Tolkien Forums

I assume we are talking about The Lord of the Rings, not just books versus films in general. For myself the books are my favorite literature for so many reasons -- while in my opinion the movies are generally poor as films (despite some moments that I think are good), and even worse as adaptations.

In the past I have been at odds with respect to the notion that one cannot compare one thing to another, since the mediums are different -- with my perspective being that not only do I not think this is true, but that such a comparison is essentially what Peter Jackson and crew are doing when they make The Lord of the Rings; that is, deciding whether X or Y, from the books, will or will not work on film. That's what one does in adapting a film from a book, especially if one is claiming -- as Jackson did and does -- to be faithful to the source material.

That process, however, is very opnion-laden, no doubt; but there's nothing in the world that necessarily compels me to agree with Peter Jackson about what he or his crew thinks can be sucessfully taken from the books and put up on screen -- just as Tolkien himself didn't agree that many of the things suggested in the 'Zimmerman treatment' needed to be altered or injected due to the medium of film.

Also, if one can praise the films, or even parts of the films, for being faithful to the books, I think one must then accept un-praise in the same arena. How can something said to be faithful to the books, in detail or even in 'spirit', if one does not compare the films to the books? so if one engages in that, then the idea of 'judging the films only as films' is off the table I think...

... and while I have no problem with someone taking that approach -- judging the films as wholly separate works or art, with no book comparison whatsoever, and can even criticize the films under this consideration alone -- it seems to me that that approach, by its very nature, opens huge doors; that is, one essentially can allow just about anything in an 'adaptation' because the books are no longer in play, at least not beyond being a 'base source', where the phrase 'loosely based' can mean very, very loosely for instance. Does it matter (for extreme example) if Sam proves unfaithful to Frodo in a film? In my opinion not really if one is only judging whether or not this 'works in some way' on film, as whether or not it agrees in detail or in spirit with the source material seems basically off the table. In this arena the artwork is Jackson's, using a source book as a base (in some measure) to create a new thing, to live or die on its own merits.

I'll yet defend the criticsm of faithfulness to the books as a valid criticism however -- again, especially given Jackson's own characterization of what he was trying to do. As Carl Hostetter has noted, in Mythsoc message digest number 1086 (Mythsoc, the list for Mythopoeic Society):

'When one goes to see a film adaptation of a famous novel, one _naturally_ expects that the film will stay true to at least the most fundamental themes and characterizations of the novel. Only a child or an idiot would fail to recognize that books and film are different media; but that fact has _absolutely no bearing_ on the expectation of fidelity to core themes and characterizations (unless you are prepared to argue that there are some themes and characterizations that films are inherently incapable of exploring and expressing, which is absurd on its face).'

Is the discussion in general opinion-laden? Yes. For example, if one thinks the Aragorn of the films is 'noble' when he tosses Frodo about, or beheads an ambassador even from the camp of the bad guys, then all I can do is disagree. Yet my problem is often enough with the idea that one can't say something like: why wasn't X from the books put up there on screen, or what about 'film' as a medium made it necessary to so alter X or Y from the books?

I think the answer is not to be found in very general, mutually agreed upon commnents like 'books and films are different' or that we can't compare the two mediums -- the answers should adress X or Y in particular in my opinion -- and then I think we will see how very opinion-laden it really gets. Filmmakers aren't automatically correct because they make films of course, and even heaps of gold and jools don't prove they have made all the right decisions for the best reasons.

I say one can compare the two when adaptation is in play, and that it's especially in play when the film fan points to X to claim or suggest how faithful something is...

... to the books

Felagund wrote: 'I do agree with a lot of what Galin says, though. Books and films can't really be compared... they must be considered as different things. I really disagree with the films being bad, though.'

But why can't the films be compared to the books

'(...) It should have stayed true to the book. It's the one thing in the film I REALLY, REALLY hate. I do think of them as seperate things, though... the films are one thing, the books another. The books are far better, though.'

But haven't you just compared the books to the films in this example? in a way where you find the films lacking, suggesting that sticking closer to the books would have been far better? So in what sense can't books and films be compared? I get the feeling that you really might mean: they must be fairly compared, so that the medium of film is well and truly considered with respect to the adaptation process.

If so I would agree. And next come the opinions about what is fair or unfair criticism given the differences in the mediums. 

Galin wrote:

---

Felagund wrote: 'I do agree with a lot of what Galin says, though. Books and films can't really be compared... they must be considered as different things. I really disagree with the films being bad, though.'

 

But why can't the films be compared to the books

 

'(...) It should have stayed true to the book. It's the one thing in the film I REALLY, REALLY hate. I do think of them as seperate things, though... the films are one thing, the books another. The books are far better, though.'

 

 

But haven't you just compared the books to the films in this example? in a way where you find the films lacking, suggesting that sticking closer to the books would have been far better? So in what sense can't books and films be compared? I get the feeling that you really might mean: they must be fairly compared, so that the medium of film is well and truly considered with respect to the adaptation process.

 

If so I would agree. And next come the opinions about what is fair or unfair criticism given the differences in the mediums. 

-- Edited by Galin on Sunday 15th of April 2012 04:42:59 AM

---

You're right. My post was a little contradicting, sorry.

What I meant is that they can be compared in some sense. PJ attempted to recreate LoTR in the medium of films instead, which he succeeded doing. Hence, they have a somewhat different story, due to the "recreating" part. But, being a Tolkien fanatic, sometimes I wish the films stayed a little more true to the book (for example, what happened at Cirith Ungol). A lot of things in the films are changed; hence, not entirely true to the books, rather recreated so they could fit the medium of films.

Hope that cleared it up.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'in some sense' but you appear to be suggesting that the films and books have a somewhat different story due to the different mediums, and your second to last sentence suggests that the films can't be entirely true to the books because the medium of film does not allow this.

But Jackson's most ardent critics know that entirely is not possible, they just wanted enough to be able to call the adaptations faithful.

I see apples and oranges again, and to use the image another way: to my mind those Jackson fans who claim the films are faithful to the books are essentially claiming that the apple of the books has been successfully translated from one medium to another. Exactly the same? No. But not an orange certainly, at least not to those who think the films have succeeded in the arena of faithfulness.

But in my opinion Jackson has essentially made an orange. And also in my opinion, it would be unfair of me to simply say that an orange is 'bad' simply because it is not an apple -- but it is not unfair of me to say that: as a great fan of apples, I would much rather have had one, especially given that the 'farmer' claimed he was trying to be faithful to apples!

And if the result has to be an orange because things are so different (and an orange looks and tastes notably different from an apple), I would wonder why anyone would try to adapt the apple in the first place! What's the point? Or if one simply means that the mediums are different, I think we all already agree with that very general observation.

The mediums are different to be sure, but beyond that one must ask: what is it about the medium of film that made Jackson change A, B, C... X, Y and Z, and many more letters beyond the Roman Alphabet! When things get specific and beyond these general comments, that's when we see that Jackson's very many changes and alterations become opinions. 

Enough Jackson fans have disagreed that it's impossible for a film to be faithful to Tolkien's books, and so do I -- I just further disagree that Jackson has achieved 'faithful enough'. In response to a film treatment Tolkien noted...

'The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exagerration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies' JRRT, Letters

Agreed.

And one can't have it both ways in my opinion: that is, one can't fairly point to a given scene in the films to claim or suggest how faithful it is to the books... and also answer negative criticism by saying books and films can't be compared.

Basically I see little reason why the mediums can't be compared, as long as it's done fairly, with due consideration for the 'needs' of film -- but what are the real needs of film? not whatever Peter Jackson or any director simply claims is 'needed' or wanted; this is a very opinion-based matter! And again, why not compare? Faithfulness to the source material has long been an accepted form of criticism with respect to books and films... and how is one going to do that without comparison?

Yet arguably far better films could have brought even more people to the books.

Nor do we know the amount of movie goers who will not read the books because they think they know the story, or Tolkien, from the films.

Nor do we know how many people won't like the books (or won't like them as much) because they wanted the films rather.

And in any case Tolkien's books were selling very very well before Jackson's films came out. I found the books without any films, and it's very difficult to say who would, or who would not have ever read them if Jackson's films never existed.

Also, even a bad film, or a bad adptation, can be advertisement for the books!

Hey no doubt it is good to bring people to the books, but it's not as simple as it seems, and we also can't know how the reaction to the books might be altered if the films have been met first (especially if viewed over and over).

Well, I for one don't really like his LOTR anymore. Especially ROTK. I know I'm probably one of the few in the world who doesn't.

Don't worry Laurelin, you are not alone. I post or 'ghost' at a number of Tolkien chat forums and the films have plenty of Unfriends.

And as I noted I don't think the films, simply as films, are really that good (even if there were no books to compare to), but then again, I have yet to see a Peter Jackson film that I like, counting two that he only produced! although granted, I've only seen a limited number of his films.

I don't really think the acting (looking at them simply as films) is all that good, although I agree with Verlyn Flieger about Sean Bean...

'Galadriel was terrible, and since Cate Blanchett is a fine actor, she must have been directed to perform in that wooden, zombie-like manner. Sean Bean is the only person who played as if he believed who he was. His Boromir was a real person, not a type. I found him totally convincing, and his funeral journey down the river and over the falls was the film's finest moment. Truly moving. Although the script sentimentalized and overdid the character's repentance at the end. Boromir is not that good. As for un-Tolkienian lines like Gimli's "Nobody tosses a dwarf," and Strider's "Let's hunt some orc," they are beyond comment.

From http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/100102.html

Laurelin,

I'm holding off until I can go with my daughter in January.
She has been a Tolkien fan since she was little and I read her "The Hobbit" and "The Lord Of The Rings".

She will be making a Christmas pilgrimage from Chicago to Ohio ... so this is a big deal as far as we are concerned.

Let us know how you like it ...
Bear