Greatest sin of Peter Jackson

[alatar]

I'm going to disagree - didn't see that coming, did ya? Peter Jackson's work was popular, but so were bell-bottom jeans and the BeeGees. You can buy the trilogy and movie items at discount. PJ did a wonderful job, but the movies, with some exceptions, don't have the same sticking power as do the books - or at least that's what the current data indicates (and I'm making that data up from whole cloth). Will you be watching them in 35 years (assuming the obvious)? Will you do this yearly as I do with the books? I haven't watched the movies since I wrote the last post for the SbS, but that's because I was going through the movies for 18 months on a weekly basis, and so need a little break. I did watch them on TV when they were shown, but then again, the movies' competition wasn't stiff.

Animal House was a very popular movie (won the People's Choice Award in 1979) for its time and has become part of our (American) culture, yet there are those with whom I work (younger) who've never seen it, and have no idea what my "Faber College" T-shirt even refers to (note that the shirt was so on sale - when did the movie get re-released? - that I could have bought more expensive paper towels).

Again, PJ did well, but let's let a little time for the body to cool before comparing its popularity with the books.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar - I do not disagree with the main points you make here. My claim is NOT that the films will last forever and forever supplant the books. I do not do very well predicting the future since the Entrails R US store went out of business. My point is that now, right here in the present, things given what they are today, there is much resentment among Purists that the films have, for now, supplanted the books in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. Jackson was too successful for them.

Does anbody really care about what was correct or wrong about the Bakshi adaption? You just do not hear much about that? And does anybody really care about the Rankin-Bass TV adaptions if THE HOBBIT and ROTK? But mention the movies here - and on many other sites - and you get a real debate and temperatures can get a bit heated.

Yes, lots of time has passed since the first three adaptions and they are out of sight and out of mind. I admit that. But they also were not very successful and did not threaten to supplant the books in the public mind. And I do think that is a factor -- heck, its my thesis.

I truly believe that if the 3 Jackson adaptions had merely been moderate successes making little more money back than their cost, we would not be talking about it several years later. But we are.

[Kath]

I truly believe that if the 3 Jackson adaptions had merely been moderate successes making little more money back than their cost, we would not be talking about it several years later. But we are.

And that's a good thing. The books are old and they are classics, and many younger people are put off by the idea of reading something like that. The films coming out were a blessing to things Tolkien-based, especially to sites like this, as there was a sudden influx of new members who had either just been introduced to Tolkien or who had just had their old interest renewed.

To say that Purists were jealous is an odd statement to make though. How can you be jealous of the films when you sit with the book in your hands and know you have the better version? The films were not bad, I greatly enjoyed them (aside from a few glaring annoyances), especially FotR which I felt captured more of the magic of the books than the other two films did.

The acceptance of those who had only ever seen the films by those who had been reading the books for however many years shows that there isn't jealousy. Instead it gives the old-timers an opportunity to introduce newbies to the origins of these films they love.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Alatar - I do not disagree with the main points you make here. My claim is NOT that the films will last forever and forever supplant the books. I do not do very well predicting the future since the Entrails R US store went out of business. My point is that now, right here in the present, things given what they are today, there is much resentment among Purists that the films have, for now, supplanted the books in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. Jackson was too successful for them.

And I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think that you have data to back up the hypothesis that (as I see it): Tolkien fanatics miffed by popularity of PJ films.

Do we even have poll results, and if so, are those exclusive to the Downs, which by chance or design may contain a higher than normal concentration of rabid anti-movie-ites?

Does anbody really care about what was correct or wrong about the Bakshi adaption? You just do not hear much about that? And does anybody really care about the Rankin-Bass TV adaptions if THE HOBBIT and ROTK? But mention the movies here - and on many other sites - and you get a real debate and temperatures can get a bit heated.

You see B (and a whole lot of that in recent weeks) and assume A. How many persons have ready access to the Bakshi/R-B films or have even watched them? When was the last time that they were on TV? One can discuss them here, but that would require the much pulling of teeth as, from experience, not many kept up with the dissection of the PJ EE DVDs, which are available (at discount) and are on free TV. And yet...

Yes, lots of time has passed since the first three adaptions and they are out of sight and out of mind. I admit that. But they also were not very successful and did not threaten to supplant the books in the public mind. And I do think that is a factor -- heck, its my thesis.

Different world back then, back when the best you could do was VHS, if that. Now, the DVDs are available shortly after the movie is released so you can view it multiple times and pick out every little gaff and post it on YouTube.

I truly believe that if the 3 Jackson adaptions had merely been moderate successes making little more money back than their cost, we would not be talking about it several years later. But we are.

You don't know the depths of boredom that I will do anything to keep from drowning in.

P.S. Note that there already is a book vs movie thread, but I'm not sure if it's for PJ's or other's works.

[Sauron the White]

from alatar

And I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think that you have data to back up the hypothesis that (as I see it): Tolkien fanatics miffed by popularity of PJ films.

No data, no surveys, no polls, not even talk radio chatter. This is based on my experience on other JRRT related sites plus my few months here. I have not heard anyone saying "I RESENT THOSE BLANKETY BLANK MOVIES". But I do think the attitude and spirit is there in some. It couched in lots of other far more subtle and defendable verbage - but its still there.

from Kath

To say that Purists were jealous is an odd statement to make though. How can you be jealous of the films when you sit with the book in your hands and know you have the better version?

In my opening post I did not use the term jealous. I do not think this is the emotion that the purists feel. My term would be resentment. Macalaure posted some interesting thoughts saying it is as much the purist belief that PJ got it wrong as much as the popularity. And I can understand that. I don't believe that the book purists are jealous of the films and want the same level of success right now for the books. No - they are not jealous in that they are coveting the success of the films.

and from Quempel

Ralph Bakshi's version is laughable at best. It made me want to burn my eyes out. As Pheobe said on Friends, my eyes, my eyes.

In total agreement. It took me a good dozen years to get rid of the nagging idea that Boromir was a viking and Aragorn some lost member of a tribe of Native Americans.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

No data, no surveys, no polls, not even talk radio chatter. This is based on my experience on other JRRT related sites plus my few months here. I have not heard anyone saying "I RESENT THOSE BLANKETY BLANK MOVIES". But I do think the attitude and spirit is there in some. It couched in lots of other far more subtle and defendable verbage - but its still there.

I do not mean this to be mean, but you are the observer, and you may have some bias, or more probable , are the causal agent. And note that I doubt even my own eyes, and so I'm definitely not saying anything negative about you or that your observations are incorrect. I just know how wrong I can be (with the exception of anything negative I say about the Jackson films), and so...

In total agreement. It took me a good dozen years to get rid of the nagging idea that Boromir was a viking and Aragorn some lost member of a tribe of Native Americans.

It's not the images, it's the soundtrack! I've considered doing brain surgery on myself just to remove "Where there's a whip, there's a way!" And those other songs...ugh!

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by alatar

I've considered doing brain surgery on myself just to remove "Where there's a whip, there's a way!"

Wait -- you're joking, right? "Where There's a Whip There's a Way" totally rockz!

We don't wanna go to war today
But the lord of the lash says nay, nay, nay!

It's catchy, man! Not to mention it's almost canonical. And that groovy synth bass was state of the art at the time (okay, that part's not canonical, though). Besides, what other version of LotR makes you feel compassion for the hapless, lowly orc foot soldier?

Anyway, brain surgery won't work. Someone's bound to come along and hit you up with a YouTube link and then you have to take the power drill out all over again.

[Meriadoc1961]

I do not think jealousy has anything to do with it. I suppose that could be the case for a few people, but for most? No.

I, for one, am very happy the films did well, for I know it sparked interest in reading the books in more than one person I know personally, who previously did not read them.

I have not denied that I prefer the books, but I do not hate the movies at all. In fact, I am not ashamed to admit that I like the movies. Does that mean I do not think Jackson dropped the ball in many ways in how he handled, how he changed the characters, characters that needed no changing? No, it does not. I do believe he made some egregious errors in character manipulation, particularly in the portrayal of Faramir.

Merry

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

It's catchy, man!

And therein lies the problem. It's like a modern day version of Frodo's experience with the One Ring as he crawled across the Gorgoroth. The Whip song burns itself into your mind, and you can never ever again be free of its call.

[Bêthberry]

It's a frightening, frightening thing for True Believers to feel that there are alternate creeds out there gathering more souls and even reeling in apostates than the One, er, Three Good Books.

You know, this summer, I was talking with an eleven year old boy about Harry Potter. He was all excited after the latest movie release and last book release. So I asked him what he thought of the last book. And he said he didn't read it and won't read it as the books are too full of details and description and stuff and he can't wait to see the next movies.

To be fair to him, he's a second language English speaker.

But it gave me an insight into what PJ has done. He's made Middle-earth an experience even for those who don't or can't read English. Middle-earth was unreachable to people who don't know English (or who were dependent upon the frailties of translation.) But PJ has taken Middle-earth out of Tolkien's language-based concept and repatriated it for a completely different kind of territory, one not mapped by language or imagination so much as by sensory experience.

I think this is what might bug the Tolkians, that the word is now gone from the face of Middle earth.

Speaking entirely as someone who has not recited the Creed of Tolkien but who doesn't worship at the shrine of Jackson either.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Does anbody really care about what was correct or wrong about the Bakshi adaption? You just do not hear much about that? And does anybody really care about the Rankin-Bass TV adaptions if THE HOBBIT and ROTK? But mention the movies here - and on many other sites - and you get a real debate and temperatures can get a bit heated.

.

I remember quite a bit of discussion in the Tolkien Society when the Bakshi movie came out, but that was a long time ago. I re-watched some of it recently & given the time & limitations I don't think it was too bad an effort. I don't think its worse than the PJ movies - if Bakshi had had the same budget & technology to hand I suspect his version would have been much much superior. Bakshi had to resort to animation & rotoscoping because that was all that was available. Its nearly thirty years since Bakshi's version appeared, & none of us can say whether PJ's version will even be remembered thirty years from now.

It was also successful enough to help inspire the BBC to adapt LotR for radio (a couple of the same actors were involved) - & that version is far & away the best adaptation that there has ever been - Jackson's version doesn't even come close. I challenge anyone to set aside a day (its 13 hours long) & listen to the Sibley/Bakewell LotR & not be profoundly moved. Starting out in the Shire in the morning & following the characters through the day & ending back at Bag End late at night is an amazing experience. I've done the same thing with the extended editions of the movies once & at the end just felt glad I'd managed to get through it.

And that's the point I'd emphasise - it is possible to produce a brilliant, beautiful, powerful & faithful adaptation of LotR. Its just that PJ didn't manage to do it, whereas Sibley, Bakewell & the BBC did.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I have never heard the BBC broadcasts but will take up your challenge. I have ordered it through Amazon for $45.00 US.

I must take issue with the statement that the Bakshi film is no worse than the Jackson films. The Bakshi version was handicapped by the lack of the budget that Jackson had - so I concede that to you. But I found fault not with what he was unable to do - but what he did do. Boromir as a viking!!!!! Aragorn looking like some American Indian. The orcs were pretty terrible and the entire rotoscoping technique made much of the film look muddy and without proper detail. His Balrog looked like a monsterish version of the Disney character Goofy. The scene with the Nazgul on Weathertop was terrible with the Nazgul looking beyond bad. Helms Deep was almost like a bad Mad Magazine parody with all these actors hidden under robes and hoods with fangs coming out of their mouths that glowed in the dark.

If you have the Ballantine Books Filmbook of the movie you can see this in all its glory.

It has taken me years to get rid of some of those horrid images. Of course, I imagine that is how some here feel about the Jackson films.

But it was obvious that the public certainly did not take to the Bakshi version as they did to the Jackson films. The public spoke loudly in that regard. They clearly voiced a preference.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem ... I have never heard the BBC broadcasts but will take up your challenge. I have ordered it through Amazon for $45.00 US.

Best Frodo, best Sam & best Gollum by far. Not to mention an amazing Saruman. http://www.briansibley.com/Broadcast...GoesEverOn.htm. Of course, you'll never know the thrill of waiting for the episodes to be broadcast over a six month period (originally as 26 half hour episodes on Sunday lunchtimes, re-cut to 13 hour long episodes for re-broadcast). And they retain Tolkien's dialogue for the most part, & many of the songs & poems.

And I note from Sibley's piece:

The scripting took several months. The completed scripts were then sent to France to be read and approved by the author's son, Christopher Tolkien. His help with the project included recording an audiocassette of the acceptable pronunciation of Middle-earth words and names.

I must take issue with the statement that the Bakshi film is no worse than the Jackson films. The Bakshi version was handicapped by the lack of the budget that Jackson had - so I concede that to you. But I found fault not with what he was unable to do - but what he did do. Boromir as a viking!!!!! Aragorn looking like some American Indian. The orcs were pretty terrible and the entire rotoscoping technique made much of the film look muddy and without proper detail. His Balrog looked like a monsterish version of the Disney character Goofy. The scene with the Nazgul on Weathertop was terrible with the Nazgul looking beyond bad. Helms Deep was almost like a bad Mad Magazine parody with all these actors hidden under robes and hoods with fangs coming out of their mouths that glowed in the dark.

Of course the look of the movie is terrible - but that's the point I'm making - Bakshi didn't have the resources Jackson did, & was basically having to invent the look of M-e from scratch. When I compare the money & technology the two directors had I have a softer spot for what Bakshi achieved than what PJ did. I'd seriously like Bakshi to have the same budget as Jackson & see what he made of it. I strongly suspect that if Jackson had been reduced to animation & rotoscoping his version would have been much worse than Bakshi's.

[Knight of Gondor]

Would you have it any other way? I think a perfect balance has been struck. Fans have been introduced to Tolkien's works through a magnificent and artful film trilogy. Yes, there were problems, discrepancies and changes, some more severe than others. But PJ knew he had to cater to more than purists if he was to create magic at the box office, and I think he did well overall.

Look at the results. The films reign among the very great now, and have enticed many more to read Tolkien's works. I doubt this very forum would be at its current state if the film had not come into being.

And yet, there are those of us who can still maintain a Tolkien purity of sorts. It is we who were interested in the books before the film, it is we who delve into the intricacies of the genealogies of the Eldar, it is we who, as Jason Fox of the comic "Foxtrot" once remarked, "drew detailed maps of Osgiliath on our notebooks during math class."

If I may say so without sounding arrogant or elitist, this base of fans who derive their knowledge of the films primarily from the films, don't have the richer, deeper background in Middle-Earth to appreciate the history, lore and legend.

I don't know about you, but it kind of makes me feel like I have an edge over the rest of these fans -- and yet I'm glad that Jackson has attracted their attentions so that LotR can have a more diverse range of devotees.

[Quempel]

I don't hate PJ's work with LoTR. I rather enjoy it. But what I can't stand is calling it his story. It's his vision of the a story but it is not his original idea nor is it his original story.

Ralph Bakshi's version is laughable at best. It made me want to burn my eyes out. As Pheobe said on Friends, my eyes, my eyes.