MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Sauron the White]

Obviously every ticket purchaser decides for themselves if the film worked for them, and then to a lesser degree, if each and every scene, character, and line worked for them. I have been going to films for 50 years and have seen thousands of them one way or another and I have never yet seen a complete film where something could not have been done a bit differently to my tastes. But them I taught high school for 33 years and nobody paid me a penny for my opinion about how to make a better film.

I do think that even though you did not bring the text to the theater and review it with a mini-flashlight line by line as you describe, in a broader way you did. This is something we discussed yesterday, the weight of superior knowledge about LOTR and JRRT and his writings. It is a bit of a handicap compared to someone who goes in cold without that wonderful kwoledge. But that is neither here not there as far as if the scene worked for you.

In the end, a film is judged by me for its totality. Sure, I can fault all the Gimli jokes, the green scrubbing bubbles of the Dead or any other individual scene. Overall, I was more than happy with the totality of it all. I remember in the 70's driving in crowded cars to fantasy conventions and discussing how we wanted the films done. I never expected to get the high quality which I saw on that screen. For me it worked very well.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I remember in the 70's driving in crowded cars to fantasy conventions and discussing how we wanted the films done. I never expected to get the high quality which I saw on that screen. For me it worked very well.

How wonderful for you to have walked into the films prepped and made ready by discussions with fellow fans rather than merely by reading the works of Tolkien. Perhaps, if The Hobbit is ever filmed, you can rehearse some of those early discussions here so the rest of us can view the movies in the accepted frame of mind without being cluttered by thoughts of what Tolkien wrote.

[davem]

Interesting interview with Adam Tolkien here http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/..._Interview.php

His comments on the movies are worth considering:

Q: But, if the novel was almost ready, why did it take thirty-five years after the death of J.R.R. Tolkien to publish it?

Adam Tolkien: Because my father initially worked on The Silmarillion, then on 12 volumes of The History of Middle-earth, according to the will of his father, who had named him as literary executor. Only in 1996 he started to work on The Children of Hurin. But he was not persuaded if he could turn it into a novel. Maybe, because he had become rather tired! Then the three films from Peter Jackson were released, which did not concern us directly.

Q: How that?

Adam Tolkien: My grandfather sold the rights in 1967 and we did not have any right to interfere. The simplest was thus not to worry about it. When the movies were released my father even stopped to work on any Tolkien related material for a long time.

Q: What did you think of films?

Adam Tolkien: My point of view is completely personal: I am not a big fan of these Hollywood adaptations. I very much like Peter Jackson’s early movies, but, considering the immense size of his Lord of the Rings project, I think that he lost the breath and the poetry of Tolkien. The decorations are very beautiful, because they are real, but the special effects were not there yet. You could really see them…
Me, I would have liked to see another thing, an environment like that of The Seventh Seal, of Bergman. It would have been interesting to make a series, which would have made it possible to develop a movie adaptation, without losing the breath.

So, we learn that Adam actually liked PJ's early stuff, but that his LotR adaptations lost some of the essence of the books. I have to agree with him.

What's really interesting to me is his statement that CT stopped working on any Tolkien related material because of the films. It seems that if it hadn't been for the movies we'd have had CoH earlier, & perhaps other stuff as well.

If nothing else I think this puts paid to the idea that Adam is opposed in principle to movies - he just wishes they had been done differently - he even says he would have liked a series of films. For movie fans this may offer some hope - Adam doesn't seem to share his father's view that LotR is unsuitable for visual representation.

[skip spence]

Me, I would have liked to see another thing, an environment like that of The Seventh Seal, of Bergman.

Too bad Bergman passed away, or he'd be a prime candidate to direct the Hobbit. When hell freezes over!

To be honest, I'd love to see a more arty LotR adaptation, with a stronger focus on the darker and more grown-up undercurrents of the work, and this we may yet see at some time in the future. But as it were, there's no way the movies were going to be anything other than spectacular blockbusters (or failed attempts), catering to a huge audience of people who, for the most part, haven't read the books. Like StW I thought they were much better than anticipated, although I too have my gripes.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...interesting conversation. Adaptations are certainly susceptible to criticism based on their flagrant misuse, twisting or abandonment of source material (LotR being a prime example); however, the making of a movie sometimes requires a heightened or altered approach to the original story due to many factors (not the least being a director or leading actor's ego, but time constraints, pacing and monetary considerations also apply). Personally (and I think this discussion can only remain on an opinionated level), I take adaptations on a case by case basis, and make an informed decision on whether I liked the movie, as opposed to having read the book, and whether or not flights of fancy from the source material hurt the production.

For instance, I found the adaptations of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Blade Runner were actually better than the books. I thought that The Name of the Rose and The Exorcist were excellent adaptations, but I liked the books better. I consider Lawrence of Arabia and The Seven Pillars of Wisdom both classics and enjoyed both immensely (but one for the filmmaker's art, and the other in historical context). The recent Narnia movie was very faithful to C.S. Lewis' book, but the movie was actually infused with more humor than the source, and was fleshed out in a manner that enhanced the story. As far as LotR, I was far more upset at PJ Jackson for what he brazenly plopped into the movie, rather than what was omitted from the source material. In a historical context, one could say there is very little factuality or faithfulness in the scripting of many of Errol Flynn's movies, but I have most of them on DVD.

*Shrugs*

P.S. The movie Gladiator seems to be based more on the 1964 film The Fall of the Roman Empire (which also had Commodus die in gladiatorial combat as opposed to being assasinated), rather than on historical records, which are decidely scarce regarding his reign. However, Commodus did often engage in gladiatorial combats in the arena.