How much do you have to change a character/storyline before it stops being an “interpretation” and becomes a different story? I never said PJ and/or crew was “bad people”, I think you’re misplacing a bit of that from someone else onto me. I draw the line where it stops being an interpretation and becomes a different story somewhere other than where you do apprently. Go ahead and throw your nameless masses of people who also think this was an interpretation instead of a different story into it, that doesn’t mean either of us is right and the other wrong.
I’m fine with calling this Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings. I’m not so fine with calling it J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, but J.R.R.T. sold his name and title to New Line Cinema for tons of money and I’m going to have to live with the fact that they can put the name on it even if it’s about four transsexuals trying to learn how to cope with the pressures of living in a dome under the pacific ocean. Doesn’t mean I’m a bad person for not liking how they’ve “interpreted” the story.
So, if someone tells you they disagree with your opinion, it’s now considered a “juvenile crack?”
Well, I guess that proves ONE of us is acting juvenile…
The juvenile part was the “many, many others” bit. As if the nameless masses you conjure up at your will matters in some way. Kind of like the “my dad can beat up your dad” crap juveniles use to pick on each other. More people agree with you than me, so I’m a poo-poo head. Didn’t mean it that way? That’s how it came across.
Point the first :rolleyes: : I think you’ve muddled the history of Tolkien’s copyright issues a wee bit there, but I’ll let others more familiar with the whole story jump in to clarify things.
Point the second: I almost expected you to say, “JRRT was great until he turned into a such a sellout, man”. You (and others) sound like Metallica fans after the Black Album, or fans of any other niche genre after the stuff they huddle with in their rooms actually becomes popular :eek: and gains exposure to the uninformed burgeois masses. I think that’s what this thread is really about.
Somehow I doubt it would have come across that way to someone who didn’t already have a chip on their shoulder.
The fact is, most people don’t believe the movies were unfaithful to the books. You do, and that’s fine, but you need to be sure that you understand you’re in the minority and your opinion isn’t gospel on the subject. Voicing a differing opinon doesn’t make you wrong and it doesn’t make you an idiot (though your attitude gives some indications in this direction, frankly) but don’t think for a moment you are making the definitive statement on the matter.
The movies are just about as close to the book as was possible while still producing a movie that would make money, IMHO.
Are you guys done marginalizing the guy who disagrees with you yet? Done telling him his opinion is stupid because it is different from “many, many others” or because the way he expressed it reminded you of some whiners you also don’t like? Done reading ulterior motives into his posts?
Just checking to see if it’s safe to set my cross up yet since it appears you’ve got the nails all ready.
This is pretty harsh I think. While it is too bad that the whole set-up for Merry and Pippin was cut for time purposes, I don’t think it makes their roles random and pointless. No one has complained about Sam’s devotion and yet he too, in the movie, has had his part changed to being a sort of “last minute addition” to the trip–in the book, Merry, Pippin and Sam all know about Frodo’s actions beforehand and resolve to go with him. In the movie, while the origins of their involvement are somewhat different, I believe their motives, beliefs, and spirit are exactly the same. Merry and Pippin ARE dedicated friends to Frodo in the movie just as much as in the book:
They come in the first place–if all they were interested in were mushrooms and carrots, they could have avoided the situation and gone home with said food. But just as in the book, they realize Frodo’s danger (esp. Merry) and resolve to help.
On Weathertop, they throw themselves in front of Frodo to try and fend off the Black Riders–hopelessly of course, but they still do it.
Rivendell–the line you quoted even appears in the movie. At the Council of Elrond those are Merry’s very words–“You’d have to send us home tied up in a sack to stop us”… from, obviously, sticking with our companion to the end.
Last and perhaps strongest–the final battle of FOTR. Merry and Pippin A) try to save Frodo, then B) realize that he has to continue alone, and FINALLY C) make it possible for him to do just that, while putting themselves in huge danger. If the orcs hadn’t been ordered not to kill halflings they would have sacrified themselves for their friend right there.
(Also in tTT are Merry’s protestations that “they’re friends are out there and they need help” etc. etc.) All, in my opinion, very strong proof that the two hobbits are still incredibly dedicated to Frodo and to the rest of their companions.
This may be my take only, but I seriously never saw Aragorn look interested in Eowyn at all. And believe me, I wouldn’t even mind if he did since I like her so much better than Arwen. But that aside, I really think that he’s true-true-true to Arwen all throughout tTT. Eowyn by simply being a woman must remind him of his own relationship and of his promise, but I don’t think he ever contemplates giving either up. Even in the book Tolkien relates “glaces” etc. between Aragorn and Eowyn, but I think his fidelity is immaculate in both book and movie. When he urges her to go to the Undying Lands he’s not giving up his love for her; he’s trying to improve her life. I don’t think Aragorn would ever marry if Arwen really had gone.
**
Owch. Indeed. I thought Mirando Otto’s performance was one of the most moving and real in tTT because of her beautifully restrained emotions. Her regal bearing and her originally aloof attitude toward Aragorn (“I fear neither death nor pain” etc) do more than simply suggest pride and majesty–they prove it. Her reaction when she thinks him dead (this episode’s non-book-existance notwithstanding) shows the truth and reality of her affection for him–the silent tears are amazing. But even more revealing is her reaction when he returns and Legolas hands him the Evenstar–at first overjoyed, then awkward, then mature enough to restrain her happiness because she knows that SHE is not the one on his mind. Eowyn’s lineage and pride are constantly pointed out–just because the movie lets her smile a few times doesn’t mean she isn’t bearing a sorrow at heart. That’s true of almost every character in LOTR.
To partly_warmer: thanks for taking into account my broadsword/fencing comments. As for your intention to win the argument, well… I’ll hold my stands till Orthanc falls, but hey, it’s a merry war all the same! :rolleyes:
Mtgman!
In case you just read my post–please don’t feel “marginalized” or accused! I tried to offer sufficient back-up for my views, and I definitely don’t want to argue–just discuss. Don’t think I’m attacking you! XD (hehe, I’m so afraid of getting blasted on these boards!)
Umm, it’s your opinion they’re marginal, your appeal to unnamed authority that they’re unpopular and I’ll admit they’re subjective. I posted very clearly places where the movie version differs from the book version. You clearly think those differences are inconsequential. I think they are not inconsequential and the person I was replying to(Qadgop FTR) also seemed to find at least the Elves at Helm’s Deep a significant variation from the source material as well. Enough that it bothered him.
Epigramcracker Cheers! If yours had been the first reply, a well-thought rebuttal of my criticisms of the movie, instead of some half-baked dismissal of my concerns on grounds of some dubious authority I’d not be on a cross at all. I’ve got to give the kids a bath and get them in bed, I’ll try to find time to address your excellent counterpoints. I think the Elves at Helm’s Deep will still be a sticking point for me, but I’m reasonably sure we can find some common ground. ATM I’m just really disappointed because IMO JRRT’s Lord of the Rings still hasn’t been brought to cinema. I was even more disappointed with the changes in tTT because of the remarkable “true to the book” work Jackson did with FotR.
All in all I thought I did a good job pointing out my quarrels with the movie adaptations, the point of the thread last time I checked, and backing them up. To have them dismissed out of hand and be lumped into some of the categories I was shoved into by Doghouse and RikWriter was pretty uncalled for IMHO. I wasn’t saying something utterly rediculous like “But the Balrog had WINGS! It was a shitty movie and Peter Jackson is the spawn of the devil because any True Tolkien fan knows Balrogs aren’t supposed to have wings!” I presented what I believed to be a significant list of significant changes most of which I felt were unnecessary(again, follwing the purpose of the thread). In return I’m essentially told that I should sit down and shut up or go back to my goth fantasy land. The masses have spoken and if I disagree then they’re perfectly justified to start looking for signs of alien rectal probing because I’m obviously some sort of kook.
So… you think they should have made one multi-million dollar three-picture LotR epic with Aragorn the way you want him, and if that didn’t work, then they could try it the other way in the next multi-million dollar three-picture LotR epic? They’ve only got one shot at this movie, the entire concept of which is already pretty experimental, and incredibly risky, financially speaking. I can’t say I blame Jackson for making a few minor changes to help ensure the success of these films.
And he made a good call with this character. I love Tolkien, but characterization was not his strong suit. Not to say that I didn’t like them in the books, but I had 1200+ pages to get to know them in the books. Jackson’s got two to three hours, max, to get the same effect. And while a book can survive poor characterization and still be considered a classic, a movie with bad characterization is dead in the water, almost without exception. If the audience isn’t identifying with your characters, they aren’t interested in your film.
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Your interpretation is not at all supported by the film. Merry and Pippin could have gone home once they’d made it as far as Rivendale. But they heard Frodo was continuing on and volunteered to go with him. They certainly didn’t stay with the Fellowship for the food of all things.
I’d call it necessary character development from a cinematic perspective. Relationships are only interesting when they are in conflict. You know why you almost never see happily married couples in movies or TV? 'Cause they’re boring. People falling into and out of love make good movies. A relationship that starts before the movie begins and is resolved after the movie ends (as would have happened if Jackson had stayed completely true to the books) is pointless, to say nothing of boring.
I confess, I doubt remember how this happened in the book, and your syntax is a little confused, so I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying he was coward before Gandalf showed up, when he was under Wormtongue’s influence? Or do you mean after Gandalf showed up, when he decided against taking his army of three hundred boys and old men into the field against 10,000 orcs and instead retreated to a more defensible position? Eitehr way, I never saw any of his actions as cowardly.
Well, this runs into a serious problem I had with the source material: the Ring never seemed that dangerous to me. I accepted that it was, because everyone in the book kept saying so, but there wasn’t much hard evidence for its evil. After Sauron, six people possessed the Ring: Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo, Tom Bombadil (briefly) and Sam (briefly). Of these six, fully one half willingly gave up the Ring, or tried to. Frodo tried to give it to every other person he met! Having Faramir shrug it off like it was somebody’s dirty laundry, rather than make Faramir look noble, made the Ring look puny. And, dammit, I don’t even see this as changing his character! He’s tempted by it, like his brother was, but Faramir withstands the temptation and wisely sends the Ring out of his grasp. He’s noble, he’s strong of character, how is this different than in the book?
On the elves at Helm’s Deep: I think you’re getting a little hysterical about this “diminishing the scope of the war.” This is a subjective impression, but I didn’t get that at all. I thought it was clear that what we were seeing was just Saruman’s forces, that once they were done with that, the real test was going to be Sauron’s own forces. This was the opening skirmish of the war that’s going to be Return of the King.
I thought the elves were a token force, sent to show that the Elves stood with Men, while the main Elvish force mobilized back in Rivendell. They were a symbolic force on a suicide mission. I think Jackson added them because he loves LotR so much. He wanted to show Elves At War, but the books never showed them in battle, so he squeezed a squad into Helm’s Deep. Just because it was so damn cool. I’ve no problem at all with deviating from the source material when the result kicks that much ass.
Sorry about that previous post, the first part of that was composed before Epigramcracker posted and was intended to be a reply to RikWriter.
I really need to run, but just food for thought. Epigramcracker, the line in Rivendell where Merry and Pippen say they’ll have to be tied in a sack to keep from following Frodo into danger isn’t really that strong an arguement that they were knowingly walking into deadly peril out of love for their friend when you consider the line right after it was a muttered “Where are we goin?” Admittely I think they do love Frodo and are enduring the road because of him, but their courage doesn’t shine as brightly if you don’t know they took the road willingly and with full knowledge(or at least significant knowledge) of the dangers.
Well, at worst that shows that Pippin didn’t know the dangers. But even so, I say that it makes them even braver. They don’t know what they’re getting into, and they don’t care. Frodo needs their help. It doesn’t matter where it takes them, because no place could be so awful that they wouldn’t go with him.
Fanboy geek quibble: Amazing Fantasy # 15, Amazing Spider-Man #121 and #122…
And I disagree with you about Uncle Ben: the bit where the thief, out of all the houses/apartments/train stations/etc in the world, just happened to decide “Hey, I’m on the lam from the law! I’ll go to Forest Lawns to hide out!” was the weakest part of the story.*
Frankly, if it were up to me (and it’s not) the movie version would be cannon for that single scene.
Fenris
*No fair applying any of the retcons that tried to explain it: you’re talking the creator’s original vision. And besides, every one of the retcons was lame and detracted from the story. (The "secret money in the attic one, Byrne’s “The thief met Uncle Ben before” one, etc).
I think the fact that there are so many nitpicks is a sign of how well Jackson did his job. When you watch most actioin movies, you don’t expect the swordfighting to be realistic or the tactics to be perfect or any of that. Jackson put so much work into making his movies “realistic” that you expect that in everything. Which is, I think, fair.
I still don’t see the problem with changing certain things for the sake of drama. Tolkien’s narritive did have some problems, and the utter nobility of some of its characters may have been one of them. I don’t have a good enough memory to provide specfic examples. However, the movies were good, exciting movies. Its an ADPATATION. I’d much rather see a good unfaithful movie then a bad faithful one (points to Harry Potter and coughs). And LOTR was much closer to the book then some things…
Yes! That’s one of the things I really like about the movies; they get across how creepy and powerful the Ring is. When a character touches it and sees a flash of the eye of Sauron, or when Frodo wears it and he goes into the shadow world, it’s genuinely unsettling. For most of the book, it sounds as if someone can just pop it on and off and the only side effect is turning invisible – Gollum is changed by it, obviously, but the implication is that it’s only because he was the ringbearer for hundreds of years.
That’s a key point about all the changes in the adaptation. For the movie to work without the benefit of Tolkien’s lengthy descriptions and exposition and appendices, it can’t just tell you what’s going on, or even show you. It’s got to make you feel it. From all the video and sound effects going on when Frodo wears the Ring, you get a feeling how powerful it is. The changes to the Faramir subplot do the same thing, I think – you feel the sense of dread that the ring is going to be taken from the hobbits and they’re powerless to stop it, and you watch along with Faramir as he sees the true power (and evil) of the ring and realizes that it’s better to destroy it.
As a side note, one of the things that I was disappointed with in the first movie was that the Ringwraiths didn’t seem all that scary. In the book, there was this sense of dread throughout the Hobbits’ journey to Bree, the feeling that they could be caught at any moment. But I’m not sure if any visualization would be as powerful as the mental image from the book.