a dramatic fight scene to the end of the movie, but if they had left it out they could have included the confrontation with Saruman in TTT and maybe even taken Frodo and Sam as far as Sam losing Frodo to the orcs, which would have been a good dramatic way to end TTT.

[jammi567]

but if they did do it upto Frodo's capture, then it probally would've been too much for people to take in in one sitting. probally.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jammi567

but if they did do it upto Frodo's capture, then it probally would've been too much for people to take in in one sitting. probally.

Not if they lost a bunch of the other stuff. TTT had a lot of the dreamy cut scenes, along with the warg fight, which was okay, but kind of unnecessary.

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not if they lost a bunch of the other stuff. TTT had a lot of the dreamy cut scenes, along with the warg fight, which was okay, but kind of unnecessary.

But you've got to remember what they're aiming for: romance, shock, suspense, drama, action, adventure etc.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee
Or Arwen dying because Sauron is getting stronger?

What do y'all think was the deal with that? And also with Aragorn dropping the Palantir when he saw Arwen in it? If I recall correctly, isn't what actually happened that he wrested control of the Palantir from Sauron?

[Whispering Willow]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I think this might stir some intresting debate.

How do you justify fan fiction, but condemn the changing of the story for the films?

Not ALL, but A LOT of fan Fiction, even if it's masterly writing within it's own context, messes around with the personaes and stories of Middle Earth.

Fan fiction is just fiction based on someone elses brilliant ideas. It doesn't claim to be just a different take on the original story, does it? And I'm asking here, as I don't actually read fan fiction.

I make it though. I could say unfortunately. Everytime I get started on a book (or even a movie), my brain absorbs the original idea, twists it around, and creates a complete story that in the end has little to do with the original one. At this point I'm having huge trouble being able to stay focused on the book I was supposed to read. (I never bother writing the stuff down either)

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

There was a bit of that in the book, so it didn't bother me too much.

Well, there's the scene in the book during the Council of Elrond where Aragorn says, in a nut-shell, "I know I don't look like Isildur's heir, all I've got is a broken sword, but I know my lineage and I'm gonna do this, like it or not." I seem to remember that he used a little of the dialogue in the movie concerning the weakness and blood in his veins, but it was a positive thing; like, "I'm Isildur's heir. I have my own doubts about myself, but I'm going to conquer them and be King." In the movie, they took this totally in the opposite direction, and he keeps reverting back to, "I'm not good enough. I should just turn back and live a quiet life with Arwen in the woods somewhere and forget about it."
I think that the romance aspect would have been very well served if they had made it clear in some of those 'dreamy cutaways' with Arwen and Elrond that one of the reasons Aragorn was trying to be King was Elrond said that no mortal would marry his daughter unless he was King of Gondor and had recovered the lost realm of Arnor... I think that's how it went. Aragorn was too much of a wimp in the movie to seriously consider marrying an Elven princess, the daughter of Elrond Half-elven.

That said, her part with the riders that many malign was different but not a bad change in my mind. Throwing in a Glorfindel, who then basically disappears for the rest of the story would not have worked as well in a movie.

Again, Glorfindel really didn't affect the story, so i don't have huge problems with them changing the role. I think it might have been cooler if they changed him to Legolas instead... If you read the first intro of Arwen in the books, when Frodo sees her at the banquet, she is too unapproachable to be riding around in the mud and the trees, you know? They reduced her a bit to this simple wood-elf, I think. Sometimes it bothers me in movies when they have to make every woman the spunky-"spit-fire personality-heroine. The thing about Tolkien was that his story sort of a balance in that respect; he had Eowyn as the spunky one, and Arwen as the epitome of female refinement--that's not even the right word. She inspired awe, she was immortal, beautiful, old, etc. She was the one that Aragorn adored, you know. She was old enough and confident enought to be sure of her decision to marry a mortal, not be dithering around about getting old and wandering the earth alone and having children that tear her heart out with a single glance.

I agree, that whole part added a good 30-45 mins or more of screen time that could have been better used. I think it was done to add a dramatic fight scene to the end of the movie, but if they had left it out they could have included the confrontation with Saruman in TTT and maybe even taken Frodo and Sam as far as Sam losing Frodo to the orcs, which would have been a good dramatic way to end TTT.

The reasoning that they used was that, in the timetable of events, Frodo getting taken was actually much further ahead of where the rest of the fellowship ended in TTT. That's why it works better with the way Tolkien split it up instead of going back and forth between story-lines.
But I agree, I always like the cliff-hanger of Frodo being dead, then not-dead, then taken, and Sam knocking himself out in the dark (lol). It really worked for the ending of a book, and I was so disappointed when they didn't do that in the movie.

Okay, my posts are quickly becoming book vs. movie arguments. Apologies. I'll try to get back on topic.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

What do y'all think was the deal with that? And also with Aragorn dropping the Palantir when he saw Arwen in it? If I recall correctly, isn't what actually happened that he wrested control of the Palantir from Sauron?

Actually, no. Aragorn emerged from 'meeting' with Sauron via the palantir 'victorious', if you will, although he was much weakened, I believe, from the effort. I don't even think Arwen was mentioned in that part of the books. But I haven't read that in a while; I might be mistaken.

Originally Posted by Whispering Willow

Fan fiction is just fiction based on someone elses brilliant ideas. It doesn't claim to be just a different take on the original story, does it? And I'm asking here, as I don't actually read fan fiction.

It can be both... Sometimes people like to insert their made-up characters as the 'lost' member of the fellowship, or the one that wasn't invited but hitched along anyway. I know in my 'Letters of Elendur', I inserted a little scene in the fight at the end of FoTR with Boromir and Merry concerning some that Boromir supposedly was in love with.. I didn't actually 'change' anything, but I did have it take place within Tolkien's story.
Other fan-fiction is set in the same world, but concerns totally different characters. In my opinion, this is the best kind because it doesn't have to affect the author's original stuff, but it can play by the same rules (i.e., same world, same culture). And one doesn't risk changing original story-lines or characters to other people's annoyance.

I make it though. I could say unfortunately. Everytime I get started on a book (or even a movie), my brain absorbs the original idea, twists it around, and creates a complete story that in the end has little to do with the original one. At this point I'm having huge trouble being able to stay focused on the book I was supposed to read. (I never bother writing the stuff down either)

I do this, too, especially with movies I don't like; for instance movies that had a good plot and pretty good characters, but were handled all wrong. I sit that and tweak the story so that it becomes, in my opinon, what is should have been. LOL. I suppose this could be called fan-fiction, but it's more like 'fan-revision'.

[The Gaffer]

I agree on the no-Conan Aragorn thing. PJ was right to represent those aspects of Aragorn, which are barely alluded to in the text. You really need to re-read LOTR to realise Rosie's point that his seizure of the Palantir is the turning point of his internal dilemma. Shortly thereafter he gets the message from Elrond and his way forward becomes clear for the first time. To represent that in a movie you would have to make plenty of changes.

So, the idea was good, it's just that, as with the Osgiliath scene, the execution was clumsy and pointless.

Which leads back to topic: make any changes you like as long at they are not clumsy and pointless.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Which leads back to topic: make any changes you like as long at they are not clumsy and pointless.

Basically how I feel as well. A movie-maker can change whatever they like about a written story, but they better do it well, especially if it is a widely-respected novel.

[hectorberlioz]

Well, here's a question then: was PJ's idea to have Arwen in place of Glorfindel a "clumsy" or smart change? On one hand I can understand; introducing Glorfindel would make it seem to the audience that here was a main character, when in fact he goes no further than Rivendell. On the other hand, having Arwen go was kinda cheesy with the Aragorn/Arwen remark trading, esp. when they have precious little time.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, here's a question then: was PJ's idea to have Arwen in place of Glorfindel a "clumsy" or smart change? On one hand I can understand; introducing Glorfindel would make it seem to the audience that here was a main character, when in fact he goes no further than Rivendell. On the other hand, having Arwen go was kinda cheesy with the Aragorn/Arwen remark trading, esp. when they have precious little time.

Here's my answer to the question: Taking Glorfindel out was probably a 'smart' change. Inserting Arwen in his place was 'clumsy'. Because of that one change, they had to completely re-vamp the character of Arwen.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Here's my answer to the question: Taking Glorfindel out was probably a 'smart' change. Inserting Arwen in his place was 'clumsy'. Because of that one change, they had to completely re-vamp the character of Arwen.

In other words, they should have used, as in the Bakshi version, Legolas...which really was not a bad idea...it worked well story wise. Did you guys know that Anthony Daniels AKA C3P-O from Star Wars, did Leggy's voice in that Bakshi film?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, here's a question then: was PJ's idea to have Arwen in place of Glorfindel a "clumsy" or smart change? On one hand I can understand; introducing Glorfindel would make it seem to the audience that here was a main character, when in fact he goes no further than Rivendell. On the other hand, having Arwen go was kinda cheesy with the Aragorn/Arwen remark trading, esp. when they have precious little time.

It didn't bother me too much. Mostly because I agree that Glorfindel would have been confusing. But I do agree that Legolas would probably have been a better choice, and it would have given him a better introduction as well.

But the change in the Arwen character didn't bother me too much either (at least in that scene alone). She is practically a non-character in the books, and you needed to give her at least a bit of screen time and purpose to develop her relationship with Aragorn.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

In other words, they should have used, as in the Bakshi version, Legolas...which really was not a bad idea...it worked well story wise. Did you guys know that Anthony Daniels AKA C3P-O from Star Wars, did Leggy's voice in that Bakshi film?

No, but it was still a terrible film.