Re-reading the book after watching the film

[azalea]

Amandil, I'm not sure I understood what you meant, but I would disagree if you meant that those artists before the Renaissance didn't put in their personal interpretations just because they didn't sign their names. Personal interpretation happens whether you want it to or not, regardless of whether or not your name is on it. Music is a good example of this -- I can often tell who the artist is just by hearing a small part of a song I've never heard before, because their artistic "signature" permeates the song.


Anyway, back on topic: LotR was read to me as a child, and I read it as a teenager. I did not read it again until after I had seen the movie, although I really wanted to when I heard that the film was being made, because my brother said he was going to wait until after all of the films came out before he read it again, so that he could enjoy the films for themselves without making the inevitable comparisons to the book, and I thought that was a good idea, but decided I couldn't wait that long and read them after FotR came out. (wow, that was a long sentence) So when I saw the movie, I was very familiar w/ the world of ME, but it had been about, oh, 12 years since I had read LotR (although I had re-read The Hobbit a few times in that period). Thus, there were a lot of details I had forgotten about, and I feel like I had the best of both perspectives. I was excited that they were finally doing a live action movie of it, and hopeful that it wouldn't be total garbage.

So now to the point (thankfully ). When I saw the movie, the things that stood out to me as someone who knew ME but hadn't been in a long time and had forgotten a lot were as follows:

No Tom B. and Goldberry. (I loved him, but honestly I don't think I remembered his name , I just remember thinking -- hey that guy I really like wasn't in it).

Felt very rushed (even after all that time I remembered that it took much much longer for the events of Book One to unfold. Even factoring in the "you have to keep things going in a movie" argument I thought it felt too rushed).

Saruman had a bigger role in this part (I didn't remember him having so much "speaking time" in FotR, I remembered his role being bigger in TT and RotK. This didn't bother me that much, because I liked that the movie dramatized events that in the books were only mentioned).

Frodo seemed too young, but I LOVED Elijah's portrayal, so that didn't bother me too much. (I know, I have been corrected a few times about the whole age thing, but in my mind he looks older than 18, and I like it that way ).

Merry and Pippin were changed a little, but this really didn't bother me too much.

Boromir was portrayed a little differently than I remembered.

Arwen's role being greatly expanded, but I found that understandable. Hey, I like love scenes!

The Council of Elrond was different. Elrond himself seemed more emotional than I pictured him (when speaking to Gandalf).

Those are the things that really stood out to me. I loved the movie, despite the changes. Then I read the books again, and the movie really had no effect on my re-reading it, other than to say to myself "Oh, they did that really well," or " I wish they had put that in," and some of "Why did they change that?"

Then when I saw the movie again, I saw a lot more of the differences, but it didn't diminish my liking of the movie. I like the movie as a movie, and don't expect it to be just like the book, but I do think it could have been done less as an action movie to allow for more episodes from the book.

[Blackboar]

I think it's very like the book especially the extended one.
I agree with you, Frodo does look very young when comparing him to Pippin snd Merry thinking how much younger they are than him!
Sam is also a lot younger than Frodo but looks the same age if not older!

[WallRocker]

I would have to agree with the Majority of the people posted on this thread. Even though Peter Jackson left out some of what I believe to be important scenes(Tom Bombadil, Barrow-Downs) the scenes left out were the least nesseccary for the story. All in all, Peter Jackson did a very good job.

[Eglantine Banks]

Very interesting discussion, ladies and gents.

I've read LOTR at least two dozen times and have seen FOTR ten times. Obviously I love both. I think that in many ways PJ did a great job of bringing Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth to life.

However, I agree with the criticism that there is too much "action" in the film, not enough character development. This is most obvious in the unnecessary, boring, ooh-let's-play-with-our-special-effects cave troll scene, but the "break dancing" wizards' fight is another example. I'm not saying cut out the fighting scenes and make it a talking movie -- not at all! It's just that every three minutes spent on an action sequence that could be out of any fantasy/sci fi movie is three minutes taken away from depicting the characters and locations that can only exist in this movie.

However, it's not just action that gets the upper hand over character development; it's that the scary, nasty parts of the story that are given more screen time. I think PJ as a director is more comfortable with showing nasty, scary, brutal stuff. Look at what he did with Bree. In many ways it was brilliant -- that heavy rain as they approached the gate of Bree was very evocative. And the Prancing Pony was a truly scary place. But hey -- in the book the Prancing Pony was a warm, welcoming place where there were other hobbits, and Frodo & Co. felt comfortable and at home. This is why Frodo did that foolish thing with singing and jumping around on the table and eventually winding up with the Ring on his finger. (Oops.) I would have preferred to see the movie scene done this way. That the moviemakers changed the Pony to a forbidding, frightening place illustrates, I think, a conscious choice to redefine Middle Earth as a place that is more frightening and has fewer peaceful places than Prof. Tolkien depicted it.

The absence of Tom Bombadil (a peaceful and comfortable character) and the emphasis placed on Lothlorien's frightening aspects (they are there in the book, just not as prominent as in the movie) support this idea.

-Eglantine

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Eglantine Banks
It's just that every three minutes spent on an action sequence that could be out of any fantasy/sci fi movie is three minutes taken away from depicting the characters and locations that can only exist in this movie.

The only argument I have against that is that, considering that a limited time was available for characterization and such, many of the main characters as we know them from the first film, change quite drastically to what they become by the end RotK. The hobbits find it quite normal to walk with full armor on, Legolas and Gimli eventually become quite close friends, and Aragorn becomes King... just to name a few. I think they focused characterization where it was needed most, especially with Boromir and Saruman (mostly ).

[Amandil]

Egalantine, I think you make a good point regarding the Prancing Pony. I hadn't noticed that, but on reflection it seems quite true.

azalea, what I meant about art, Renaissance, and interpretation wasn't clear to you probably because I wasn't clear on it myself. (That's the fun of having a conversation -- the dialectic lets one's own self become more fully realized -- although that's not all there is to it.) I'll try to do a little better.

Notice the difference between a Gothic church and a Renaissance church. No indication of who was the great architect behind a Gothic church, but hit the Renaissance and we find that Bruneleschi (sp?) built that one, and so-and-so did the cupola on that one... Pre-renaissance art was no doubt expressive of the particular craftsman/artist, but the expression of the creator was not the main point of the art. Rather, it seems that the "signature" of the maker took a back seat to the greater "glory" of something Other to the maker. Once the Renaissance kicks in, in enters the new element of art for the glorification of the maker him/her-self. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. But it is a bad thing when the whole point of the art-work is to "point" to an Other. An example of this is adapting a book to the screen. Suddenly the "point" of the adaptation is the work being adapted, not the guy who does the adaptation. So my beef with the LotR movies is that they don't seem so much a tribute to Tolkien as a tribute to Peter Jackson. And I don't give a flying rats ass about Peter Jackson. I'm a Tolkien fan, after all. That's all.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Some of the commentary on the new dvd is quite interesting.

"I think the change is in keeping with the spirit of the Arwen character" I can't believe anyone could reasonably think this true.

"I never liked the idea of the song and Frodo accidently slipping the ring on his finger" I think this comment really betrays the writers belief that they were improving the narrative when making many of the film's changes. A cliche falldown for Frodo, one of how many in the film 3? 4?

"we were trying to get out of Rivendell as fast as possible" I think this comment, along with a similar one with regard to lothlorien is why the film seems rushed. Jackson seems, by his own admission, to be very uncomfortable slowing down the pace of a film after action sequences. What this film needed, for myself (and I believe many professional film critics made this point as well, as have many others here) was to breath during those sequences, and develop on a character level. I believe the rushed feeling of the film has more to do with this cinematic belief than with the lenght of the source material.

[Amandil]

Ahh, the voice of reason! Thank-you for this information and insight, squinteyedsoutherner. PJ's hubris is unreal.

[azalea]

Thanks for expanding on that; I now understand what you meant!

I disagree that PJ was trying to glorify himself, I really don't see that in the film. What I see as his fault is his obvious love of action/ fight scenes and special effects, which drew some of the blood out of the story, if you will. I see it not as an attempt to glorify himself or Tolkien, but an attemt to glorify ME through meticulous use of creative skill in making props, costumes, etc. Indeed, it did become PJ's interpretation of ME, because certainly Tolkien would have done things differently, I would have done things differently, you would have, and so on. Since we are all individuals, we must come to different conclusions about how things looked, how scenes played out that weren't detailed in the book, etc. PJ used other people's ideas, too, as I'm finding as I watch the appendices of the dvd. The unfortunate thing is, he failed to glorify the story as well as he could have because he was so hooked on the effects aspect of it, so you could say it became a glorification of visuals over script details. That was his real mistake.
Hey, he could easily have left part of FotR for TTT, and shortened the battle sequences there and in RotK. That would have allowed plenty of more time for "our" stuff to be shown. He might have, for instance, included the Barrow Downs, then stopped at the Gifts of Galadriel. Then TTT could have started w/ the Argonath, and he could have made that movie 2hrs, 45 min. long, too, because nobody will care about the length at that point (or at least I wouldn't ). But of course there are those for whom the battle sequences are the best part. It's all just a matter of preference, and trying to balance it all for a mass audience. The more I watch the Appendices, the more I see what a huge job it was to make the film. They probably could have gotten away with cutting back on the props budget. I mean, watching some of the detail they did on some of it was, well, let's just say there were things that took a lot of time energy and resources that got maybe one second of screen time!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Amandil
I don't give a flying rats ass about Peter Jackson. I'm a Tolkien fan, after all. That's all.

That's exactly how I feel.

I also agree it was a typical Hollywood action movie - the same cliches we've seen over and over again.

In terms of Bree - I never really considered that - although I did think that it felt different and darker than it came off in the book.

I think what LotR needed was a better director and writer. It needed someone that could balance the action and the need to tell the story and develop the characters.

The only thing that seems to match up with the book is the scenary. He did an excellent job bring ME alive, but he did a terrible job of bringing Lord of the Rings to life as a whole.

[Amandil]

Well, if it all boils down to preference there really isn't much left to say.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by azalea
I see it not as an attempt to glorify himself or Tolkien, but an attemt to glorify ME through meticulous use of creative skill in making props, costumes, etc. Indeed, it did become PJ's interpretation of ME, because certainly Tolkien would have done things differently, I would have done things differently, you would have, and so on. Since we are all individuals, we must come to different conclusions about how things looked, how scenes played out that weren't detailed in the book, etc.

[sarcasm]
That's not the point! The point is that he didn't do it exactly the way I would!!!

WAAAH
[/sarcasm]

[pitiable self-righteousness]
Additionally, shouldn't you wait and see if the changes work in the next two films, just to be fair?
[/pitiable self-righteousness]

[presumptuous naïvety]
I think a better type of person to inquire to about the movies is one who has not read the books... you know, to see if the movies stand alone as good material. The few complaints I've heard concerning the movies are comprised mostly of variations of "It's soooo long" and "Hey, where's the ending?!"
[/presumptuous naïvety]

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nibs
I think a better type of person to inquire to about the movies is one who has not read the books... you know, to see if the movies stand alone as good material. The few complaints I've heard concerning the movies are comprised mostly of variations of "It's soooo long" and "Hey, where's the ending?!"

Well I have two friends that haven't read the books. One compared it to "Fast and Furious". Another keeps wanting to argue that Boromir should have been given the Ring and his plan should have at least been tried. This friend also felt the Hobbits were stupid and that Frodo should not have been the star (This friend is going to school for screen writing right now - actually getting his Masters). Because of this - and other comments - I do not think that Jackson brought the books to the screen very well. They both liked the movies - but did not think that they were the best movies or even close to them.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Another keeps wanting to argue that Boromir should have been given the Ring and his plan should have at least been tried.

Uh, I thought it was clear that using it would lead to the destruction of Middle-Earth, which was what they were trying to avoid... miss that part? Council of Elrond? Ring a bell?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
This friend also felt the Hobbits were stupid[/B]

Heck, I agree, in a way. We're talking about the first film, and that means that the hobbits are namby-pamby overeaters until they get whipped into shape through journeying and hardship.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They both liked the movies - but did not think that they were the best movies or even close to them.[/B]

Do you mean "movie"?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nibs
Uh, I thought it was clear that using it would lead to the destruction of Middle-Earth, which was what they were trying to avoid... miss that part? Council of Elrond? Ring a bell?

Being told and being visually shown are too different things. The extended DVD shows a lot more about the power of the Ring (the extended Isildur scene, the scene of Bilbo franticlly looking for the Ring). I think more of an emphasise on the Rings power was required. Right now - their just going to Mordor to destory it.

Without the whole background information that is covered in the Council of Elrond from the book it's hard to see why the Ring is of such a danger. I'm not saying that the ENTIRE "Council of Elrond" chapter or "The Shadow of the Past" chapter should have been recreated - but I think more of it should have been brought out.

Heck, I agree, in a way. We're talking about the first film, and that means that the hobbits are namby-pamby overeaters until they get whipped into shape through journeying and hardship.

Frodo was more able to handle it in the book than he appears in the movie. And agree that even in the book that Pippin and Merry thought that it was a run through the park in The Fellowship of the Rings. But you got the feeling (because of better character development) that there was more to the hobbits than eating. There were key moments where Frodo had that showed his strength in the books - but was watered down or non-existant in the movie.

Do you mean "movie"?

yeah - I mean movie.

[Nibs]

K. I can respect that.