Tolkien Forums

I think you have to take the good with the bad when speaking of an artistic interpretation of such a vast work as Tolkien's tilogy. I think most of us here accept the movies of just that; an interpretation. We tend to dwell more on the actual works of the author in this forum and I love that.

lomoduin and The Secret Fire has covered most of the bases. All I want to add is, if you don't like these films...have you tried watching the animated ones? They did such a horrid job. So many scenes and characters chopped up and cut out....I won't even touch those.

Grey-Wolf,
Boy you and I are pretty far apart on this one.
Sam and Frodo are antagonistic in the books...because Gollum preys on Frodo's sympathy.
I see Gandalf and Aragorn as positive with their attitudes...
I think Wood did an amazing job playing a character that millions had already created in their head from the books. 
And Secret Fire has my complete agreement on Gandalf and TO KEEP THE BOOKS AND MOVIES SEPERATE!

Bear

Thanks for ur replies.

I did see the Bahski attempt - not to my liking either.

But, PJ did his best I suppose as did the actors.

the movies are quite impressive sceneryvise.

Im not just saying this, but I suppose I should see the movies with an open mind and not complain about changes made.

Thought I didnt really get the feel that Frodo, in a furious fit, abandoned Sam at the Stairs in the book.

I should then see it as Gollum, incessantly, trying to break up the friendship of Sam and Frodo. The ring playing a great part in the process - Sam not really being able to comprehend the total subjugation the Ring causes.

-- Edited by Grey_Wolf on Monday 31st of August 2009 04:28:08 AM

-- Edited by Grey_Wolf on Monday 31st of August 2009 04:44:50 PM

Grey Wolf, with respect to Jackson's Frodo in general, you might be interested in Dan Timmons' contribution to the book Tolkien On Film titled: Frodo On Film: Peter Jackson's Problematic Portrayal. In part two, his essay begins: 'In the Two Towers, Jackson presents, on the whole, a weak-willed, emotionally unstable, and imperceptive Frodo. Such a characterization has nothing to do with the transferring of the written text to the visual medium and other issues of adaptation.'


Now, obviously no one has to agree with Mr. Timmons here, and certainly not because this statement is part of an essay published in a book (his case is a bit long to properly present, even if I wanted to).

In any event I would like to ask a question concerning keeping the books and movies separate. Does this imply one should never judge the films as to whether or not (one thinks) they are faithful adaptations of the source material?

I understand that the mediums are different, and that Jackson, or anyone else, has the right to make a film as desired. But that said, does it not open a rather huge door, with respect to being faithful to Tolkien's work, to generally say 'keep the books and films separate'?

-- Edited by Galin on Monday 31st of August 2009 02:55:17 PM

Galin,
Your question "Does this imply one should NEVER (caps are mine) judge the films as to whether or not (one thinks) they are faithful adaptations of the source material?"
In the absolutism of "NEVER" the answer is no. In this specific case; the answer is Yes.

As a film (actually 3 films) there are many elements added that are not in the book (the Lady Arwen rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders for example) and there are many pieces missing or diluted.(Farmer Maggot, Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil, The Scouring of the Shire, the healing of Lady Eowyn, etc,etc, etc...)
It seems it was not really possible to include all of the book in the film.  Even if they had broken it down and did it one book at a time (Tolkien wrote it as six books; two each for the published trilogy) the background materiald that are eluded to in publications would be disjointed. (the history of Elrond's house for example)

Your point; " Does this imply one should never judge the films as to whether or not (one thinks) they are faithful adaptations of the source material?", is, of course, a valid one.  But it is not a universal maxim.
Each film adaptation of a literary work has its own merits and flaws.  And each producer, director, screen writer, and even the actors bring different pieces to every film.
It is usually why the disclaimer "adapted from the works of..." is in the opening or closing credits (sometimes both) of a film based on literary sources..

Your statement; "I understand that the mediums are different, and that Jackson, or anyone else, has the right to make a film as desired." seems to acknowledge that point.
But , just  I have done here, you add the codicil;"But that said, does it not open a rather huge door, with respect to being faithful to Tolkien's work, to generally say 'keep the books and films separate'?"
It is a huge door considering especially that Tolkien himself changed, revised, re-wrote, added commentary, wrote letters about work, and couldn't make his mind to what his stories actually were.
So in this case specifically keep the film adaptation separate from the books.

My point is that the films, BASED on Tolkien's work "The Lord of the Rings", should be critiqued separately because "the mediums are different, and that Jackson, or anyone else, has the right to make a film as desired."
Saying this does not in anyway say "...to GENERALLY say 'keep the books and films separate...", but rather SPECIFICALLY "with respect to being faithful to Tolkien's work", to keeping the books and movies separate.

I think when comparing the actual lore with an adaptation of it, you have to take the following points into account:

Was it necessary?
Was the change vital in order to make a certain plotline or appearence come forth in the film? Having Faramir almost succumb to the Ring could be classed as necessary in terms of the storyline of the film.

Does it alter anything about what we know of the real Middle-earth?
To give you two examples - missing out Tom Bombadil. It was annoying, yes, but the change didn't actually alter anything. On the other hand, the Witchking casting Gandalf off his horse and breaking his staff (Extended edition) alters the very fabric of what Gandalf is, and what the Witchking is. In the actual lore, the Witchking could never do that to Gandalf in that situation.

Does it improve the story?
Does the alteration or addition improve the story as a whole? Are there any scenes that weren't in the book that actually improved the story, and your enjoyment of the film?

Would following the lore break the atmosphere?
Partially connected to the first point. For example, having Tom Bombadil in the film would have seriously broken the atmosphere. All that danger and serious stuff going on, and then up pops Tom. Alot of people who hadn't read the books would have found it silly.

Thats all I can think of tonight. But whenever you evaluate whether something in an adaptation is better or worse than the source material, have these points in mind.

Galin wrote:

---

The Secret Fire posted: I actually just watched the animated one again recently after not seeing it since I was a child. If you want to talk about a terrible film.... I don't even know where to begin. The story is changed, huge sections are cut out, half of the movie is tinted red for no apparent reason, and the pronunciation is abhorrent.

OK, but does this not imply you render an opinion of terrible largely because of a comparison to the books (except for the red tint issue)?

-- Edited by Galin on Monday 31st of August 2009 06:20:35 PM

---

I wouldn't deny that my post does imply comparison of the 1978 animated movie to the books.  When you compare it to the books, it is terrible.  However, I would be very willing to deem the film terrible based on other criteria such as aesthetics, quality of dialogue, and its overall artistic quality.  I consider the film just plain bad when measured by any of those criteria.

However, I do feel that the new LOTR films qualify as a faithful, skillful adaptation of the books done with great care and integrity.  I'm sure that many others will disagree with me on this, but it's my opinion. 

Galin wrote:

---

In any event I would like to ask a question concerning keeping the books and movies separate. Does this imply one should never judge the films as to whether or not (one thinks) they are faithful adaptations of the source material?

I understand that the mediums are different, and that Jackson, or anyone else, has the right to make a film as desired. But that said, does it not open a rather huge door, with respect to being faithful to Tolkien's work, to generally say 'keep the books and films separate'?

I don't think it's okay to "generally" say "keep the books and films separate".  The choice to do that belongs to each individual and their preferences.  However, it makes more sense to me to view them both as individual works that are both successful and enjoyable in their own right.  I don't feel the need to guard and defend the books like a jealous husband.  I think artistic works are meant to be loved and enjoyed by others, and sometimes that includes allowing others to create their own interpretations of work that is not their own.  I don't believe that Tolkien's work (or anyone else's, for that matter), is "lessened" by it being reinterpreted by others.

It just doesn't make sense to me judge a film a complete failure simply because it does not stick to the exact parameters of the story down to the minutest detail.  I don't feel that expecting an exact book to film adaptation is realistic or even desirable.  Some events in the book would be confusing, boring, or unenlightening if filmed.  This does not detract from their place in the book, certainly, but I cannot imagine holding an audience's attention through some of the skipped events.  Going to the cinema is not the same as sitting at home on a snowy night with a cup of tea and a book (although I know which I prefer).  Moviegoers expect a different experience and I think the filmmakers did a tremendous job attempting to keep both diehard Tolkien fans and contemporary audiences happy.

These films are not some crappy, low budget, art school interpretation of Lord of the Rings.  They are a painstaking, skillful, heavily researched effort that was worked on with great love and care by hundreds of people who designed and created costumes, pottery, sets, miniatures, battle scenes, Elvish scrolls, computer generated sequences bordering on miraculous, incredible camera work, beautiful music, and writers that worked hard to keep much of the original dialogue intact. For this reason, I believe the films deserve some measure of respect, even if it be grudging.   While it is each individual's right to judge the films as they will, I don't personally agree with those who are so stuck on the story being changed that they cannot see all the other redeeming qualities of the films.

I like to enjoy things, I don't get so caught up in the details.  I enjoy the books.  I enjoy the movies.  They both have brought a great deal of happiness and entertainment to me.  I enjoy the opportunity to share my favorite books with the many others who have discovered them thanks to the films.  I appreciate the fact that Tolkien's work is now more loved than ever because of their increased exposure.  All those things matter a lot more to me than an omitted scene or a changed line.



-- Edited by The Secret Fire on Monday 31st of August 2009 11:42:18 PM