How could the books have been improved?

[Black Breathalizer]

I used to think that Tolkien's books were perfect but now I've seen how Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens have made little enhancements here and there that have improved the overall story. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying the movies are better than the books. They aren't. But the screenplays have shown that there are a number of aspects of the story where the books could have been improved.

A few examples to prove my point:

The Ring. Jackson made the ring much more ominous and dangerous than Tolkien did. This is especially apparent at the beginning of the tale where Tolkien described Gandalf holding it in his hands.

Boromir. Jackson's Boromir showed more humanity and character than Tolkien's did. This made the fall of Boromir more emotional because the audience related more to him. I didn't find myself caring for Boromir in the book the same way I did in the movie. If Tolkien would have written Boromir as he was portrayed in the film, Boromir's death would have been more moving.

The Breaking of the Fellowship. Having the orcs attack before Frodo's departure was a stroke of genius. Not only did it make the breakup of the Fellowship more dramatic, it gave Merry and Pippin a chance to play a key role in the Ringbearer's quest. I realize that Tolkien never intended the book to be broken down into three separate novels, but if Tolkien had incorporated Jackson's changes, the first book would have had a greater sense of completeness.

Do you agree? What other changes do you feel would have made the books even better?

***Disclaimer: Posters to this thread have to be willing to discuss what makes a great story even better or worse. Making comments such as "Tolkien is God Almighty and his words and storylines cannot be improved upon" will contribute nothing to this discussion.***

[Sheeana]

Tolkien is God Almighty and his words and storylines cannot be improved upon.

[elixir]

I like the books exactly the way they are. Maybe it was necessary to make some changes in the movie, but I wouldn't change anything in the books. They're perfect just the way they are.

[Sister Golden Hair]

They couldn't be.

[kiwi52291]

I don't understand...the best books in the world can't be better than they already are...can they?

[Laurelindórenan]

I, for one, agree with the Black Breathalizer.

I can see that most people here think it a sin to say that the masterpiece of Tolkien could be improved upon, but I do have to say, that in some places I like what Jackson has done with the story, even if it is different than what Tolkien did.

I especially agree with your comment on the parting of the fellowship. In Jackson's version all the characters had a part to play in Frodo's escape, including Merry and Pippin (more so than in the books).

So, curse me if you will, oh Tolkien nuts, but someone once said to me, 'I like to think of it as something that really happened a long time ago but has now become a myth, and like all myths, there are simply different accounts of what really happened. Tolkien's is one, Jackson's another.'

((If that quote didn't tip you off, look in my signature and guess who I am BB))

[kiwi52291]

"Curse you!" said the Tolkien nut.

[Lalaith]

Tolkien wrote the book and therefore it was his story. All the characters and things were just the way he wanted them to be. If PJ thought it neccessary to change (not improve) these things it is his problem, but probably Tolkien just wanted Boromir not to be more friendly.

[Sween]

i have to admit i do like Frdos and Aragorns little scean in the film and if that were in the books i think it may of made me love them a little bit more

[Black Breathalizer]

Another example of an enhancement to the story (which would have been great to have read in the book) was the "death" of Gandalf. In the book, Tolkien had the Balrog decide that Gandalf was going down. He plunges into the depths attached to the Balrog's whip with a cry of "fly, you fools."

Yes, Gandalf was thrown over the edge of the bridge by the Balrog's whip in the film too, but in this version it didn't take him down. The difference may seem small but it was important because this time it was Gandalf who decided to follow the Balrog, not the other way around. We see Gandalf clutching the ledge and looking at Frodo for an instant. In that brief moment, we understand that Gandalf realizes the danger of allowing the Balrog the chance to return from the depths to go after the Fellowship again. Gandalf the Grey sacrifices himself in order to allow the quest to keep going.

In this little example, Peter Jackson illustrated one of Tolkien's most important themes - self-sacrifice in the name of friendship - better than the author himself did.

[Lizra]

I think the word "improved" is incorrect. To make some changes.....many years after Tolkien imagined, created, and laboriously did the hard work of putting on paper the beautiful, intricate story that is "The Lord of the Rings" is merely *puppy chow*. I think some of the changes were tolerable, even fun, but I do not see them as "better". The story is (beyond) fabulous as it is. The movie changes were not necessary, and they do not make "The Lord of the Rings" *better*, they might cause the story to flow a little easier, perhaps.

The movie changes leave less room for interpretation in their respective areas, but they are only "one way" to interpret the story. It could have been equally intriquing if Boromir had been made more sinister, or Gandalf's fall more of a stroke of bad luck, and a challenge....and vehicle for increased character development of Aragorn, and the story of the Dunedain.

As far as the ring being more ominous, that works, and is a good "easy out", but placing more emphasis on the ring's interaction with characters is more complex. It is certainly more interesting to the many who are able to grasp this "ring as a channeler of inherent evil" concept.

I think the changes were interesting, and I enjoyed some of them, but I would not call them better. Nope! That is a rather annoying choice of words, considering the amount of creative genius involved in writing these stories versus the relatively easy picking apart of a few elemets, and rearranging them in a more "filmable" manner. Have you ever tried to write a novel BB? It's a daunting task, to say the least. Tolkien is on the mountain top, PJ and company are down at the first stopover, pitching tents and cooking a good dinner!

[Aewionen]

I don't think you can make improvements on Tolkien's LotR. Sure, PJ did a great job with the movie and I did enjoy some of the changes, but I wouldn't have the books changed in any way.

[cassiopeia]

I don't think PJ improved the Ring at all. In the book, we don't know if the power of the Ring is internal or exernal. Does the Ring prey on the Ringbearer's susceptibilities or is it some kind of sentient being? (I'm thinking of Tom Shippey's arguments in Author of the Century if anybody's read it.) But in the movie it is far less complex: the Ring is external; it taunts the Ringbearer. Because we don't know in the book exactly how the Ring works, I think it's much more dangerous.

[GrayMouser]

In Book V he could have given Aragorn a major role instead of leaving him as a second-string back-up.

[Elf Girl]

I had typed up a long reply to all of BB's points... then I realized it was hopeless. Farewell, thread.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Lizra
I think the word "improved" is incorrect. To make some changes.....many years after Tolkien imagined, created, and laboriously did the hard work of putting on paper the beautiful, intricate story that is "The Lord of the Rings" is merely *puppy chow*. I think some of the changes were tolerable, even fun, but I do not see them as "better". The story is (beyond) fabulous as it is. The movie changes were not necessary, and they do not make "The Lord of the Rings" *better*, they might cause the story to flow a little easier, perhaps.

I disagree. It is always possible to "improve" a story. Many authors rewrite stories hundreds of times in an effort to enhance the drama, emotion, clarity, etc. Screenwriters do the same thing. Editors work very hard - particularly with new authors - to help them improve their stories and scripts.

Obviously, entertainment is subjective. I believe the TV show M*A*S*H* was significantly improved upon from the first year of the show. While some may disagree, most generally agree that the writing, acting, and cast changes made in later years improved the show.

Tolkien was great. But his work can - and has - been improved upon. But this fact doesn't cheapen the story or lessen in any way the profound impact his work has had on people.

[Lizra]

I don't know....I like the complexity of the books. The changes seem like an algebra equation, you know....one side affects the other, more of this here means less of that there. I wonder...if the script had been straight out of the book, if Sean Bean's Boromir could have improved the character just with his wonderful acting? Tone, inflection, looks, body language....same with Vigo's Aragorn. It's an interesting thought!

[azalea]

Although the title of the thread doesn't state that the movies are the sole vehicle for suggested improvments, thus far Jackson's changes are the only ones being discussed. As per the notice at the top of the forum, I need to move this over to the movies forum unless the intent is for people to offer up their own ways they think the book could be improved. If not, I'll just go ahead and move it over.

[hectorberlioz]

Alterations FOR the movie, Not alterations to improve tolkien's books.

[durin's bane]

How could the books have been improved?
...THEY CAN'T!!!
It's the screwed movies that need improving.