Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Black Breathalizer]

Some of you purists may disagree, but in writing the screenplays to his movies, I think it's clear that PJ actually improved on The Master's great work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Tolkien fan. But I love the changes that Jackson has made. Some of my favorites include:

Boromir's character. PJ made him much more "human." In the movie version, you could actually empathize with Boromir in a way you didn't in the book. Who didn't like the way he related to Merry and Pippin?

The Breaking of the Fellowship. PJ's version tied things together in a way that Tolkien wasn't able to do.

Arwen. Why didn't Tolkien highlight this beautiful love story? Using her in the flight to the ford was a stroke of genius.

I can't wait to see what improvements Jackson and Co. make to TTT!!!

[BeardofPants]

For the sake of humanity, I'll give this thread a WIDE berth.

[Entlover]

One's first response to this is Sacrilege!
But on reflection, (and having great respect for BB's opinions) I have to say I partly agree.
In the first place, writing a book is much more difficult than making a movie. PJ didn't spend years (30?) slaving over a recalcitrant typewriter to produce LotR. There would be no movie if Tolkien had not produced the book. All that PJ did, he did because he was standing on the shoulders of a giant.
Boromir: I agree he's more human and credible in the movie, though I still think he's not very bright not to get the idea that no, you can't use the ring.
Arwen: Aragorn seems more important in the movie than in the book, so highlighting his love story seems logical. Tolkien, not having the Hollywood mentality, did not think first of love stories.
The Breaking of the Fellowship: PJ did a good job combining the two chapters, the end of FotR and the beginning of TT. But it succeeded so well because he uses a lot of Tolkien's dialogue.

Did PJ improve Tolkien's book? Sure. Just as I could improve the Taj Mahal by planting rosebushes around it.

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Arwen. Why didn't Tolkien highlight this beautiful love story? Using her in the flight to the ford was a stroke of genius.

I would have to disagree on the 'stroke of genius part'.

I've heard through others, though I've never read it personally, that Tolkien wished he could have put the romance between Aragorn and Arwen in the book, but:

He was constantly rewriting things, and Aragorn was originally a hobbit named Trotter who wore wooden shoes.

When he went to write Arwen in, he was nearing his 'deadline', so to speak.

[Black Breathalizer]

Entlover, Boromir's desire for the ring had nothing to do with his intelligence. He was overcome by the ring's power. The ring tempted Aragorn as well, but he was able to resist its power as Arwen fortold in Rivendell.

[Ealenwe]

Like improving the Taj Mahal with roses. I like that. Very diplomatic and wise comment. I don't think even Peter Jackson would say he 'improved' Tolkien. But he certainly made a visual feast of Tolkien's evocative tale. And I bet JRR would have approved.

[webwizard333]

Yes, BB, I totally agree.

The use of Merry and Pippen as on the side comedy that only drew one further into the story. We can all look forward to many a one-liner uttered out of their mouthes which will only serve to further underline the seriousness of the story.

I'd rather not mention the "Let's go hunt some orc!" line out of deep respect for the writers who inserted that and other colorful phrases into the dialogue.

The joy I experienced with Arwen carrying Frodo to safety cannot be described in words. After all, a hero standing up for himself and finally making a stand would be unblievable and contrived.

And finally, Sam. A character who was portrayed in such a way, that the thought of leaving the theatre whenever he opened his mouth in no way crossed my mind. After all, he made a promise he did, and he intends to keep it.

I'll add more later, but in short, I agree with the DVD guy who said "PJ is the new LotR."

[Cirdan]

I think the main thing that was improved, if you will, was some of the dialog.

I didn't like the space and time compression and the frenetic pace of the book one material in FotR. It requires that the pace be heightened and maintained too early in the story.

I didn't mind some of the exclusions as much as I did the mangling of other parts left in.

All in all the important parts of the story that were included were done very well. The scenes in Moria were fantastic.

I still prefer the book as it can't be too loud.

[Sween]

First of all a book is a boomand a films a film. The book is par excelance as is the film. But to say he improved it is an exagration. The true power of the elves is better ive just re read the flight to the ford and Gloridfen really comes across as a strong chracter. The use of arwen to take frodo to the ford would of been better if it played on how it did in the book with Arwen telling the horse to ride on with frodo alone on it. Then he gets his big moment in the book and the film.

I like the way there is morer haste in the film they all seemed a bit too relaxed in the book essecially Gandalf if he had found the ring there was way he was going to abandon the hobbits.

I prefer both films versions of Aragorn and Borimir (allthough i think Borimir is the same in the book you have all been a bit harsh on him all he wanted to do was protect his home land) but the way aragorn was not so damn aragant i am the king i will be king blah blah. Worring if hes up to the task and then by the end of the film knowing he is the leader and its down to him.

The hobbit are better in the book bar sam whos spot on in the movie merry should of not been so stupid in the movie allthough he showed his worth at the end.

[Black Breathalizer]

My responses to Webwizard333's comments:

Webwizard said: "The use of Merry and Pippen as on the side comedy that only drew one further into the story. We can all look forward to many a one-liner uttered out of their mouthes which will only serve to further underline the seriousness of the story."

In FOTR, Merry and Pippen were given key comic relief roles. Personally, I welcomed their one-liners and thought they were very appropriate for balancing the mood of the movie. With nine major characters in a three hour movie, I'd be interested to see how you would have portrayed Merry and Pippen differently. The reality is that these two characters will go through a significant transformation in the next two movies. We caught a glimpse of these changes at the end of FOTR when they watched their friend Boromir die before their eyes.

Webwizard said: "I'd rather not mention the "Let's go hunt some orc!" line out of deep respect for the writers who inserted that and other colorful phrases into the dialogue."

99% of the 'colorful' phrases were right out of Tolkien. A few well-chosen lines like the one mentioned above were used to help modern audiences relate to the characters. Frankly, I don't see your problem with it. I loved this line and so did most everyone else.

Webwizard said: "The joy I experienced with Arwen carrying Frodo to safety cannot be described in words. After all, a hero standing up for himself and finally making a stand would be unblievable and contrived."

Okay, how are you going to visually explain the flood to the audience? What purpose is Glorifindel going to serve in your screenplay? How are you going to introduce Arwen? How are you going to have the audience connect with Arwen and Aragorn's love story? Considering the cinematic challenges Jackson faced, I thought his changes to the Flight to the Ford worked dramatically and in terms of the story's structure.

Webwizard said: "And finally, Sam. A character who was portrayed in such a way, that the thought of leaving the theatre whenever he opened his mouth in no way crossed my mind. After all, he made a promise he did, and he intends to keep it."

Hmmm...considering most of Sam's dialoge was straight from Tolkien and those that weren't were in keeping with the character, I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Maybe you read a different version of LOTR than I did.

[Entlover]

Originally posted by webwizard333
I'd rather not mention the "Let's go hunt some orc!" line . . .

It seems a reasonable thing to say. I can see me saying it in Aragorn's shoes. It's a light-hearted way of saying let's go kill those characters who've just kidnapped our friends.

[Ms. Undomial]

I do like how PJ did Moria and Lorien, but he should of left arwen out of it!! she should of not saved frodo!! If you haven't heard, Arwen is going to be in the second book!! that is not good. If PJ made her do anything about isengard I am going to vote against that movie!!! Arwen should have been left out until the third book!

[IronParrot]

I could go on forever about my views on this topic but they can be summarized into two main points:

- What Peter Jackson did in the film did indeed improve on Tolkien, in the sense that the adaptations work better on film than the original source.

- What Peter Jackson did in the film would not work in the book.

This encompasses everything from dialogue to Arwen to the way scenes were edited and sequenced to, well, just about anything you can think of.

More on this some other time.

[sun-star]

I can't agree that the film improved on the book, although I loved the film. It may have improved on the film that would have been made if it was identical to the book, but it didn't improve on the book itself - it's not impossible to improve on the book, in my opinion, but not by making it more like a 21st century movie.

Originally posted by Entlover
It seems a reasonable thing to say. I can see me saying it in Aragorn's shoes. It's a light-hearted way of saying let's go kill those characters who've just kidnapped our friends.

I might have said it too. That doesn't mean it was appropriate for Aragorn to say it. It doesn't fit with the way he speaks for the whole of the rest of the book or film. It's a little nod to the audiences' modern sensibilities, one of the lines which makes me cringe when I hear it (the other being "if you want him, come and claim him", but the less said about that the better )

[bropous]

I guess I'm too die-hard a Tolkien fan to agree that Mr. Jackson in any way improved upon Tolkien's written works, and I love the film, and expect I will love all three.

I could possibly agree with a point that Jackson's interpretation may have translated the Master's works for a lower common denominator, in that the majority of moviegoing folks would not have been patient enough with Ronald's original story. I would in no way say that the retelling of Tolkien's story in any way enhanced the original, and in fact, in several aspects, the film interpretation is far less a work of imagination and artistry than the original works are.

The omission of Bombadil, Glorfindel, the "Xena-ization" of Arwen (oh, and the casting of the slightly mongoloid Liv Tyler in this role), the feminization of Frodo (not fighting back at Amon Sul, losing his lines at the fords of Bruinen to the daughter of Steven Tyler), the compression of time lines and distortion of the Master's carefully worked chronology, the addition of lines of dialogue not in the original texts, all DETRACTED from the interpretation, and did NOT "improve" upon the original masterworks. They actually took away from the rich detail and creative genius with which Tolkien's works have no parallel.

No, I love the film, and am anxiously awaiting the arrival of the next two, but to imply that Jackson's film improves upon Tolkien is a stretch, indeed.

(Did I cover one or two points of agreement, BoP?)

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by bropous
(Did I cover one or two points of agreement, BoP?)

Maybe one or two.

[Earniel]

*dies of shock* Don't do that, will you? Are you trying to give me a heart attack or something?

An interesting statement though I cannot agree with it. As much as I like the movie I can't say the movie was better than the book. Peter Jackson highlighted some themes that were less outspoken in the book (such as Aragorn's and Arwen's romance). But he also completely ignored others. For me the strenght of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings lies in the little stories that are intwined into one. I miss that feeling in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I like the movie and I'm looking tremendiously foreward to TTT, but I can't say PJ improved LOTR.

[Khadrane]

About the Boromir issue:
I do agree that he was more likable in the movie, but I think it was better when he was unlikable. I mean, in LotR there are enough characters to love. To name a few, Gandalf, Bilbo, Sam, Aragorn... I could go on. It's kinda nice to have a "good" but rather unlikable character in a story. Well, in my opinion it is, anyway.

[Rána Eressëa]

Uhh . . . Tolkien will always be the Master. PJ improved small parts, but he could never be the Master of LOTR. Ever.

[markedel]

PJ's movie wasn't bad. But to say that the movie deepened ones understanding of Middle earth (the only way I see a movie improving a literary work-by improving on the foundation) simply isn't true. It isn't even true to say he achieved Tolkien's vision, he simply achieved his vision.