Would you have put the elves at Helm's Deep for $150 Million?

I read where P. J. will take home some $150 Million for directing/writing/producing Lord of the Rings:The Three Films. He clearly made the right commercial decisions about “what to leave in and what to leave out” as well as what to add that was never there…whatever you may think of them as artistic decisions.

Would you make the same decisions (cut Bombadil, ramp up the “relationship” between Aragorn and Arwen, elves at Helm’s Deep, etc. ad nauseum) if you knew, or believed, that you’d be taking home that sort of paycheck–not to mention roaring to the top of your profession?

I would have put* Keebler* Elves at Helm’s Deep for $150 Million.

You should remember that it was not a choice between having all three films released at the movie theater with 150 million dollars or else no money, it was a choice between making changes to the book and thus justifying the production of two more movies and release at the movie theater, or else changing nothing, having the movie bomb, and thus not being able to justify the cost of releasing the second two films at the movie theater (besides the fact that if the first film hadn’t made as much money if it had, New Line would have completely gone bankrupt, and there would be noone left to put it out), at the very best they would be seen as videotapes at fan conventions without any special effects (like Gollum) or postproduction work done, they wouldn’t be able to afford that, either.

When you understand that fact, yes I think I will accept the cost of having 150 million dollars, if the benefit is the fact that the two sequels get to be released.

Best post EVER!

IMHO the success of the movies has happened despite the changes to the story rather than because of them. How many people went to see them because of Liv Tyler? And I had no idea there’d be elves at Helm’s Deep until I went and saw The Two Towers.

I think the changes were justified and worked. I have no problems with them whatsoever.

Frankly, I have hated the movies and am not sure if I will bother to see ROTK. However, I do think some of the changes were justified, such as leaving out Bombadil. Bombadil was interesting and fun, but he was really sort of a tangent that doesn’t really play a crucial role in the major plotline.

The ramped up romance between Arwen and Aragorn is lame, IMO. And the Elves at Helm’s Deep didn’t bother me at all.

Given what we don’t know…

If funding three movies instead of one or two depended on getting a “name” like Liv Tyler and expanding her role, I’d have done it. (My gut is that no one - not even the actors, director and producers - think that role works - or we’d see more of it, but that it was contracted in. How else did Liv Tyler get such great billing and heavily featured in the promo materials for such a small role).

I can’t figure out how you’d add Tom Bombadil without cutting a major plot point and end up with a movie that’s less than four hours. A four hour movie wouldn’t have been released, thus, no Tom. Fine with that. Movie without Tom better than no movie at all.

Elves at Helm’s Deep…didn’t bug me one bit. Don’t understand why they needed to be added - didn’t seem to count for much other than keeping the Elves from looking like they were willing to let men get wiped out by evil as long as they got to sail away. I’m guessing that Elves needed to look a lot more sympathetic to make the movies work.

Some of the questions are artistic - those changes I don’t necessarily “get” - but its hard from the outside to know which those are. Some are practical and needed to be done to get the film funded and released. So the question becomes, would you have expanded the Arwen/Aragorn romance and cut Tom Bombadil if that was the only way you were going to be able to make the films?

Well, how else do you expect to get males to show up to a movie like LOTR without an attractive female lead? :wink:

Sheesh… this is almost as dumb as the “I don’t like the pronunciations they used in the movies” thread.

Directors make artistic decisions for the sake of their craft. In some, if not all, cases, there is little difference between artistic and commercial decisions. They go hand-in-hand.

Let it go, people… :rolleyes:

Are that many people upset about this? The thing about it is, that part of the book didn’t make much sense, and it wasn’t that good. :wink:

Eru Iluvatar have mercy upon us!!

Look, the entire point of making a movie out of a book is to adapt the story as told in the book to a story-that-works-in-a-movie. That means that if there’s an internal monologue, the protagonist thinking something, in the book, one must either do that as him sitting/standing with a voice-over of him thinking, or rewrite it so he has those thoughts in dialogue with another character. It means if there are references to repeated events “offstage” in the book, one must either bring them onstage, drop them, or consolidate them.

The Battle of Helm’s Deep was used by Peter Jackson to consolidate the Battles of the Fords of Isen, half-a-dozen battles across half of Rohan, and numerous other events, including the Lorien Elves attacking Dol Guldur.

According to the book, the Elves have been a vital part of the warfare against Sauron and his forces since the Second Era, over 5000 years before. But all that happens “offstage” in the plotline of the books. So if we’re going to have any Elves besides Legolas shown as fighting the Sauron/Saruman alliance, they have to be doing it onstage in the movie, and, since PJ decided not to have repetitive battles in The Two Towers (in which I think he was right), that means you’re going to have to show them taking part in the one battle shown – Helm’s Deep. As an adaptation of the story to meet movie conventions, it was a bright move on his part. We see the Elves not just as mystical, place-out-of-time figures, but as active parts of the coalition of the good guys, actively combatting Sauron. And we know from the books that Lorien and Rohan were in fact allied, though there was some superstitious fear of elves among the Rohirrim-in-the-street and some sense of men-are-taking-over-and-we’re-left-behind among the typical Elf-in-the-woods.

Likewise, the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is canonical, but placed in an appendix as not being integral to the Quest Story that forms the major plotline of LOTR. In order that there be some female presence in the story, PJ moved it into the main story line, and reworked Aragorn’s motivation a bit – a plotline that makes a bit more sense out of why he’s waited until now to claim his inheritance. This was truly a departure from Tolkien in the way that the consolidation of battles into the Helm’s Deep scene was not, but IMHO was a change for the better. Don’t forget that Tolkien consistently fiddled with the story lines of his mythology over a sixty-year period to attempt to make it more in tune with human nature (and his conceptions of Elf, Dwarf, etc. nature).

What I’m saying is, in a movie adaptation, it makes more sense to consolidate the battle scenes, which take far longer to show than they do to be alluded to in the book, into one climactic battle – and if you do that, you need to incorporate all the developments of the various battles into that single battle scene. Ergo, Elves combatting the Forces of Evil militarily, which is canonical, must be brought into the one battle you’re going to film – which means they come to the aid of the Rohirrim (as, if you read the history, they actually did in other times and places).

PJ could have filmed the story exactly as Tolkien wrote it – and produced a 20-movie-long series that would never have been financed and would attract an audience of exclusively rabid Tolkien fans (who would then have found other things to bitch about). And he’d have never gotten it off the ground.

Personally I think he did an outstanding job of remaining more-or-less true to the canonical plot while adapting it for the big screen.

Polycarp - You nailed it beautifully. I was never that big a fan of the books - I have read them several times, but just didn’t find them all that good or special. But what Jackson has done with the original material is FANTASTIC!!! I plan on watching the EE DVDs every year for the rest of my life.

What every fanboy has to keep in mind is that what works on the page NEVER works on the screen. It always has to be tweaked, because the visual medium is so different than that of the written word.

I understand why he had to make the changes. I just think the changes he ended up making suck and I ended up hating both movies. And probably won’t bother watching the third. YMMV.

Damn funny, best laugh I have had all day! :smiley:

Hell, for $150 mil, I’d have given them organic webshooters too!

And I think Liv Tyler is quite good in both FOTR and TTT. So there.

What Polycarp said. These are Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the Tolkien novels. Changes are Jackson’s responsibility and his opinion about bringing over what he regards as Tolkien’s themes into the cinematic medium. He isn’t “ruining” the books; the books are still on the shelf where they’ve always been. (And don’t try to argue that people will see the movies and then not read the books; those people wouldn’t have read the books in the first place. In fact, I’d wager that more people will read the books due to the success of the film versions.)

Seriously, Jackson’s adaptation is not only as faithful as it’s reasonable to be, it’s more faithful than I would have thought possible. He’s maintained Tolkien’s undercurrent about natural vs. technological cultures. He’s keeping the bittersweet feeling of victory that was so important to Tolkien as a witness to the horrors of World War I.

Those who complain just don’t understand how the movie industry works. That these movies got made at all is a miracle, let alone how much of the source material they’ve managed to cram in, either directly (Faramir’s little speech about the dead bad guy being just another guy in the extended Two Towers) or obliquely (one of Tom Bombadil’s lines appearing in Treebeard’s mouth). Remember that Miramax wanted Jackson to make two movies of two hours apiece. What kind of travesty would that have been? And even after they moved to New Line and got expanded to three movies, one of the first notes from the studio was, “What do you need four hobbits four? Cut one.”

Jackson and his filmmaking team knew they’d have to compromise; I read an interview with two of the writers (Walsh and Boyens) in which they referred to their changes, with tongues only partly in cheek, as “crimes.” They didn’t have a choice; the only way to get the movies to work was to treat them as movies. The key here is that they came to the material with love and respect, and that they wanted to do justice to Tolkien to the best of their abilities and given the limitations of the form. In that, I think they succeeded beyond anyone’s expectations, except for the purists who don’t understand how movies work and how they get made.

I’ve said this before: Imagine the disaster these movies would be if someone like Michael Bay or James Cameron or Jan de Bont or Richard Donner or Rob Cohen or McG or Renny Harlin or any other of the studio golden boys had been handed the reins. Imagine giant orange gasoline explosions at Helm’s Deep. Imagine a big triumphant parade at the end that completely misses the point of Tolkien’s difficult-victory-bloodily-earned message. Imagine that Elvish is never spoken by anybody. Imagine Sauron as an actual guy stomping around with whom Aragorn has to have a big kung fu swordfight. Those who are horrified that there are elves at Helm’s Deep have no idea just how bad it could have been.

Jackson & Co have made certain decisions that concede the need for popular acceptance, but objectively speaking it’s astonishing how few of these there are given how movies are normally made. I mean, I’m not a Michael Crichton fan, and Timeline is kind of a dumb book, but the movie version is even worse because it dispenses with even the rudimentary beginnings of good ideas in the novel. Take that as a lesson.

So yeah, I would have put elves at Helm’s Deep, and I would have cut Tom Bombadil, and I would have ramped up the Arwen and Aragorn romance, and I would have given the elves pointy ears, and I would have given the Balrog wings, and I would have had Faramir tempted by the Ring, and I would have done it for free.

I liked the elves at Helm’s Deep, thought it added to the story in a positive way. In the extended version, there is mention of a plan to also add Arwen among the elves at HD, that was scrapped. I’m glad that didn’t happen.

I really liked the Two Towers extended version a lot better than FotR, I think the writers really tried hard to keep the fans in mind, while still making a movie that flowed. A nod to Bombadil, by giving Treebeard some of his lines, the elven rope scene, Merry and Pippin drinking Ent draught and meeting Old Man Willow, etc. I was really happy to see all of that.

[slight hijack]In part of the extended version, there is discussion about exactly which two towers Tolkien was referring to. I always thought it was Sauron’s and Saruman’s towers?[/sh]

Personally, the only change that I disliked was Faramir being tempted by the Ring. Ruined that character, which was my favorite in the books. I know that they may have been trying to play-up how great Aaragorn was by having him be the only human NOT so tempted, but I still say it sucks.

Also, I HATED the fact that Frodo shows the Ring to the Nazgul in Osgliliath. From what I remember, wouldn’t the War have essentially been over at that point? If Sauron knew where the Ring was, he would have just focused all his efforts in that direction. I know that in the books, one of the reasons they start the war is to distract Sauron from the fact that Frodo was bringing the Ring into his back yard.

That said, I still can’t believe how good the movies actually are. Whoever said it above is right, these could have easily been a complete f’n disaster!