Why all the anger?

[The Saucepan Man]

Bumping this up for the post-RotK/RotK EE reaction.

Re-reading the thread, there are some interesting thoughts expressed both pro- and con- the films. It's a bit of a slog, given the formatting changes, but worth the effort. Hmm, perhaps I should heed HerenIstarion's advice and try tidying it up at some point.)

Given that the films still seem, on occasion, to generate strong feelings either way, I would be interested to hear further thoughts - from members new and old.

[Essex]

A few people mentioned their hopes in Faramir's character being restored to bookish proportions in ROTK. I think, especially in the EE, this has happened.

Reading this thread and, of course, the Gandalf v Witch King thread, I don't think I've ever put forward how I watch the films. Whenever they stray from the book or just leave passages out, I still have the book in mind when I watch the films unfold.

For example, the film Hobbits DID meet Tom Bombadil (and therefore Pippin and Merry had amnesia when they mentioned the Old Forest when they were near Fangorn!!!). Therefore the Sword Merry has was the sword from the book which enabled him to unkit the WK's 'magic' and enable Eowyn to get the killer blow.

Therefore, the movie characters ARE the book characters to me when I watch the films. I still feel the same fellings when I watch emotional parts of the film, and if I hadn't read the books, the strength of my feelings would be NO WAY as near as they actually are. For example, I wouldn't have cried like a baby when Aragorn knelt infront of Frodo and Sam (aren't I clever? ) in the movie if I hadn't read the books.

Therefore this is why I feel no anger towards PJ (and to be honest, in my opinion the main force of change was Phillipa Boyens watching all the dvd extras) along with the fact I mentioned in the GVWK thread that I now understand movie making a whole lot more than I did 4 years ago.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for the reply, Essex.

My approach is different. I keep the book and the films separate in my mind, although I have adopted aspects of the films (particularly the imagery) into my interpretation of the book.

But it seems that, while there are many here who are prepared to vent their frustration (and sometimes quite forcefully so) over particular scenes (or include barbed comments about the films in their posts on book matters, where such comments rarely have much relevance), there are few who are prepared to explain exactly why, on a more general level, they feel the way that they do. (I do not, of course, include those who have replied previously to this thread).

Anyone have any further thoughts ... ?

[Boromir88]

I think one may express which one they like better, this particular scene in the book vs. the movie, or maybe, what might have worked better in the movies/books. (Yes this can work both ways).

I think the MoS is an example of it would have been better to treat like the book. Where he rides back in shame, and the banter between him, Gandalf, and Aragorn I deeply miss. I would just find that to be downright better then Aragorn simply chopping off his head.

Then on the other side...

I like that PJ switched some lines around. For example, instead of in the book Gandalf saying, "Too long have you (Grima) haunted her (Eowyn's) steps...etc." PJ gives this line to Eomer, which I think has a lot more effect hearing it from her brother, then it does from Gandalf. (Although that is rather insignificant I just think that line works a lot better with Eomer saying it, instead of Gandalf).

What bothers me is when people try to take book occurences and explain why a particular scene doesn't work in the movie. I think if one is going to say why this scene doesn't fit well, they have to explain it within the movie's context.

[The Only Real Estel]

My approach is different. I keep the book and the films separate in my mind, although I have adopted aspects of the films (particularly the imagery) into my interpretation of the book

I've tried to do much the same thing. Earlier in my barrowdowns days (full of now embarrassing posts ) I would get extremely bent out of shape about all the changes (mostly Faramir); but now I try to keep them seperate as much as possible. Of course I am still disappointed in some changes, & some of the RotK changes I still need to get used to (mostly Denethor's death), but for the most part I try to remember that both are great in their own areas--the books are great books & the movies are great movies. It's not worth it for me to get overly caught up in PJ not putting Tolkien's books down on screen completely accurately, it ruined the expierence of the movies & made me mad when I read those parts in the books.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think one may express which one they like better, this particular scene in the book vs. the movie, or maybe, what might have worked better in the movies/books.

Agreed. Although I was really trying to understand why it is that some people just dislike the films generally. As you know, there are many threads devoted to discussions of particular scenes. Having said that, it can be useful for people to give specific examples of scenes to explain why they did not like the films, or why those scenes 'tainted' the films in some way for them.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What bothers me is when people try to take book occurences and explain why a particular scene doesn't work in the movie. I think if one is going to say why this scene doesn't fit well, they have to explain it within the movie's context.

Good point, and one that I agree with entirely.

[Nurumaiel]

Boromir88 said:

What bothers me is when people try to take book occurences and explain why a particular scene doesn't work in the movie. I think if one is going to say why this scene doesn't fit well, they have to explain it within the movie's context.

I too agree with this, Boromir88. And with the example of Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron fresh in my mind... as you and others have pointed out in your Was it out of character? thread, it's rather absurd to be angry about it because 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' when we're dealing with Aragorn in the movie, who is in many ways different.

But there's another sort of anger that doesn't bother me, and that I indeed feel myself when watching the movies. Considering that the movies were based off of the books, it's not very unreasonable to be upset because the movies strayed from the books in one way or another. Using the same example, one of the reasons I don't like Aragorn's disposal of the Mouth of Sauron is because Aragorn of the books wouldn't do it. But I think there is a lack of absurdity in this because my complaint is not with this one scene 'because it wasn't in this books,' but with this one scene coupled with others that shows what my real problem with it is. Aragorn wasn't like this in the books, and I think there's a problem with the translation of his character from book to film.

To be brief, it's not a nit-picky little anger that says this scene is wrong because it wasn't in the books (that is, as Boromir88 said, trying to argue against the movie from the books' context, which can easily be out of context with the movie), but this character is wrong and so causes this scene to be wrong.

I have a slight fear that I'm not being exactly clear, so I'll try to phrase it once more to make sure.

From this my very post:

it's rather absurd to be angry about it because 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' when we're dealing with Aragorn in the movie, who is in many ways different.

My anger is not that 'Aragorn in the book wouldn't do such a thing,' but 'Aragorn in the book isn't such a thing, and so wouldn't do such a thing, and I don't think it was necessary for that to be different in the movies.'

Another example is Frodo. From the Fellowship, one little thing that bothered me was the scene on Weathertop, where he trembles, drops his sword, and falls helplessly to the ground, whereas in the book he actually took a shot at the Nazgul. My reason is not: 'Well, in the context of the book Frodo wouldn't have done such a thing,' because, if my memory serves me correctly, Frodo very well could have done such a thing even in the books, and the scene in the movie actually isn't even out of context. But Frodo is out of character, and that's the problem. It's only one of a few scenes where he trembles and falls back, when, in the books, he stood straight and fought.

For me, and perhaps for others, it isn't a problem of the scene being out of character (and book's context), but the character being out of character. And the anger from the point of view of the book, not from the point of view of the book's context, seems excusable.