I loved the movies. I’m happy with dropping Bombadil. We see the Scouring in the Mirror of Galadriel. I’m also okay with the CGI around Galadriel - after she passes the test, it’s dropped (‘And so I am diminished…’).
My main changes would be to the end of the third movie:
Give Faramir his speech as Steward, announcing the King.
Credits roll after Elessar & co bow to the hobbits.
During the credits we see the return to Hobbitton and then Frodo’s departure from Middle Earth. After all the credits have run, then we get Samwise returning home.
Ha, but Aragorn takes on nine Nazguls at a time, with a broken sword and a torch, all by himself. As for Gandalf, his death doesn’t really matter - he still won, and he’s still alive to talk about it :p. In fact, I don’t really recall the movies all that well, but I’m not sure his demise is readily apparent.
Yes and no. It’s true that PJ did some unnecessary “dumbing down”, changed some bits of the story for the worse and heavily relied on tired clichés, but it’s also true that book and film really are very different beasts, and what works in one doesn’t in the other.
Take the Witch King vs. Eowyn fight for example : in the book, Eowyn’s victory is all the more heroic because the narration goes on at length about how utterly terrified she really is, before the Nazgul’s reaction to Merry’s sting makes her snap out of it. But in a movie, besides an :eek: look, you can’t show that profound level of paralyzing fear in any effective way. Nor can you easily convey the message “this guy is really scary and radiates power” - you have to *show *it, within a relatively short time frame. And remember : you have to make it work for people who haven’t read the books - otherwise what’s the point ?
Having him kick around an already established force of nature quickly and effectively gets the message across. Whether it’s the *best *way is another debate entirely, but I can understand why PJ did it that way.
It’s only five Nazgûl at Weathertop, and it isn’t Aragorn who makes them go, really. They leave because they think they’ve done what they’ve come to do. As for Gandalf, he isn’t “alive” to talk about it, any more than you would be if you died. It’s just that his spirit gets sent back to try again. And yes, the movie makes it apparent.
No one has argued that the elisions were not necessary. Please note I specifically said that they are acceptable. But the need to shorten the story for the screen does not equate to changing the story.
Popularity was only raised because YOU asserted that the modern audience would not accept the story as written by the Professor. If the story is still popular, as written, prior to the movie versions being issued, then there isn’t any really good evidence that modern audiences would require the storyline be re-written to be popular.
There are four ways PJ changed the movie. Only one of them is “necessary.”
Shortened for ability to complete story in reasonable time. As stated, for the most part, the elisions weren’t a problem.
Modification of existing plot line. Sometimes it was fine, sometimes not. I didn’t mind the intensification of the Arwen role, for example, and thus didn’t mind that she took over the Glorfindel part in Book 1. Often, however, it didn’t work, as for example the issue of Faramir that we discussed previously. Mostly, the trouble with the modifications was that they weren’t put in out of necessity from the elisions, or inability to properly show the situation, but rather simply PJ’s desire to put his stamp on the movie.
Addition of plot lines that didn’t exist in the book. This simply never worked. The stupidity of Aragorn going over the cliff is an example. He didn’t need to go over it, it doesn’t particularly work because everyone, even the audience who don’t know the books, know that he isn’t dead, and there isn’t any positive value added to the movie by having this added. It’s just plain dumb, almost cliché in its addition.
Refusal to use perfectly good dialogue from the books. This, in some ways, is the most egregious of the things PJ does. Yes, there are some places where the dialogue needs to be modified, both because of the elisions and because of the fact that it isn’t needed to provide description. But there are lots and lots of places where dialogue which was considered iconic wasn’t used, and there isn’t any really good reason for the substitution.
I kept thinking as I was watching the movies that PJ and his writers were under the impression/delusion that they could write a BETTER version of the story, and attempted to try and do so. That to me seems like nothing but hubris, and it is sad that the first really decent attempt to film the book ended up bastardized by this philosophy. I bought the movie version of the Fellowship, I thought about buying the Two Towers, but I have never had any desire to purchase Return of the King. Yes, they were successful movies, and I want to make it clear I don’t think they were dogs, or anything like that. But there wasn’t any good reason for most of what was made different, and there’s never been a good argument raised as to why it was done the way it was.
I disagree. Gandalf just spent the past 20 minutes of movie time saying how incredibly dangerous/corrupting/evil/mind-altering the One Ring is. Gandalf warns to not use the ring and more, to not let anyone else use it or certain doom will follow. Then, in the book, Tom-diddly-flanders-Bombadillo shows up, does a juggling act with the Ring, uses it for cheap stage tricks, and essentially says “Hey l’il doods—it’s no big deal–I’d carry it, but I’m just too twee and flakey. Sor-diddly-orry.”
It’s a terrible bit of pacing in the book, and worse, it’s indiciative of Tolkein’s biggest (IMO) flaw–he assumes the reader knows what HE knows. Yeah, yeah, I’ve read JRR’s letters and understand his motive for including Tom…but that’s never expressly made clear in the book…and frankly, his reasons in the letters sound like after-the-fact rationalizations.
Jackson was wise to cut Tom and leaving him out wasn’t pandering to the lowest common denominator, it was fixing one of JRR’s few errors.
Another good point. My ultimate point really is that I view his decisions based on how they worked on the screen, not how they relate to the source material. It’s more or less true that, in the main, many of the things of his own making that he did put in didn’t work very well. But that’s not the end of his task by a long shot, and overall I think he did a very good job of deciding what to keep, and what to cut. IOW the things he added, in several cases out of whole cloth, made pretty poor cinematic sense, but, of the original source material left in vs. that taken out (for reasons of time or whatever), he pretty much made the right decisions, and deserves credit for that.
Fair enough-note that my post alluded to here by you was made only because I first responded when you said he “didn’t need to change a damn thing in the story”, and I felt I had to point out that he did, and one reason was how modern audiences would have responded to certain aspects of the original story, such as a shrieking Legolas or endless singalongs or a 30 minute detour into Bombadil’s realm which stops the pace of the story in its tracks. It was a 21st century story for a 21st century audience, and if another adaptation (perhaps with sufficient length to really give it its due) comes along in 2101 it will have to keep in mind its audience as well, to some extent or another; it will have the stamp of its time and its place written all over it. That’s all I’m saying really because your other points are sound.
I just snipped a digression I wrote into PJ’s remake of King Kong; I’ll rephrase what I wrote into a question: just how much did his KK model itself after the original, and other 30’s adventure movies (like the various Tarzan movies, and the Flynn pirate flicks, of which the POTC films in turn also drew from heavily), in terms of pacing, feel, and how much of his 2005 audience did he self-consciously have to keep in mind when filming? What elements are still present in KK '05 & POTC (as retro as they are to begin with), and what was changed, in these admittedly subjective categories? Maybe the moviegoers who turned out in droves for these films aren’t as jaded as some (like me!) make them out to be, else they wouldn’t have been as financially successful as they were.
Right-it doesn’t work because it makes no sense, even to someone who has not read the books at all, not so much because he dared deviate from JRRT’s vision.
He definitely has a tin ear for dialogue-the contrasts between the original JRRT dialogue and his and his girls’ is pretty jarring. He did use more than you might think tho, esp. if you haven’t seen the last 2 films lately.
The real problem is that he felt that he had to give most of the major characters an “arc”, in that he felt many of them were originally kind of two-dimensional as written (a criticism I have a fair amount of sympathy for actually). The various director/writer commentaries make that pretty clear, and he is pretty convincing when he puts forth his rationales. But in many cases the arcs were pretty ham-handed, and then there’s the time constraints rearing their ugly head again-nobody outside of Aragorn, Frodo/Sam/
Gollum, & Gandalf had enough screen time to give them their due. Yes Faramir could have had a less rocky path to redemption, if given the time and a smoother path. PJ just balked at having this eternal optimist show up out of the blue and eschew the ring’s draw on him right from the start, and he was worried how the audience would view the ring’s evil reputation; sadly he made him too much of a (seeming) asshole at the beginning. Again just playing Director’s Advocate here really; I think the actual problem is that he was under such a strict schedule in the last 2 movies that the pressures lead to some strange choices.
I’m going to watch TTT commentaries again and pay close attention to what he says during the Faramir scenes. This post is too long already and if I sound a bit incoherent it’s because I’ve already used up 30 minutes of my life crafting it on a night where I’m not feeling 100% physically.
I should have made it clear that the type of changes I am talking about are those of the type that **DSYoungEsq **is talking about. I understand that there had to be elisions etc.
This really sticks in my craw. I listed in an earlier post various idiotic changes and features included by Jackson that couldn’t have done a better job of throwing the audience out of the film if he was trying to do it on purpose. Further, much parody of fantasy and period movies and writing is based precisely upon:
winking acknowledgments within the piece that aspects of it don’t make sense, and
inclusion (and hence juxtaposition) of modern or realistic elements against fantastical/period sequences
The way to ensure that something is not a parody of itself is to play it absolutely straight. Which Jackson pointedly did not do.
The whole scene is stupid – WTF are they doing in Osgiliath in the first place? Why is the entire plot involving Faramir changed from the book, leaving out the best parts? Who knows – PJ and his whacked out writing team made some poor decisions, for sure.
I have to echo that I can’t stand Glowing Green Galadriel (Let Cate act! She’s awesome! Don’t bury her in layers of CG goo!) and Glowing Green Ghosts (Er, Army of the Dead, but that lacks the alliteration). The latter in particular is probably Pete’s origins as a cheesy horror movie director coming back to, ah, haunt him.
Gimli could’ve been worse. And overall I didn’t object to the casting at all. I think David Wenham could have been a fine Faramir if they’d not flubbed the roll so badly in the writing.
Really, what I would have done better was…the script. All of the really major falling down points I have are a result of the writing, and the parts of the films I love best are the ones where they go back to the Professor’s dialogue. I have no fault with the art direction, or the cast, or even, overall, the directing (Except for the extra special effects goo mentioned above) but the script, oh, the script. How vexed I am by you.
If I had to pick a single biggest disappointment though, it would be the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. In the books, it is rather a magnificent roller coaster ride. Tension builds as Pippin and Beregond watch from the battlements, as Faramir and the outer garrison stationed at Osgiliath and the Rammas Echor fight a desperate retreat, striving to fall back to the city walls before they are entirely overrun. A last minute charge by Prince Imrahil and the Knights of Dol Amroth buys the the space to escape… though Faramir falls wounded on the field. (Aside: Makes more sense than him somehow being dragged all the way back from Osgiliath by his horse). The siege begins. Great forces pour across the river and set up upon the fields. Grond comes forth. The gate is shattered! Gandalf holds back the witch king at the gate in what seems a futile gesture. All seems lost, when suddenly, a cock crows, dawn breaks, the horns of the Rohirrim sound upon the field! The Riders of Rohan have arrived! The witch king flees! The day may yet be won! But wait! The Nazgul lord returns on his winged steed, slaying Theoden and casting despair upon the rescuing riders… again fortune seems to turn her face from the forces of good. But from nowhere, Eowyn stands to slay the Witch King! The forces of Mordor are cast into disarray! The Rohirrim rally in a wild charge! But the black fleet of the Corsairs sails up the river! Fresh reinforcements for the besiegers! But then the banner of the King flies in the breeze… etc.
Yeah, they pretty much botched the entire battle. =/
Though for the record, for those of you who seem to be asserting that “normal elephants are good enough, thanks”, that was PJ actually keeping with the book. The Mumakil are supposed to be HUGE. Gigantic. I sadly don’t have my copy of the books in front of me, but when Sam first sees one in Ithilien, the narrator comments about how modern elephants are “just a shadow of his [the Oliphaunt’s] bulk and majesty” or something like.
Right. They* had *comedy relief- the other 3 hobbits, esp Merry and Sam.
But honstly- the films were great. Nearly every single change I have heard can be debated as being worse than the original. Some want Bombadil, others despise Bombadil. Some wanted the Scouring, others hate it.
I think getting rid of Glorfindel and adding back Arwen was inspired.
A splendid summation. And for me one of the most powerful passages in the whole book is the section where Gandalf has just been taunted by the Witch-King. It’s the part that begins “Gandalf did not move” and ends “Rohan had come at last”. Makes me go all tingly just to think of it, and I relish any opportunity to read it aloud.
I dunno, I thought the arrival and charge of the Rohirrim, set to Shore’s very apropos musical score, was very powerful in the film. PJ botches the following scenes tho, mainly by very uneven pacing and unnecessary cuts back and forth. The arrival of the not-Corsairs needed a few more beats to make it effective. I guess Aragorn’s fellow Dunedain got cut out of the script, again, because of time limits.
It was well done, but it doesn’t come at the same carefully pitched moment of despair that it seems to in the books. And honestly, it’s better if you hear the horns before you see the riders.
And thank you, What Exit; That was precisely the passage I was groping for.
But there wasn’t any good reason for most of what was made different, and there’s never been a good argument raised as to why it was done the way it was.
