Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Again, that's a matter of opinion. StW's point was that movie Boromir's death was more moving than book Boromir's. My point was that if you completely re-write the character to make him more sympathetic/likeable its not difficult to make his death more moving, & that if you re-wrote Sauron's/Saruman's/Wormtongue's/The Balrog's characters to make them more sympathetic/likeable then their death's would be more moving than in the book.

Correct me if I am in error, but I was under the belief that Boromir was suppose to be one of the good guys that we cheer for. In the book he comes off as having far more negative traits than positive ones. I have read many posts both here and on other Tolkien sites that claim that the Film Boromir was far more likable than the book one and many said they actually liked him for the first time.

I have a funny feeling that some of the apologists will now claim that is due to the incredible level of complexity that Tolkien used in writing the character. I simply look at it as a character not really written well. Jackson showed how the character could fill the same role but be far more sympathetic and his death far more dramatic.

You bring up Sauron and Saruman and Wormtongue and the Balrog and ask why not give them the same treatment? I would have thought that was obvious since they are all on the opposite side of our good guys and why would we want to stir up any sympathy for them?

Like many of the younger generation would say.....'duh".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Correct me if I am in error, but I was under the belief that Boromir was suppose to be one of the good guys that we cheer for. In the book he comes off as having far more negative traits than positive ones. I have read many posts both here and on other Tolkien sites that claim that the Film Boromir was far more likable than the book one and many said they actually liked him for the first time.

Yes - & your point is? That LotR is a story of perfect good guys in white hats who are completely loveable versus horrible bad guys in black hats who behave like pantomime villains?? Tolkien did not write Boromir to be a likeable character. In short, no, we aren't supposed to 'cheer' for Boromir in the way you imply. Tolkien was writing for grown-ups who understand that people are complicated, & not all the people on the 'good' side are actually 'good'.

[

I simply look at it as a character not really written well. Jackson showed how the character could fill the same role but be far more sympathetic and his death far more dramatic.

So, in other words, because the character Tolkien wrote wasn't somebody you'd consider a stereotypical 'hero' it must be a result of bad writing?

You bring up Sauron and Saruman and Wormtongue and the Balrog and ask why not give them the same treatment? I would have thought that was obvious since they are all on the opposite side of our good guys and why would we want to stir up any sympathy for them?

As you must realise, the point I was making is that if you rewrite a morally dubious character & make him into a sympathetic 'hero' his death will elicit sympathy, so if you rewrite a 'villainous' character & make him a sympathetic figure his death, too, will elicit sympathy.

[Sauron the White]

As I wrote in my previous post

I have a funny feeling that some of the apologists will now claim that is due to the incredible level of complexity that Tolkien used in writing the character

That seems to cover the line of reasoning you predictably used in your last post davem.

[Imladris]

"Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other."

I quoted this from another thread, and I have ran across many statements written like this, and always as a statement of fact.

It's more of a general rule of thumb than a fact -- to overquote a movie, it's more of a guideline for discussions than a rule. Eg -- books written in the first person would be rather difficult to turn into a movie since it's about interior thoughts of the narrator and that is very difficult to show without narration...and most people view that as bad form. LotR is easier -- except for the massive amount of detail that is both needed and rather unnecessary.

Please remember that directors have to report to another higher authority than just themselves. They don't have the final say. For example, I believe when I watched the commentary (which was a very long time ago so I am liable to misremember) -- they wanted Jackson to do it in two movies and, iirc, he fought very hard to keep it at three. There are also the matter of funding and all sorts of troublesome things. Sure a book can be turned into a movie, but at what cost? And if the higher ups deems it'll cost too much...well compromise must be made.

And everybody has a different vision or interpretation of the work. Just because it doesn't match yours doesn't mean it's necessarily false. I had read Tolkien's work many times before the viewing of the movie and I didn't think that Borormir's character was all that "changed", just that different aspects of his complexity were emphasised.

[davem]

Originally Posted by StW

As I wrote in my previous post

That seems to cover the line of reasoning you predictably used in your last post davem.

Ok, so your position is that rather than setting out to write a three-dimensional, morally complex, character & succeeding, Tolkien actually set out to write a two-dimensional, morally simplistic, character & failed? Any reader who percieves Boromir as a complex, flawed, selfish character motivated by desire for personal glory is reading that complexity into the character, because Tolkien was actually trying to write a stereotypically 'good' character for the reader to cheer on?

Now, would you argue the same for Turin? Tolkien actually intended to make Turin a 'simple' good guy but was so incompetent a writer that he ended up producing a complex, introverted, often amoral, selfish, tragic figure?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Ok, so your position is that rather than setting out to write a three-dimensional, morally complex, character & succeeding, Tolkien actually set out to write a two-dimensional, morally simplistic, character & failed?

NO. My position is this. JRRT wrote the LOTR with Boromir being one of the least successful characters of the Fellowship. Jackson improved upon the character of Boromir making him a character which worked much better on screen than he did in the book.

Where do I get this from? The posted observations of many people over the last several years in this forum, TORN, B-77 and others.

Clear on that?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

NO. My position is this. JRRT wrote the LOTR with Boromir being one of the least successful characters of the Fellowship. Jackson improved upon the character of Boromir making him a character which worked much better on screen than he did in the book.

No, Jackson completely re-wrote the character.

Where do I get this from? The posted observations of many people over the last several years in this forum, TORN, B-77 and others.

Clear on that?

Many people? Well, it must be true then.