Book Clue for PJackson's Favor, or Still Maddening?

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Most folks seem to have at least a little consternation about the whole storyline from Edoras to Helm's Deep (and later), but arguably, it is a reasonable "compositing" of Book-events and characters.<P>Not only do lines and circumstances become interchangeable with respect to Theoden, Eomer, Hama, Gamling, Erkenbrand, Grimbold, etc., but we also see the TTT-Film making underlying developments more concise and visible, such as flight to Dunharrow (refuges), battles with wolf-riders and so forth.<P>What seems gratuitous is the whole disappearance of Aragorn, and his self-rescue, which has no basis in the Books. It does serve, of course, to help the audience comprehend Eowyn's attraction for him and the approach of Saruman's forces.<P>It also is a point of departure to dramtically transport the audience to flashbacks of Aragorn and Arwen and relatively contemporaneous scenes between Arwen and Elrond (and, also some of the Elrond/Galadrial stuff that leads to Haldir's march).<P>But then, of course, the juxtaposition and compressing of the Arwen/Elrond dialogue seems not only forced at this point by the Film, but also somewhat trivialized by this treatment.<P>Then, of course, one doesn't know whether the whole idea of Arwen being poised to leave Middle-Earth for Aman at that time is anything but a complete fabrication relative to the Books, where we only learn of Elrond's much earlier statements to Estel.<P>But then again, maybe, the screenwriters have some basis on this last point, to which I offer the following from FotR-Book:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> <B><I>Arwen vanimelda namárië!</I></B> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I do not know what "vanimelda" means, except as a descriptor for Arwen, perhaps Quenya for Evenstar. It was also the essence of the name of the third Queen of Numenor. Of course "namárië" may simply be "farewell" to a memory, but ... ?<p>[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[Reyna Evergreen]

Vanimelda....<BR>Vanima means beautiful, so it must have something to do with Aragorn lorring over the Evenstar's beauty.<P>For the question on the film, athough here we all love J.R.R. Tolkien's incredible work and want the filmakers to stay completely true to them, we have to remember that this is a Hollywood production to an extent, and they need elements for it to sell.<P>The flashbacks between Arwen and Aragorn, for instance, are for the ever-present sex icons. Film-makers strongly believe you need induendo to make a movie successful, and sometimes they are right. Same for Arwen's general role in the movies. They put Liv Tyler in more ofter as Arwen than the books state because love and sex seems to sell.<P>There is also the issue that the books are very long with excessif dialogue, so the adapters and P.J. had to find ways to get the point across within certain time restrictions, which sometimes leads to changed words. But honestly, do we need them to follow everything to the line? I hate to break hearts, but that would be quite impossible.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What seems gratuitous is the whole disappearance of Aragorn, and his self-rescue, which has no basis in the Books. It does serve, of course, to help the audience comprehend Eowyn's attraction for him and the approach of Saruman's forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To that I agree, but have my own opinion. The battle was far-fetched and more or less another Hollywood-ism. Action sells probably as much as induendo does.<P>To finish, as much as everyone here would <I>love</I> for the films to be exactly to the word, in this real world that is unattainable, and to pay for this incredibly costly project they had to input elements that would sell.<P>[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Reyna Evergreen ]<p>[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Reyna Evergreen ]

[Diamond18]

The reason they have Arwen leaving for the Grey Havens is that originally it was planned for Arwen to sneak away and go to Helm's Deep, I believe. But they backed down from this idea and re-edited the film. In any case, I don't think it was motivated by that line from the book.<P>I liked the scene between Elrond and Arwen, especially the flashforward to Aragorn's death. But coupling that with the scenes between Aragron and Arwen, Aragorn and Elrond, and Galadriel and Elrond, seemed like too many flashforwards, flashbacks, and flashsideways in the middle of the film.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Reyna, thanks for the translation. So, I still think we have something there that can be interpreted consistent with Film-TTT interpretation.<P>In any event, I personally don't need a lecture about the relative merits of filmmaking, action movie-making, and so forth.<P>I never expected a fully "true" movie, and I don't think any but the most naive Tolkien fan would, and I have been relatively approving or forgiving of these filmmakers' decisions and so forth. I'd have considered cutting Faramir clean out, despite being my fav, too. As it was, the Film simply suspended (for better or worse) in the latter, non-threatening (Window on the West) elements of his part in Book-TTT<P>Budgets (even generous ones) being what they are, only so much could be done. I'd rather see them pull off some things gloriously, then try to squeeze in a bunch half-baked scenes. For example, a Film-Bombadil would have taken a lot of time & energy to pull off perfectly. Anything less would have fallen flat on viewers, irrespective of their familiarity with the Books.<P>To have built the 2nd film largely around the Helm's Deep battle makes a lot sense. For entertainment, battle scenes give filmmakers quite a lot of margin for error, and that notwithstanding, it is perhaps the best pre-modern battle scene in all of Film History, which isn't saying much necessarily.<P>Nevertheless, a good Book Fan can still fairly criticize the decisions and interpretation of this group of New Zealanders.<P>I have yet to write by treatise on what I see as their worst interpretative flaw. Stay Tuned.

[Tar-Palantir]

I for one think the commentary we will get with the DVD (assuming it's detailed) should open our eyes to the wheres and whyfores of the changes to TTT. I have wavered back and forth on some of the topics due to many BD members writing convincing arguments. However, I am inevitably winding up more in the direction of dissaproval for most of the major changes. Some of them simply won't be resolved by discussion until RotK is released - Faramir, Osgiliath, Arwen's role, etc...<P>The Arwen subplot was distracting in that I (as a theater goer) didn't know what they were trying to accomplish. If they were setting up her 'escape' from her father's clutches, that should appear in RotK where she actually goes somewhere. Granted they most likely were going to have Arwen make a appearance at Helm's Deep, but if they cut that why leave in the shot of Arwen departing Rivendell? The pretense here sucks - with a capital S. Arwen having to decieve and escape her dissaproving father Elrond? Just so they can put her in a battle (presumably)? This reeks of the same smell as trying to believe that Elrond would send his only daughter against NINE Nazgul to find Frodo in FotR - (insert wretching sound here). <P>Maybe people want to see more Arwen, but that required them to alter her demeanor. Would you not prefer she be wise and patient and have a GOOD relationship with her father, one where they UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT each other, instead of the obvious deception to come? Why do we need her saving Aragorn (which she did twice already)? Why do we need a warrior-queen? WHY? <P>Now I will switch sides for a second and say that if PJ and co. absolutely HAD to increase one of the female roles I'm glad it was Arwen and not Eowyn. If they had endowed Eowyn with a stronger Aragorn-Lust it would have destroyed her character. Which opens another point, they didn't allow her to join the Warg battle, good for the scriptwriters, so why change Arwen and let her wield a sword? I don't get it because I don't know their vision for these characters. Why do some events stay the same and others that need no changing get changed and some get inserted from scratch? It's the not knowing that gets me I suppose...<p>[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Frodo Baggins]

Just what I was saying Tar.....<P> Elrond sending Arwen against the Nine. RIIIGHT. Let's see. I think it was Elrond (or was it Glorfindel?) that said FEW in Rivendel can ride against the nine. And Glorfindel could because 1. he is visible both in the realm of the living and the 'undead' at the same time. and 2. He had a history of Balrogs, and even the Witch-King of Angmar himself. The NAzgul were really scared by this elf! That's why he wnet to fing the hobbits.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

In all fairness to Film-FR, it is never said that Elrond sent her out to confront the Nine. There is no indication one way or another that Rivendell Elves have been sent out to find Strider and the Hobbits.<P>Plausibly, Film-FR-Arwen is searching for Aragorn on her own initiative, and is really trying to merely avoid or out-run the Nazgul, in terms of what the Film portrays. Glorfindel's greatness notwithstanding, all Elves have a certain immunity to the Nazgul's influence, and I still feel that meshing Arwen's and his role in the Film is a perfectly legitimate case of character compositing.<P>Frankly, Film-FR was I think as good as could be done. My only criticism there was the simplistic Council of Elrond, and the gratuitous Raiders of the Lost Moria stuff.<P>Film-TT, takes a bit too many liberties, as the New Zealanders strive to always maintain tension, and to emphasize their false assumption about what they interpret to be the Books' view of "Men" as a kindred, plus some added gender perspective.

[Gilthalion]

I guess it is important to remember that the film team felt that they were creating a cinematic <I>interpretation</I> of LORD OF THE RINGS. As many here have noted many times it is simply not possible to do other wise, that is if you actually want a studio to have any interest in forking out the money to make it!<P>It thus being a necessity to cut scenes, merge characters, and rework subplots, we are left with discussions along the lines of: "Why did they do it this way when <I><B>I</B></I> would rather have seen it done this way because <B>my</B>[/i] way is more consistent with Tolkien's text?"<P>And I can't argue with that! Most of us have a real sense regarding Arwen that it was <I>possible</I> to have given her more scenes in the movie without compromising the vision Tolkien gave us. Even so, in TTT I think that we actually got closer to Tolkien's vision than Arwen/Glorfindel in the first movie. Not that I'm complaining.<P>To be fair to Jackson & Co., we should be mindful of their intent, rather than what we may or may not prefer to see done. In regards to that, on balance they have done a far better job than I expected and even surpassed my hopes. So much remains of Tolkien's great tale, characters, and vision that it is (if I may be so bold) a pedantic flaw in ourselves rather than in the film if our enjoyment is quenched because of divergences in the interpretation. <P>I speak from experience, because I've (successfully I hope) had to stifle the "demon-nerd-within" who pipes up now and again to whisper, "THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS IN THE BOOK!"

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Yes..Yes, Gilthalion, the tired 'ole lecture about cinematic needs. Again, I think when one looks closely, one can find instances that arguably amount to unnecessary decisions and failures in the adaptation.<P>I personally have little problem with the Arwen character development. As I noted in starting this topic, it is may have solid if subtle nods from the Books. And, I think it adds something very fine to a Film, which the Books' could treat as mysterious background. The only fault is some of Elrond's overly whinny dialogue.<P>Still, in looking at Film-FR's Council and Moria scenes, as well as those in Film-TT's Merry/Pippin/Treabeard scenes, it is not so much that the storyline departs from the Books, but rather that sophisticated film-making is sacrificed for something bordering on Scooby-Doo.<P>Besides this, I take exception to the treatment of "Men" as all but always "easily corrupted," "lusting after power," weak and so forth, and that only Aragorn is better 'cuz he's on some sort of "anti-power" trip. Uh huh.<P>I'm sure by the end of the Movies, Men will be shown as having overcome these problems, which would be why the New Zealanders have chosen to pound this drum, even if the portrayals of Boromir, Faramir and Theoden are blessedly resurrected in the end.<P>Tolkien certainly had human weakness and so forth as a subtext, but but it wasn't exceptional or belaboured. Clearly, at times, Men are every bit as valiant and noble (if not more so) than other peoples, including Elves.<P>The point is that when Men fail (which they have free will to do), it is not merely for greed or power, but rather at the core is ignorance and the fear of mortality. The Unbearable Lightness of Being.<P>It cheapens not only Tolkien, but also these otherwise excellent Films to demean the Race of Men so bluntly. The audience would have plenty to work with already, and doesn't need this old chestnut, and final victory in the end would not be all lessened or less sweet for lack of such blunt contrast.<P>What is telling are the commentary to the DVD-special edition of Film-FR. Mss. Boyens and Walsh clearly are much more familiar and understanding of the Books, then their consternating Boss-Man, Mr. Jackson. In correcting him, they are also bound to later brown-nose and save face for him.<P>Mr Jackson actually started with Tolkien through the Bashki animation (which he copies more than he admits, and not without good reason, as it has merit). He also laments where he though too late about some other departures from the Book, whereby he could have engineered some other neato special effect. He clearly loves the effects and gruesome stuff for its own sake. Mss. Boyens and Walsh (as well as the Ratings Board) may deserve our thanks for saving these Films from even more gratuitous, throw-away treatment.

[Tar-Palantir]

Now I got a SERIOUS problem. I just saw a cast/credit list for Fellowship. You know the Hobbit who first encounters the Black Riders asking for "Baggins" when they reach the Shire? The one that quails away in fear and says "That way", directing the riders to Hobbiton, then slinks inside his hovel like a coward?<BR> <BR>That is supposed to be Farmer Maggot!! The stoutest Hobbit about, and on his own doorstep no less!<P>This change to the remarkable Mr. Maggot is unthinkable, unmerciful, untoward, unwholesome, unworthy, unschooled, unscrupulous, unreasonable, unqualified, unprofessional, unmoral, unprincipled, unpleasant and unkind!! <P>I'm so upset..

[Dain]

You couldn't tell it was Farmer Maggot from the dog? To be fair, I didn't really make the connexion, partially because he is so frightened. But then, if the first person you see interacting with a Black Rider isn't afraid of it, how does that inform the audience on Black Riders? Could have chosen a better target, I suppose. The other scary part is when a BR talks to the Gaffer in the lane, and Frodo overhears (right?). That should have been in the film...<P>Man-of-the-Wold: I agree with your point about focusing the film more on the world of men than perhaps the books did (or just making it more obvious). Underlying the books is the feeling that Elves especially, and Dwarves, and even Hobbits, are going to fade out of ME and man is coming back into his own out of the dark times, lead by Elessar, who they have made into much more of a leading, central figure (including the Arwen romance). It will be interesting to see how Merry and Pippin fare in filmRotK, because they didn't do well in filmTT.<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, I'd say that the Book also become very Men-focused. No doubt the Age of Men is at hand. But in the Books this is triumphant fate, intertwined with sadness.<P>In the Films, they have chosen to cast this as Men somehow rising above being the craven, corrupt losers that they are, while not admitting that it is their, the film-makers' invention, not Tolkien.<P>Surely, JRR Tolkien potrayed lots of flawed human characters, and laments a type of original sin in Men, but it really doesn't jive, for example, with the apparently senseless Film depiction of, say, Isildur, who in the Books is seduced by the Ring, but becomes no more a bad person than Bilbo, and in UT is shown to be wanting to do something else with it. Why not make him a mere victim of the Ring, Isildur's Bane. Book-Aragorn is proud to be Isildur's heir.<P>And then there are Galadriel's lines preceding Frodo & Sam's encounter with Faramir. Film-Faramir really goes through the same process as Book-Faramir, only it takes place with modified storyline and scenes, and without the same wonderful interlude, but O.K. Galadriel's woeful hyperbole seems quite needless, except as hype.<P>So, I think this tact by the Films, while perhaps meant to simplify things, only creates more problems, as we encounter one noble man/woman after another. The screenwriters would have done better not saying anything so definite.<P>As for Farmer Maggot being that guy, it is simply arbitrary credit listing, and it makes little sense as we see Farmer's Maggot's scythe in the air someplace where the Black Riders are supposed to have more or less newly arrived. No, I look at that guy as some hobbit well out on the far fringes of The Shire; call him what you want. Later a Black Rider hacks down a Hobbit who would be more of a warden on a main road.

[Morgul Queen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Budgets (even generous ones) being what they are, only so much could be done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, actually, they made more from the first movie (most likely thanks, in a large part, to us and our obsession with picking out mistakes and inconsistancies) than they paid to make all three so, with that in mind, they could have done the next two as close to the books as possible, but NOOOOOO, they totally killed the story (and FARAMIR *sob*) with stupid little Hollywood-izations like *killing* Aragorn (thats really dumb, the third ones the Return of the KING after all)<BR>and all that extra WASTED screentime could have been used to finish or at least do more of the book and then put in the scouring of the Shire with the extra time gained, but did they think of that? NO!!!!!<BR>Jeez, do they do this to annoy us or something?!!!! And I'm rambling again...Sorry all

[Man-of-the-Wold]

The point on budget is well taken. These are major block-busters. But in all respect to New Line and backers, they had no guarantee that this wouldn't fall flat, like Waterworld.<P>Peter Jackson is a talented director (if not sceenwriter), but he's not named Speilberg, nor does the cast have any huge names. "Starring Elijah Wood!" Maybe Bruce Willis should've been Elrond.<P>This risk factor, would be why Jackson and others would defend the sort of dumbing-down, Scooby-Doo treatment of certain subplots, morality plays, and so forth.<P>Dumbing-down is not the same as simplifying and making a storyline more efficient. Unfortunately, these screenwriters didn't know the difference at all times, and in terms of financial bottom lines, the Scooby-Dooism is unnecessary, and may actually hurt.<P>But what you do need are good special effects. That's a given. And a long with much else, that does make for a very expensive, risky project, for which hundreds of millions of dollars are quickly eaten up, think of Waterworld, again. Jackson & crew had no choice but to take the safe way out in many cases.