DS, you argue some good points, and I am taking more of a “PJ” advocate position than anything else. I still think you are too harsh on film Faramir and are downplaying his coming to his senses a bit too much. The EE’s make it clear how different he is from his brother, and how much the lack of his father’s favor gnaws at his insides. The real problem is the constraints on screen time which prevented many characters from truly enjoying enough development time-this hurt Faramir, and also his father, and a number of others. Anybody who was not part of the original Fellowship got short shrift. So PJ had to cut some corners, and it (painfully) shows.
Do you feel that Faramir continued to be an ass throughout the 3rd movie (EE scenes included)? I think his suicide charge demonstrated nobility, even if it also demonstrated his inability to challenge his father. After that he is pretty much a prop tho. PJ seriously screwed up by having his men beat Gollum without Faramir sternly telling them to knock it off.
Your general point is the most cogent: I also think PJ was oblivious to certain deep themes in the book (or one of the two airheads who helped him with the script were), and that is his greatest sin. He needed a “JRRT Advocate” to help keep these themes paramount during the scriptwriting process, but instead he got two Yes-Women who were in over their heads for such a hugely ambitious project.
Yes, at least the movie Faramir is not a complete tool, nor does he have the same character flaws as his brother, Boromir. Sadly, this shows up best mostly after Faramir has already blown his really big part of the story.
On a grander scale, yes, Jackson could have used someone vetting the whole thing. The really sad part of it all is that the movies were made so long after the death of the Professor that the estate no longer was a strong advocate of keeping the eventual movie version “true” to the book. Even ten years earlier, I think that the movies would have been forced to be more “accurate.” But as it was, Jackson wasn’t making the movie versions of the book; he was making movies basd on the books. This is only sad because we never had a proper treatment of the book itself. And, of course, although Jackson likes the books, he must not be the same level of Tolkein geek some of us are. Either that, or he simply didn’t care, and his ego demanded that his movies be different in substantial ways.
This is another very small point, but something I would have done differently (per the OP’s request.)
In the FOTR, the reality of magic was established by a display of Gandalf’s fireworks. They exploded into vast elaborate pictures that were clearly beyond the normal realm of pyrotechnics.
If I’d been in charge the display would have started off with a few wonderful-- but humanly possible-- patterns and then gradually stepped over the line into enchantment.
That could have produced a “Wait A Moment WTF” sense of wonder. My reaction to the filmic version was “Okay, magic is real and that’s some really mundane CGI.”
It’s a small point that, for me, was symptomatic of Jackson’s general directorial tone-deafness.
Jackson’s version was closer to the book though.
Compared to Ralph Bakshi, Peter Jackson is history’s greatest director. And I truly admire Jackson for being able to get the trilogy done at all. It was a mammoth accomplishment, and he did a decent job.
He’s just way down the ladder from the most visually inspired directors (such as Lynch, Burton, the Coens, Cameron… and del Toro in Pan’s Labyrinth) and has trouble recognizing trite. While he didn’t have anybody turn their back and walk away from an explosion (presently the top cliche in action films), the scene of Legolas fighting the oliphant was painful to watch.
(When I said that Jackson’s version was closer to the book, that was regarding his filming of the fireworks scene… compared to my alternative suggestion here on this internet site :). All the examples of Gandalf’s fireworks that Tolkien describes would require magic. There’s no build-up to the magic and that’s how Jackson filmed it)
Yeah, DSYoungEsq, I always read the LOTR threads with eagerness but never post because I feel I am incapable of contributing meaningfully to a discussion by a group of people who seem to possess such a powerful, erudite grasp of Tolkien’s writing in general and of literary subtleties and also the ability to express their interpretations so eloquently. As far I am concerned, your post embodies this feeling. I’m copy/pasting it so I can email it to someone with whom I had a similar - but less well-expressed - discussion about book v. film Faramir (Damn PJ fanboys…).
The fate of these movies was sealed when the 6 books of the LOTR series were published as a set of 3 volumes. This is a fantasy story of epic scope and reach, and is not well served by it’s reduction to 3 (even very long) movies. Everyone calls it a ‘Trilogy’, when that’s purely an accident of packaging.
If you want to do the story justice, you have to give each book it’s own place of importance in the series. I would do each book as a movie in two parts, I believe. Yes, I know that I’d end up with 12 movies. That’s the point. Peter Jackson’s version was good, as far as it went. I particularly like his visuals and the overall style of the productions. I don’t have too much problem with his casting, either. However, too much of the excellent material in the books doesn’t make an appearance, and the new stuff he’s inserted (plus the radical changes) are troublesome to me – to say the least.
The first movie would end as the hobbits enter the Old Forest, I think. The second would end with Frodo unconscious on the riverbank near Rivendell. The third movie would end with Gandalf following the Balrog into the pit. The fourth would end with Frodo and Sam crossing the river on their own journey, while everyone else has scattered, looking for Frodo. And so on, for the other 4 books.
There are sufficient high and low points in each book to present a complete and interesting story arc in each of my suggested movies. None would really stand alone, but each would be an integral part of the series. They wouldn’t have to be 3+ hour long movies, either. Some would be longer than others, but they wouldn’t be endurance tests, by any means. Basically, I’d follow the book, only diverting from the text when necessary. It would be a wonderful series, and I think someday someone will do just as I’m suggesting. I’m content to wait.
DSYoungEsq, I absolutely have to agree regarding Faramir’s part. I thoroughly enjoyed all three films, and I thought that the portrayal of Faramir was quite good in itself, but it really did miss the nature of the character and the story that Tolkien wrote. It’s a shame, too, because otherwise I thought that PJ and David Wenham did a fantastic job of bringing to life Faramir’s relationship with his father. The scene where John Noble speaks what are almost his last words to his son (“That will depend on the manner of your return.”) brings a tear to my eye every time.
Danalan, that’s an interesting idea. I would love to see something like that done with similarly stunning visuals and production values as PJ managed to achieve.
My only disappointment was the fact that the barrow-downs segment was left out. The sword that Merry (or was it Pippin) found in one of the graves came into play in RotK; in the movies that whole sequence was left out.
In Moria, when the orcs were scurrying across the walls and ceilings, I had trouble suspending disbelief. They should have just walked on the floor.
Bilbo’s freakout, and Galadriel’s speech when Frodo offers her the Ring, should have been played with subtlety, not bombast. Both actors are capable of conveying the proper menace, without special effects.
Real-world elephants are impressive enough. There was no need to super-size them.
If you are going to make Orlando Bloom wear a blonde wig, then you should bleach his eyebrows.
The power of the Army of the Dead was fear. Their presence made the bad guys panic, break ranks, and desert. Which enabled the human warriors to defeat numerically superior forces. The Scrubbing Bubbles of Doom was just silly.
Not to mention the scene where they appeared to be buggering an oliphaunt to death. :smack:
I thought the sequence where the Rohirrim have just charged and scattered the organised infantry like chaff (rather than plunging into the enemy’s unprepared rear and making hay of it, like in the book), and the Haradrim then form up their mumakil and countercharge, was just silly[sup]*[/sup]. By the time that little lot was over, including the slightly derivative bit that had me looking for the tow-cables, there should have been precious little of the Rohirrim left for the rest of the war. But then, Jackson seemed a bit over-fond of the shtick where the mighty monster ran roughshod over the plucky good guys (trolls rampaging through Minas Tirith, for instance; and oliphaunts tossing horse and rider about like toys here).
[sup]*[/sup]There was meant to be a big cavalry-versus-cavalry clash, King Theoden’s big glorious moment. The mumakil were fearsome, but too immobile to take on cavalry in a running fight - the chief drawback for the Free was that horses wouldn’t go near them, so they served as mobile rallying points for the Southrons and Easterlings.
I never got the impression that the knife was enchanted by Galadriel, or even that it was anything other than the knives Aragorn gave the hobbits on the Watchtower. But unless you want to include the Barrow-wights & Tom Bombadil, it’s hard to explain the whole “blades made in Westernesse and bound with spells for the bane of Mordor” thing. I think the movie-only audience is meant to think Merry’s strike ws effective for the same reason Eowyn’s was: the prophecy loophole.
<shrug> When his knife hits, you see this “force field” thing dissipate around the Witch King, and then Eowyn nails him through the front of the helmet.
Oh, I’m not saying the movie knife wasn’t enchanted by Galadriel (for certain values of the word “enchanted,” that is). It’s a reasonable explanation and a reasonable replacement for the Numenorian blades that are responsible in the book. I’m just saying that the movie doesn’t make that explicit (unless it’s in th Extended Edition, which I despise), and my impression was that PJ thought the whole “prophecy loophole” was clear enough that he needn’t bother with a justification, and in fact I agree with him if that was his thought.
I’m not going to add much that hasn’t already been said but here goes:
My biggest disappointment was Eowyn’s encounter with the witch king. It’s my favorite scene in the book.
The ghost army trivializes the battle at Minas Tirith; if Aragorn had shown up just a few hours earlier many good guys would have been saved. I give PJ a bit of slack because it would have been difficult to dramatize the events of the book (the ghost army never fights in MS).
I hate hate hate the “circle of orcs” in Moria just before the balrog arrives. It bothers me so much because otherwise the whole Moria atmosphere is spot-on perfect (even if the troll scene is a bit long.)
Scene wasters–Aragorn going over the cliff, the tilting column in Moria–stuff that didn’t happen in the books that take up time that could have been devoted elsewhere.
Orlando Bloom is not a good enough actor to pull of Legolas.
I don’t like Gandalf being a wimp. In the books, his encounter with the witch-king is awe-inspiring. In the movie he’s a patsy.
The silly scene where Theoden and co. ride out of Helm’s Deep. 10-15 horsed knights against thousands of Urak-hai? Please.
In general, I liked the movies and their tone, but there were a few things I would have changed.
First: psychological perspective. I would have used more character-POV shots and almost sub-audible whispers to show how the Ring is driving people crazy with desire. A difficulty in adapting LOTR to film is that so much of the power displayed is invisible: the dread of the Nazgûl; the lure of the Ring; the power of Gandalf’s ring to inspire; the temptation of power; the Dead Army; the prophecy of the Witch-King; the gates of Cirith Ungol, etc. When it comes to the Ring, Tolkien goes to great lengths to show how tempting it is — and then plunks the ring into a Fellowship of nine where seven of them are evidently immune to temptation. In fact, throughout the book, the only people to fall into temptation for the Ring are Boromir, Frodo, and Gollum. Gandalf and Galadriel and Faramir reject it; Denethor and Saruman never get to see it; Sam puts it aside; and Isildur we only hear about. It undermines the strength of the Ring if you claim it’s horribly tempting but nobody ever gets tempted, so a film adaptation has to make this much more visual and explicit for the viewer. It’s why Faramir’s nobility is so cool in the books; it’s also why Faramir’s temptation was necessary in the film.
Second: no CGI on Galadriel; no CGI on Bilbo. The Dead Army should have been barely-visible shadows of Men, barely silhouettes, rather than glowy green spectres. Trust the audience to get the drama without CGI.
Third: preserve the interleaving of action and consequence from the book. Tolkien hung a lampshade on his storytelling technique for our edification; we could at least observe it. Sauron fell because Rohan rode to the rescue; Rohan rode because Isengard fell; Isengard fell because the Ents marched; the Ents marched because the Orcs delivered Merry and Pippin to Fangorn; the Orcs had Merry and Pippin because Boromir fell, protecting them against Saruman’s temptation for the Ring. The whole chain (“evil contains the seeds of its own destruction”) if Merry and Pippin aren’t allowed to convince the Ents to march.
I used to heartily agree with your second quote before I thought of your first quote. The only way in which the two scenes are forgivable is if they are distorted from Frodo’s perspective as part of the Ring making him more paranoid. Which I don’t think Jackson did and they still look cheesy, but it’s a possibility.
