Actually, Polycarp, your examples are excellent points for discussing what an adaptation of the books COULD involve editing while remaining true to the story.
Barlyman Butterbur is a good example. His only real contribution to the plot line is that he explains the lack of word from Gandalf before Frodo leaves The Shire. In an adaptation for film, that could be easily handled without much reference to or development of the character. “Strider” could still be introduced in a letter from Gandalf handed to Frodo from the innkeeper.
Similarly, Frodo’s song about the Man in the Moon, during which his possession of the Ring is made clear to Sauron’s agents in Bree, could easily be eliminated. Yes, it all made the book more fun to read, learning how the Nazgûl could find out about Frodo after losing him in the Old Forest, but I have thought for some time that Frodo was doomed to be found regardless of this slip.
With Treebeard, I frankly HOPE the vast majority of the chapters entitled “The Uruk-hai” and “Treebeard” is removed. They dragged when reading them, and who wants to watch Merry and Pippen wander Fangorn while the Ents take a day to say hello to each other? But, if Treebeard and the Ents are presented as anything other than what Tolkein describes, THAT is a whole different kettle of fish. The Ents are necessary; without them Saruman cannot be overcome and the War ends disastrously for Gondor well before Frodo even gets to Mordor.
No one is expecting a word for word rendition. Let’s just hope they don’t insert too much foreign material…
As I see it, JRK, you were talking about translation–between artistic media, rather than language.
As an example: Sunset Boulevard. Brilliant movie. And also a very beautiful and effective musical (please don’t tell anyone I said something nice about an Andrew Lloyd Webber play!). Sure, the story was the same, with some of the same dialog, but that didn’t make the play any less important. It was a retelling in a different form.
I agree with you, though, in that I’d really prefer everyone had their initial exposure to Tolkien be through reading the books. I just don’t believe a story should only be told once in only one way.
-andros-
“Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner
Peter Jackson is not going to change anything from the books. He is going to leave out some scenes, because they wouldn’t work in a movie sense. He’s going to expand a tiny bit on some scenes, because they will capture the audience’s attention better, and feel more satisfying perhaps.
He is not going to act as though there never was a Tom Bombadil, but merely not include those scenes in the movie.
That’s a lot different to what you guys seem to be implying.
“Well, roll me in eggs and flour and bake me for forty minutes!”
Yeah, that GUI that the little girl was using in JP was certainly realistic. I can certainly imagine a multi-million dollar theme park employing a security system that looked like a nintendo game.
Rich
(Not that the movie wasn’t entertaining, it’s just that Crichton hasn’t written anything worthwhile since “The Andromeda Strain,” and the same goes for movie adaptations of his works, IMNSHO.)
Well, I’ll admit that the plotline for JP was good, and fairly true to the book. And it was technically excellent, at least as far as special effects go. I just don’t think that the plotline was excellent, or that the special effects were enough to make the movie overall “technically excellent.” Whatever, just my opinion.
IMO, the plotline for TLW got left on the cutting room floor somewhere. Lousy book sequel, lousy movie sequel.
I’ve always thought that one of the best book-to-movie adaptations was “Jaws.” It’s one of the few that I can remember where I thought the movie was better than the book. “Coma” ranks up there as well, although since that was one of Cook’s better books (which isn’t saying much), I’m not sure I’d say the movie was better.
I don’t say that a story can only be told in one way. But if a director intends on doing a movie and staying 100% faithful with a book, I say “what’s the point?”
A worthwhile project, in my mind, would be where a director attempts a personal interpretation of the story and uses his own vision.
As an example, I though Gus Van Sant’s remake of “Psycho”, a shot-by-shot recreation using the verbatim original script, was a sterile and pointless exercise, only interesting for “novelty” effect.
Jacques
J’ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Henri B. Stendhal
First of all, I think there will be some changes, this being the 90s/aughts/whatever. You can be sure the female characters will have larger and longer roles than in the book.
Second (but related), I am not to familiar with all of the cast. Kind of “If I see them, I’ll remember them”, but are any minorities below? IIRC, I think Sauron’s Haradrim/Southrons were meant to resemble Arabs or Africans. At any rate, I imagine the “good guys” will feature a few prominent minorities.
Finally, will anyone be cast as Sauron? Any idea how Sauron might look? Beyond an eye, the book seemed to me to go to great lengths not to describe The Enemy.
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument” - William McAdoo
There’s a whole message board about the LOTR: http://www.lordoftheringsmovie.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro (Sorry I haven’t bothered to make it a link, but you can always cut and paste the address). Staurt Tonwsend was fired and replaced with Viggo Mortenson for the role of Aragorn, which works for me since Townsend (who’s like 26) is too young to play weather-beaten Strider; Mortenson’s 41 or so.
