Split Personality?

[littlemanpoet]

Gollum & Smêagol. Slinker & Stinker.

The Books and the Movies handled them differently. At least so it seems to me.

How do you see as the differences? Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why?

I know what I think, and those who know me can probably guess, but I'll hold back for now.

[alatar]

First off, all characters are different in the Books and Movies, and that includes Smeagol/Gollum. The split, to me, is better 'visualized' (Duh!) in the Movies. I read the text where Slinker and Stinker debate their plans for Master and the Fat One, but it's Peter Jackson's camera angles and Andy Serkis' facial expressions that really drives home that this creature is truly mad. Though going into TTT I of course knew that Smeagol and Gollum were internally at war, but even so, PJ's delivery of this war made me almost think, for a moment, that there truly were two creatures.

Like Boromir in the Movies, Gollum here is slightly more sympathetic. And the Henneth Annûn beating of Smeagol left me thinking that anyone involved deserved whatever treachery they received. Ouch! On the other hand, when Smeagol plays the happy puppy, I'm a little put off as I still see the creature as rarely being comical - unlike dwarves, which are the buffoons of Middle Earth.

[Aiwendil]

Peter Jackson seems to interpret the Gollum-Smeagol dichotomy as a true example of 'dissociative identity disorder' (formerly 'multiple personality disorder'). The sense I got from the films was that Gollum and Smeagol were to be thought of as two distinct minds, able to converse with one another but each ultimately self-contained, with its own thoughts and will.

I don't think that the book necessarily excludes that situation as an interpretation, but it also does not necessitate that interpretation, nor even particularly suggest it. My understanding prior to seeing the movies was always that Gollum was merely ambivalent and that the two 'personalities' were not much more distinct than the competing impulses in the mind of anyone who is ambivalent about something.

[Boromir88]

I fall along the same line as Aiwendil. When reading the books, I got a sense that Smeagol didn't have a split personality, he just represented the struggle that every person deals with (I like Aiwendil's word...impulses).

Sociologists argue that we all have a desire to go against the 'norms of society.' As norms are pretty much like laws, and having laws isn't always fun. So we have one side that is all about pleasure and satisfaction and another that reminds us 'umm society says this is wrong, your parents say this is wrong...maybe you shouldn't do this.' Very much like a conscience.

Even before coming across the Ring Smeagol wasn't the most upstanding and moral figure. He's described as 'mean' and 'damnable.' Plus his actions after the Ring I think also speak to his character (as why doesn't someone like Bilbo or Frodo commit murder and then go about to lie and cover it up when they get the Ring?) Immediately after murdering for the Ring Smeagol turns to what he knows already how to do...he was the 'mean son of a thief,' (Letter 181) so he starts sneaking around spying and stealing.

Arguably even before coming across the Ring, you could say there already was a 'Gollum' in Smeagol. There already was the urge to 'strive against the norms of society.' Now, I think what the Ring does is polarize the two 'impulses,' and create a bigger gap between the two. On one end you have the nicer and more compassionate Smeagol, and on the other is the mean-spiritted Gollum. However, the Gollum already existed within Smeagol before coming across the Ring, the Ring just brought more of his Gollum-self out and polarized the two.

The movies chose to go a different route, but I do like how they portrayed it. And there's no arguments from me about the scene where we see the 'split-personality' of Gollum. Eventhough, I never got a sense in the books that Gollum had a split-mind, I like the approach and the way Jackson chose to show it. (I can't say I agree with the Ranger's treatment of Gollum...as they weren't 'thugs' and Faramir doesn't slam Gollum up against the wall threatening to gut him right there; or whatever he does).

[davem]

I can't help thinking of the cartoons where someone has a little angel on one shoulder & a little devil on the other...

Of course, we find Frodo on Amon Hen 'writhing' as he's caught between the Voice & the Eye, & Sam in Mordor arguing with himself over whether or not there's any point continuing with the Quest. I'm sure others could be pointed up.

It seems in some cases to be an internal 'battle' & in others an 'external' one in which the individual is both the battleground & the thing fought for. Perhaps another example of the old Boethian/Manichean thing....

[littlemanpoet]

I see things generally as do Aiwendil & Boromir88. Except that I didn't like the way the movie portrayed it. My reason is that it reduces the thing to a psychological, "poor sick hobbit, he's really nice and it's all the Ring's fault". Whereas this interpretation isn't necessary, the precisely psychological spin leads one to it. Tolkien's description leaves more possibilities, as Aiwendil said. One such possibility is the moral wrongdoer in concert with the evil of the Ring are overpowering the little bit of good that remains, which calls itself Sméagol. Something about this latter intepretation seems more robust somehow.

[Boromir88]

Ring are overpowering the little bit of good that remains, which calls itself Sméagol. Something about this latter intepretation seems more robust somehow.~lmp

Interesting, I like that interpretation. And davem talking about Frodo's 'writhing' reminded me of Boromir's own struggle with the Ring. And I think Boromir's situation is much like Gollum's, only Boromir's impulses are a bit different.

As Faramir points out, Boromir's character is what made him susceptible to the Ring:

'I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it.'~The Window on the West

And we see right from the start (The Council of Elrond) Boromir's impulse to use the Ring as a weapon against Sauron, and have a 'great victory' of Sauron by using his own weapon. However, this is shot down by everyone at the Council (as they all know better). And we see Boromir struggle with what he desires and that he was told 'no,' the Council had chosen a different path:

Boromir got up and walked about impatiently. 'So you go on,' he cried. 'Gandalf, Elrond - all these folk have taught you to say so. For themselves they may be right. These elves and half-elves and wizards, they would come to grief perhaps. Yet often I doubt if they are wise and not merely timid. But each to his own kind...'~The Breaking of the Fellowship

We see Boromir struggle with what he wants to use the Ring for, and what he was told by all the 'wise' at the Council, up until his very fall to the Ring.

So, I have to say that the Ring doesn't 'create' any evil within the person (as I agree with lmp that's the impression we are left with by the movies..."poor sick hobbit, he's really nice and it's all the Ring's fault".- posted by lmp) , the evil impulses are already there, and the Ring tries to use that impulse within everyone to it's own advantage. The Ring doesn't create any impulse, it uses what's already in the individual.

Tolkien says in Letter 246 that the bearers of the Elven Ring considered using the Ring as a weapon (just like Boromir wanted), yet they decided it was wiser not to. And we see with Galadriel 'passing the test' this very desire...Galadriel was able to reject her own impulses. While others like Boromir and Gollum could not do so, either the Ring was too strong for them, or they themselves were too weak.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Galadriel was able to reject her own impulses. While others like Boromir and Gollum could not do so, either the Ring was too strong for them, or they themselves were too weak.

Or the impulse was too strong?

I do think you're on to something in your analyses of Boromir, Gollum, and Galadriel. Tolkien did make quite clear that the Ring was that powerful; it did in the end overpower Frodo's very strong will to do what was right and good.

So it seems we have a difference between one's will and one's impulses. Frodo's impulses were love of friends and community, and wanting to be left in peace, to name a few. It seems that the Ring used his impulses against him as much as it tried to overpower them.

So is there anyone who wants to argue in defense of Jackson's handling of Gollum/Sméagol in terms of the split personality? (Elempi is itching for a good debate, can you tell?)

[Sauron the White]

Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why?

I have always viewed the entire portrayal of Gollum in the films as one of the slam dunks of the films. It was one of the high points. I refuse to engage in this endless "which was better the book or the movie" debate which some here seem to wallow in. A book is one thing with its own limits, boundaries and characteristics. A film is quite another thing with its own different limits, boundaries and characteristics.

LOTR is a story told by two different story tellers, each from a different perspective, each emphasizing some things and using different devices and approaches to tell that story.

Yes, JRRT wrote it and created the world of Middle-earth. And yes, when he sold the film rights he did so as a responsible adult with both eyes open knowing full well he was allowing someone else to take that world and make it their own on the screen. So we end up with two storytellers spinning the tale of LOTR.

I will say this again... and again until it sinks in ... its like comparings apples and cinder blocks. In the end the experts spend time studying both and then trumpet their results: apples taste better but cinder blocks make better building materials. And thats news?

[Finduilas]

I haven't read all posts, but I did read the first one...

I think that the way Jackson did it worked great for film. It got the message across. I have never disliked what he did with Gollum.

[Boromir88]

I haven't read all posts, but I did read the first one...~Finduilas

Maybe I should bring my old signature back from the dead than.

I was more impressed by Andy Serkis' performance than anything else. I got the sense that not only was he committed and liked doing what he did (eventhough if it meant wading down a quasi-frozen river several times until the scene was 'right' for Peter Jackson). But also when he talked about the Ring being like a 'drug' (or anything for that matter which creates an addiction) was a nice way of describing the 'lust' of the Ring. Basically, I got the sense that Serkis understood his character and liked what he was doing, so Gollum came off well. (I have no clue where Jackson - or whoever decided - got the idea for Gollum's appearance, but whatever).

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So is there anyone who wants to argue in defense of Jackson's handling of Gollum/Sméagol in terms of the split personality? (Elempi is itching for a good debate, can you tell?)

Can't say that I'll provide good debate, but from a novice point of view (alatar pretends to never have read the Books before seeing RotK), I think that Peter Jackson was showing the anguish of the murder of Deagol in Smeagol/Gollum. From what I viewed, Smeagol was just an ordinary hobbit that just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure, he could have used some sun and cucumber slices on the eyes, but he had friend, and that seemed like a sign of good character.

So in the heat of the moment he kills Deagol. Think that a good loyer could get him off with time served. It was the Ring, not he, that compelled the deed. Note that bringing Sauron to the stand to verify the power of the Ring may be interesting, but even Gandalf said that the Ring had a mind of its own and was evil.

So Smeagol, in what started as a simple case of misunderstanding, ends up killing Deagol, and by the time they wrestled on the ground, Smeagol acted in self defense as there was no way he was leaving that glade with knowledge of the Ring.

So he leaves everything behind and punishes himself with a self-imposed banishment, and his outward appearance reflects his guilt, shame and remorse. He's so distraught over the deed that he develops a split personality that allows Smeagol to function - Gollum is the bad guy who wanted the Ring and murdered Deagol, not Smeagol, and this is the way he lives, alone, keeping the killer Gollum away from everyone - except fish.

A few hundred years later, S/G is robbed by Bilbo Baggins ("Hey, I found your Ring on your lawn. Let's play a game so you can have a slim chance of getting your property back.") Smeagol tries to find the Ringstealer and ends up in Mordor - where else would someone with that evil Ring go? This torture furthers his split personality, as it allows him to deal with the pain (see the pattern?). From Mordor Gollum emerges dominant and so pursues Frodo. Frodo, after initially harming Gollum (see how Sam drags the creature) shows him some kindness, and this sign of love brings Smeagol to the fore.

The debate where Smeagol wins shows that with Frodo's acts of kindness, Smeagol was ready to reenter society and help this 'Deagol' with the Ring. It's not until Faramir and his boys mercilessly beat the small wretch does Gollum come back yet again. It's not an internal struggle but the outside world that brings on the G.

After that, as I've said, everyone is fair game. Even so, Smeagol still struggles with acquiring the Ring, harming Frodo and potting down Gollum. It could even be said that Gollum did not intend Shelob to kill Frodo - if Gollum could pass through her lair without harm, why not the hobbit with which he identified?

In the end, S/G just wants the Ring back. Does he fear Deagolling Frodo, and so if Gollum reclaims the Ring, he can yet again keep it secret and keep it safe? When he gets it, Smeagol comes back, happy for a moment, then it's a fall into lava, bringing healing to this poor creature.

PJ's Gollum is more sympathetic. The evil creature comes when the world calls it, not when Smeagol wills it, and as far as we know, there's only the blood of Deagol and fish on the creature's hands.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar seems onto something here. I do think that Gollum suffers from a prolonged case (hundreds of years) of severe disassociative disorder. From too many movies, we get the idea that split personality is where two distinct personalities - almost two different people - can inhabit the same person. In many films, each of these personalities functions independently and with ignorance of the other. It is my understanding that such cases are the extreme of an extreme. Most disassociative disorders manifest themselves in far more subtle ways. The person is aware that sometimes they act differently but feel powerless to answer the question as to why. They sometimes develop complicated intellectual rationalizations or explainations for their behavior. Even in therapy, when confronted with the reality of a disassociative personality, the person still can seem puzzled and confused until they accept it.

I see the Jackson Gollum as someone who has undergone a stonge disassociative break and it has lasted hundreds of years. Frodo extends kindness and an offer of partial redemption to him and that causes the twinklings of the Smeagol personality to surface again after a long hiatus.

The debates with himself illustrate the conflict within the creature. Davem said it reminded him of the old cartoons with the devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other. That comparison suggests that there are three involved in that discussion - the good, the bad and the actual person in the middle who can then make a decision about which side to go with. In the Jackson films, there is no third in the middle. Its just a true disassociative disorder where one personality tries to control the person independent of the other.

One does not altogether cancel out the other. Even as Gollum extends a hand to Frodo on the stairway to Shelob - a positive gesture - , he looks at the Ring with wanton lust and desire. He could as just as quickly shoved Frodo off that winding stairway and climbed down to pick through his remains. But he did not.

Alatar mentions that the fall into lava brought healing to this poor creature. I would not agree with that characterization. That was not so much a healing as it was a simple finish to his life. A healing would have been the elimination of the Gollum side of his personality and a return to Smeagol. After hundreds of years and the effects of the Ring, that would have probably been impossible. Sam was probably right.

[Boromir88]

From what I viewed, Smeagol was just an ordinary hobbit that just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.~alatar

In the films you are definitely left with that impression, but I don't think that is the right impression (of Gollum) to be leaving. Because not only does it create a wrong impression of Gollum but also misrepresents the Ring, and I also think causes some conflictions within the movie itself.

The Ring was without a doubt a factor with Smeagol. The Ring did take control. However, as Tolkien puts it in Letter 181, Smeagol would never have had to of endure such a test had he already not been 'predisposed' to evil:

'The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.'

So, I think davem's visualisation is dead on (with the little angel and little devil). But the little devil already existed within Smeagol before coming across the Ring, and along with the Ring the little devil takes control over the weaker angel. As muc has the Ring was a factor, Smeagol's own 'evil' played just as big of a role (if not bigger) in his corruption to the Ring.

The movies give of a more sympathetic view of a nice little hobbit, living his own life, and he is thrust into an unfortunate situation that he loses control of. The Ring is a factor, but it is only half the story.

I understand Jackson maybe wanting to show Smeagol in a better light, showing him in a more sympathetic way. But the art of Tolkien, was that not only does he present Smeagol as this vicious mean-spiritted character that is out to 'throttle' the Hobbits. But he is also able to strike up pity and sympathy:

'Gollum!' cried Frodo. 'Gollum? Do you mean that this is the very Gollum-creature that Bilbo met? How Loathsome!'
'I think it is a sad story,' said the wizard, 'and it might have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known.'~The Shadow of the Past

We have Frodo come in, not understanding Gollum's full story, who just decides he's an evil wretch that should be killed. But, then Gandalf enters in with the sympathetic view of 'No, it's a sad story' and that this very think could have happened to others. Then Gandalf finishes up with, one day perhaps Frodo could understand:

'You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard,' cried Gandalf. 'He hated and loved it, as he hated and loved himself. He could not get rid of it. He had no will left in the matter.'~ibid

The ring does take over Gollum's will, but Gollum himself is just as much to blame for that as was the Ring. Frodo does end up understanding, and why Frodo is able to pity him once he actually does see him. So, Tolkien does create a sympathetic view for Gollum, even amongst all the 'evil' Gollum committed, and the bad light Gollum is put it.

I think the way Jackson shows it is just too simplistic, yes it does strike up more sympathy for Gollum, but the whole 'little hobbit running into a wrong situation at the wrong time' is just too simple. Also, it creates some conflictions in the movie which leaves viewers rather confused.

Jackson talked about why he had Faramir bring the Ring to Osgiliath and not reject the Ring in Hennuth Annun like Faramir had done in the books. He said that he thought Faramir's rejection of the Ring (in the books) lessened the power of the Ring, and he didn't want to go in that direction. So we have the whole Osgiliath business. But, I take a different view from Jackson's interpretation, it's not that the Ring's strength was lessened by Faramir's rejection of it, but it shows how strong of a character Faramir actually was; as opposed to his brother who was supposedly the 'hardier and better' of the two...indeed the 'best in Gondor.' So, when I view the scene I don't think 'wow the Ring is just so strong and powerful' I think 'Wow, Faramir is weakened.'

Plus Jackson shows moments where the Ring was rejected (by Gandalf and Galadriel) and he also throws in a made up moment where Aragorn rejects the Ring and sends Frodo 'away.' So, we have conflicting moments here of Jackson saying he wants to show the power and influence of the Ring...and that's why he has Faramir originally be tempted by it, then he makes up his own scene of Aragorn rejecting the Ring. Just doesn't make any sense and leads to confusions (which is why there have been so many questions regarding the Ring in various forums...probably just as many as Balrogs ).

[Sauron the White]

The movies give of a more sympathetic view of a nice little hobbit, living his own life, and he is thrust into an unfortunate situation that he loses control of. The Ring is a factor, but it is only half the story.

In the film we see Deagol get the ring. Smeagol simply has to look upon it and the worse side of his nature comes out very quickly. Within moments he has murdered.

Question: why was Deagol not so negatively impacted by his possession of the ring? Why later is Bilbo not suddenly turned evil when he gets the ring in his possession? Why is Frodo able to retain his essential goodness despite having the ring?

Perhaps the answer is in the character of the one who has it. Smeagol was most likely not a very nice person to begin with -- of course in the film we know nothing of his background -- but it is interesting that the appeal to his darker nature is instant while with the others it does not happen that way.

I do not think Jackson needed to have big arrows and neon signs or a five minute additional backstory telling us that Smeagol was not so good to begin with but it is implied when you contrast the behavior of the other ring holders.

[Meriadoc1961]

Very interesting comments from all. My answer will be much simpler: I, too, thought the portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol was probably the best and truest to form adaptation from the book character into the movie. So I can not say I have a preference.

I hated that Hennuth Annun beating of Gollum, which is just another example of how Jackson ruined the Faramir character. Faramir, even more so than Aragorn, has always been my favorite man character in the books.

Merry

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Interesting, I like that interpretation. And davem talking about Frodo's 'writhing' reminded me of Boromir's own struggle with the Ring. And I think Boromir's situation is much like Gollum's, only Boromir's impulses are a bit different.

I can't see Boromir's situation at all like Gollum's, excluding the fact that they both wanted the Ring. Their situation is entirely different, with completely different motives. Boromir also repents in the end, and Gollum as we know fails and falls.

Boromir's flaw of pride is entirely different. He was a warrior. Fighting for Minas Tirith is what Boromir lived for. He never commited murder in the sense that Gollum did, he was not shunned from his society as Gollum was in his younger days. Quite the opposite, Boromir was Gondor's "celebrity". Another huge difference- Gollum was a treacherous murderer, evil from the start. Boromir was never evil. The Ring tipped him to the edge, playing on his pride, his initial good intentions for his home. The Ring also played on Sam's intentions in just the same way, although Sam, obviously not having Boromir's way of life and status, was able to resist it. I also would not say that Boromir was "too weak"...his motives were just entirely different...the Ring played on him best.

[Boromir88]

Matthew, well I wasn't exactly meaning that Boromir was a vicious and hated murderer, I meant that what they had gone through (with the Ring) was rather similar. They both faced the same struggle, there were just some different impulses between the two.

Smeagol wanted the Ring as a birthday present. Boromir wanted to use the Ring as a weapon and thereby win 'glory.' So, yes their impulses were different, but the way the Ring used them all the same.

Boromir was 'predisposed' to the temptation of the Ring, just as Gollum was, because of his personality. The difference is Smeagol already had seeds of evil, even before coming across the Ring, which is my guess as to why he almost instantly kills for it and instantly starts using the Ring for 'malicious and wicked' purposes.

Boromir already had his own weaknesses, which made him a target of the Ring, even before coming across it. Gondor was bearing the brunt of Sauron's attacks, he loved Gondor, he wanted victory for Gondor, he was also a 'glory-seeker,' and this is what the Ring uses to corrupt Boromir. The Ring used different ways to 'woo' Boromir and Smeagol, but in the end it's all the same. Boromir falls to the lust of the Ring just as Smeagol did.

We can look at a character such as Denethor who was like Boromir 'in face and pride'. Also as mad as Denethor became, he never gave up in the struggle against Sauron (until the very end when his mind was overthrown), because he, like Boromir, loved his country. Denethor doesn't even come close to seeing the Ring, yet he desires it:

'Nay it should have been kept, hidden, hidden dark and deep. Not used, I say, unless at the uttermost end of need, but set beyond his grasp,...'~The Siege of Gondor

So, there are people who are simply predisposed to the corruption of the Ring; because of their desires.

The point in comparing Smeagol and Boromir was that their character before even knowing about The One Ring is what made them targets of the Ring. The Ring doesn't create any impulses within the individual, it uses what's already there. The Ring didn't create 'Gollum' in Smeagol, Gollum was already there:

'The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol. But he would never had to endure it if he had not become a mean sort of thief before it crossed his path.'

The Ring didn't create any impulse for Boromir to use it as a weapon in defeating Sauron and winning his own glory. The Ring used those impulses already in him. Just as Denethor already wanted to use the Ring and he never even saw it. It didn't even have to be a Ring, bottomline is Boromir and Denethor would have used anything that promised them victory over Sauron. It could have been a chicken foot, if that chicken foot could be used to destroy Sauron, Boromir and Denethor would have wanted to use it.

Boromir also repents in the end, and Gollum as we know fails and falls.

But what would have happened to Boromir had he gotten the Ring and held it in his possession for over 500 years?

'He would have stretched out his hand to this thing, and taking it he would have fallen. He would have kept it for his own, and when he returned you would not have known your son.'~The Siege of Gondor

Would he have been able to repent that easily? Boromir repents because the Ring is out of his presense. Gollum possessed the Ring for over 500 years, a bit different.

He never commited murder in the sense that Gollum did...

He very easily could have had Frodo not been smart and kept a large rock between him and Boromir; and then was able to escape. The Ring has a tendency to get people to act in ways they normally wouldn't. Look at Bilbo he's ready to fight Gandalf over the Ring (that's certainly un-bilbo like). Boromir was consumed by a madness:

He rose and passed his hand over his eyes, dashing away the tears. 'What have I said?' he cried. What have I done? Frodo, Frodo!' he called. 'Come back! A madness took me, but it has passed. Come back!'~The Breaking of the Fellowship

This is just my own personal interpretation, but I imagine Smeagol's situation quite the same. The Ring got Smeagol into this 'blinding rage' and Deagol was unable to get away. Boromir was in this same rage, lucky for Frodo (and him), Frodo (and the Ring) were able to escape. When the Ring's out of Boromir's grasp, the madness passes. What would have happened had Deagol been able to get away? Smeagol may have been a 'mean son of a thief' but he was no murderer before coming across the Ring.

I also would not say that Boromir was "too weak"...his motives were just entirely different...the Ring played on him best.

But Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf all had the same desires as Boromir did. They too wanted to use the Ring as a weapon, but they all came to the conclusion this was not the answer and so were able to reject the Ring. True they are the 'wise' ones, but hey Sam, Faramir, and even Isildur to a point, all reject the Ring. Yes, there is an evil that the Ring exudes, but the individual has just a big of a part to play. Which is why there are characters (such as Smeagol, Denethor, and Boromir) who are targets of The Ring (or anything 'powerful' that would give them what they want), who all fall to the Ring.

[littlemanpoet]

Alatar, an interesting reading. Almost persuasive. However, it reveals a PJ Sméagol of modernist, overly psychologized sensibilities. I find the Tolkien version more subtle and true to life.

SaurontheWhite, my problem with what you say is that PJ claims to have tried to stay true to the theme and spirit of Tolkien's books, and utterly failed to do so. I don't think PJ was trying to undermine Tolkien's LotR; rather, he just didn't really "get it", and under the rationale of trying to "make a good movie" and "tell a better story" (yes, he actually said that), he ruined Faramir, psychologized Gollum, Gollumized Frodo, demeaned Sam with a supposed "Gollum rivalry", and demeaned Aragorn's nobility. PJ just doesn't get it. I'm glad he won't be doing The Hobbit, although I don't hold great hopes for that "interpretation" either.

Originally Posted by Boromir

Boromir was 'predisposed' to the temptation of the Ring, just as Gollum was, because of his personality.

Whereas I agree with most things you have said on this thread, I must disagree with this because the logical implication is that some personalities are not disposed to the temptation of the Ring. This cannot be true because Tolkien makes it quite clear that no-one is safe, certainly not even Gandalf. "Do not tempt me, Frodo!"

Every character in LotR had desires. The Ring's modus operandus is to work on them. Sam dreams of becoming "The Great Gardener". Boromir imagines himself as the revered savior of Gondor. Saruman wants to be the new and better Sauron. Denethor wants to secure the Ring to overthrow the old supposedly extinct line of the ancient kings and set up his own line as the new kings of Gondor. Frodo wants to be home safe. Gollum unabashedly wants the Ring to slake his lust for riches.

So the success of some characters in rejecting the Ring is not based in personality, but in will. Frodo, though repeatedly tempted by the Ring, fell to the temptation only a few times because his will was strong enough to hold firm, though weakening as the Ring approached Mordor and strengthened. Gollum was predisposed to murder for the sake of the Ring because he had already committed evil and had a will to do more evil.

No personality is immune. Every character in Middle Earth, having desires, would have had choices to make when/if confronted by the Ring. The test of their character would be whether they had the will to withstand the temptation or not. This is one thing PJ just didn't portray with any consistency.

[Nogrod]

I do agree with you Boromir with the point that the Ring wanted different things with different creatures it fell upon. But it's aim stood the same all the way even if it had to apply different tactics with different chances it was given.

I'm not sure if I'm corrupted by PJ's films but I do tend to think the One Ring is a power of it's own as well - even if in the end swaying to the ways of its master Sauron - and ready to use whatever way it has to attract creatures to be found. And there is also the kind of fatalistic world-view of Gandalf and others (Tolkien!) which leads us to think that everything that happens happens for a purpose eg. every encounter with the ring is somehow predetermined.

So the Ring might take on the creed or vanity of Gollum in the beginning - or of Bilbo as well. But what it transformed Gollum during the decades into is another matter and why it didn't manage to wield Bilbo under it's command...?

With Isildur and Boromir the temptation is somewhat different from Gandalf, Galadriel or Elrond as they know more and decide not to lay their finger on it. After a struggle against yeilding to the will of the Ring (or Sauron) - or to the temptation of the power of the good - the latter refuse and the former try to conquer.

To Gollum it gave security and during the centuries identity as one who is not seen and who does not want to be seen. To Boromir it offered a way to defeat the enemy under the pressure of his father. To Gandalf or Galadriel it represented the frightful power which might win but also consume the one who used it and thus turn evil with the power of the power.

Also the ring had different ways of catching the "mighty" than catching the "non-cognizants". To an average person it promised success, to a military leader it promised victory but to the wise it promised the final frontier. Although "wisdom" seems not to be the key here as Sam was not a "wise-hobbit" even if he was the most imortant person in the story, "Samwise" indeed and practically was the "wisest" of all (well, that's just my opinion).

~~*~~

But coming to the original question...

In the end I think Tolkien was working around the themes of acceptance and power, of the difference between personal identity and the communal approval of what one has to do, of the challenge between personal liberty and responsibility in face of others, of personal might and duty vs. surrender, believing in one's own cause against all the odds and the personal survival vs. the inevitable-loking fate of death (that it must have felt in the trenches).

It's easy to see why Isildur or Boromir are so real. Looking at the trenches of the WW1 kind of makes it paranoically real.

Would you use a ring to make you invisible in a war? Would you use a ring that would quarantee a good fighting position against an overwhelming enemy? Would you use a Ring to make sure the enemy does not run through your trenches or nail all of you down with their artillery or machine-guns when you attack?

Would you use a ring if you knew - or believed - that the enemy might use your ring-gathered force against you?

Could you say no to the Ring?



Would you dream of the ring that made you invisible or all powerful?

[Sauron the White]

from littlemanpoet

PJ just doesn't get it. I'm glad he won't be doing The Hobbit, although I don't hold great hopes for that "interpretation" either.

Bill Clinton made headline when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is is".
So with this issue I guess it depends on what the meaning of IT is. Did Jackson get IT in the same way that so very much of the book purist community gets IT? Obviously not. Of course, I am sure that that same book purist community does not get IT referring to the process of making a motion picture that is successful and is seen by a wide audience.

I am sure that Jackson and his team will tell you that they most certainly did get IT and tried to portray IT as best as they could within the confines of a film. But like Clinton, its probable that the Jackson definition of IT is a whole lot different than the book purist community definition of IT.

Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Maybe I should bring my old signature back from the dead than.

I was more impressed by Andy Serkis' performance than anything else. I got the sense that not only was he committed and liked doing what he did (eventhough if it meant wading down a quasi-frozen river several times until the scene was 'right' for Peter Jackson). But also when he talked about the Ring being like a 'drug' (or anything for that matter which creates an addiction) was a nice way of describing the 'lust' of the Ring. Basically, I got the sense that Serkis understood his character and liked what he was doing, so Gollum came off well. (I have no clue where Jackson - or whoever decided - got the idea for Gollum's appearance, but whatever).

Yes, what brought Gollum to life was that superior performance by Andy Serkis - but then he is one of our best actors, and quite under-rated to my mind, mostly as he usually sticks to low budget films/TV - he is simply ace in 24 Hour Party People. I've been thinking recently that the CGI on Gollum is starting to look dated already! Which is not to say the CGI was bad (oh no) just that it has moved on in leaps and bounds since then - what will 'hold' the portrayal in years to come is the work of Andy Serkis. Funny to think that he based a lot of the voice on the sound of a cat coughing up a furball (whereas Viggo Mortensen no doubt did not have that in mind when he said Mordor/Morgul/Whateveritwas in that funny way).

But anyway...

To my mind, the portrayal of Gollum could have been done in any number of ways. We're discussing if PJ kept to the way it was done in the books, but none of us have ever, and will ever agree on Gollum's character anyway. The 'split personality' reading is one that some people get from the books anyway, as is the idea that the Ring was the primary corrupting force behind Gollum's drive.

Jackson of course was working in film, an unsubtle medium, and had to settle on a defined way of explaining Gollum and his motivation. Tolkien had the luxury of some 1,000 pages in which to be ambivalent.

I do find it fascinating that so many people I know who have never read the books, found the character of Gollum as seen in the films as 'cute'; surely there's some meat for discussion in that?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bill Clinton made headline when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is is".

I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that this was not a stellar moment for Mr. Clinton, as there is only one meaning of the word, "is".

So with this issue I guess it depends on what the meaning of IT is.

"IT" is Tolkien's themes and spirit, which PJ said he was trying to emulate.

Did Jackson get IT in the same way that so very much of the book purist community gets IT? Obviously not. Of course, I am sure that that same book purist community does not get IT referring to the process of making a motion picture that is successful and is seen by a wide audience.

If "purist" means "true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien", then I gladly accept the appellation. The point is that PJ said he was trying be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and completely failed. I was actually cutting him slack by suggesting that he didn't really know what he was doing. LotR is not merely an "action/adventure" flick, even though PJ stamped it that way for millions of viewers. When the story Tolkien wrote didn't fit the genre clichés, PJ decided that Tolkien was wrong and "improved" the story. Frustrating.

I am sure that Jackson and his team will tell you that they most certainly did get IT and tried to portray IT as best as they could within the confines of a film. But like Clinton, its probable that the Jackson definition of IT is a whole lot different than the book purist community definition of IT.

You do not help your case by invoking Clinton's Saruman-like blandishment on truth and fact. And all I can say to your probability is, "more's the pity".

Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

This does not speak highly of the world.

As to why Gollum looks like he does in the movies, PJ's original intention was to have him look like the classical representation from the books; but when Andy Serkis did such an amazing job of acting the part, PJ asked his animators to mix together Gollum with Serkis' own face. The result was to create a face from Gollum that reminded Serkis of his own grandfather.

Funny, I found the "cat coughing up a hairball" speaking technique for Gollum in the movie to be difficult to understand, distracting, and unfortunate. Ah well. Minor issue.

"Cute!?!" What a shame. No, I cannot accept that the medium alone explains all the differences as "necessary". There are too many movies made that are too well done for that to explain the entirety of why (not if) the movies are inferior to the books.

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet .......... I remember my early high school English courses where we were asked to read some classic story and surprisingly enjoyed it. At least we thought we did. Because, much to our collective surprise, we often found out that the story we thought we read was not really what it was about. There were all these deep and dark secret themes, messages, double and triple meanings, allegories, metaphors and other stuff that the teacher soon held court expounding upon. We read a story and liked it for what we thought it was only to be told "you stupid idiots --- its not that at all". By the time most of us got to be seniors our attitude was "screw it - just tell me what you think it was so I can throw it all up back on the test."

So once again, the ugly and smug head of superiority and purity raises its head in these discussions. Once again the Enlightened Gaurdians of the true themes and spirt of JRTT look down their aristocratic noses upon the great unwashed and pronounce them as sad and pathetic creatures beneath contempt for their ignorance and intellectual poverty.

It has been my understanding that each person brings to the table what is in themselves and uses that to experience what they encounter in life. When I read a book, and you or others read a book, we do not always walk away with the same opinion. At least not if we are thinking people who have not been programmed, educated or outright brainwashed to the ways of proper and acceptable thinking.

[Lalwendë]

lmp - I agree with you that I don't read Lord of the Rings as an action/adventure either, but to be fair on PJ, not every book fan is like us! For one, a friend of mine says he enjoys the action and the adventure most of all in the story, and that's what he centres on (plus he likes all the weapons ) - he hasn't seen the films for the simple fact that he's blind!

I wonder how much PJ brought out the other aspects that we get from the book? Maybe only someone who saw the films first could answer that properly as we will have watched with 'an agenda', like it or not!

I also wonder how someone who was introduced to Tolkien via the films first would see Gollum in the text? More or less sympathetically? My own personal introduction to the fella was via the pages of the Hobbit and although I found him really frightening because he had scared poor Bilbo to death, after reading Rings I began to find him much more sympathetic and began to feel quite sorry for him - and over time this feeling has only grown. Would my reaction be more or less like someone who met him via the films?

[Sir Kohran]

So once again, the ugly and smug head of superiority and purity raises its head in these discussions. Once again the Enlightened Gaurdians of the true themes and spirt of JRTT look down their aristocratic noses upon the great unwashed and pronounce them as sad and pathetic creatures beneath contempt for their ignorance and intellectual poverty.

I'm afraid that there's quite a bit of snobbery from many Tolkien fans where the movies are concerned; their constant statements that their interpretations of the story are 'right' and PJ's and the rest of the world's are 'wrong' are annoying - for instance, in the book the hobbits' room in The Prancing Pony is attacked and vandalised. The book leaves the incident unclear - we don't know if it was the Wraiths' agents or the Riders themselves that attacked. PJ chose the latter option. Anything wrong with that? No, he just chose one of two perfectly possible options. However, one raving book fan on a different site said that having Mordor agents in Bree being mentioned in the previous chapter was 'undoubtedly' foreshading to the attack and therefore PJ was 'wrong' to have the Riders do it.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I'm afraid that there's quite a bit of snobbery from many Tolkien fans where the movies are concerned; their constant statements that their interpretations of the story are 'right' and PJ's and the rest of the world's are 'wrong' are annoying

Why are they annoying when they are right? :P

*this is tongue in cheek*

Remember, Tolkien fans are uber-nerds, so getting pedantic about the films was an inevitability. I do try to pick up on those things which I've seen or heard those who aren't into the books criticise as inconsistent or shoddy - though I can't honestly say I always do that - but I try to be balanced

And the guy on t'other forum was wrong anyway...Meh.

[Boromir88]

Whereas I agree with most things you have said on this thread, I must disagree with this because the logical implication is that some personalities are not disposed to the temptation of the Ring.~Elempi

Good point, and nice post. I think the one exception to this would be Tom Bombadil though.

You will notice that though the Ring is a serious matter and has great power for all the inhabitants of the world of The Lord of the Rings even the best and most holy, it does not touch Tom Bombadil at all.~The Lord of the Ring's Companion: Letter to Christopher Fettes, 1961

If we think about the Ring, it is about mastery and control. Mastery over your foes, of power, of wealth,...etc whatever you desire. The Ring is about having control. Well this has no effect on Tom, because Tom somehow has achieved his own self-mastery. (Goldberry and even Tom himself says 'He is Master'). So, anything that relies on control (such as the Ring) has no effect on Tom:

'No,' said Gandalf 'not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.'~The Council of Elrond

Good point, but I would say Tom B. is the one exception.

But what it transformed Gollum during the decades into is another matter and why it didn't manage to wield Bilbo under it's command...?~Nogrod

Bilbo was just falling under the control of the Ring, he was:
'Thin and stretched he said. A sign that the ring was getting control.'~The Shadow of the Past
But Bilbo had acquired the Ring out of pity and because he acquired the Ring out of good intent, it took longer for the Ring to get a hold over Bilbo. Bilbo is never able to completely forget about the Ring, but he was the only person (up to that point) who had willingly given it up after possessing it.

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.

Obviously the movies are very popular, and there are a lot of people who love them. I'm sure those who do have good reasons for liking the movies. But it doesn't matter how popular a movie is or how many awards its won, there's still going to be people who don't like them. If posts can be made about how great Peter Jackson was in making the films, I expect the same treatment be shown to his critics. This is a forum, not a consensus. As popular as the books were, before anyone even considered making them into movies, Tolkien had his fair share of critics. I don't agree with them, but there have been several good critics who have supported their opinions. We all have different tastes. Ok with that out of the way...

There is a difference between 'interpretation' and an outright alteration. With interpretation, the same end is reached, it's just how that end is reached which is what makes one interpretation different from the other. Many of our popular folktales (Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel...etc) have a variety of interpretations.

As an example, I'll take Wolfgang Petersen, who directed Troy. Troy was slammed by critics for not being historically accurate and for it becoming 'Hollywoodized.' In many ways they are probably right that it was Hollywoodized, but here is an example of interpretation. We all know the story of Achilles being shot in the heel with an arrow and he dies.

The Greek interpretation was that he was dipped in the River Styx and the only part that wasn't was the heel that his mother held him by. So, when he's shot in the heel he dies.

Petersen shows a different, more modernized interpretation that takes out the 'Gods.' And I absolutely love what Petersen does, he keeps in the importance in the belief of the Gods in his movie, but he takes 'myth' out of the story and creates a new interpretation. In the movie, Achilles is first shot by 3 arrows in the chest, and then one in the heel. Super-man hunk Brad Pitt is able to pull out the 3 arrows in his chest, but doesn't pull out the one in his heel. When the soldiers come to see their unstoppable killing machine dead, the only arrow that remains is the one in the heel...ahh.

That is interpretation, the same conclusion is reached...Achilles dead and an arrow in his heel. How Achilles reached his end is the various interpretations. Did Petersen make changes to the Iliad, he sure as heck did. But he knew he was making very well the type of movie he was making and never made the boastful claims that he thought he was improving the story.

Basically, I fail to see out of the books, how Jackson 'interpretted' Sauron as an eyeball, or the Mouth of Sauron goes back to Mordor without a head, or Saruman and Gandalf have a wizard duel, or Saruman shoots a fireball and falls to a spikey death, or Gimli is a belching cheap comedic character, or Denethor is an incompetant punching bag for a wizard, or Gandalf getting completely owned by the Witch-King, or a bunch of Elves teleporting there way to Helm's Deep, or there is some Uruk leader named Lurtz...these are not 'interpretations' they are complete changes. And these are the ones that just sprung into my head within a couple minutes.

[Sauron the White]

from Boromir88

or a bunch of Elves teleporting there way to Helm's Deep, or there is some Uruk leader named Lurtz...

I have seen TTT more than 20 times and I never saw any teleportation in that film.

The Uruks did not have any leaders in the field? Your objection is to one of them actually having a name? And this name - Lurtz - when is that spoken in the film?

But he knew he was making very well the type of movie he was making and never made the boastful claims that he thought he was improving the story.

In the final analysis, this then seems to be Jacksons greatest and most serious sin in the eyes of the True Believers and Tolkien Purists. He actually had the temerity to believe that he could improve upon Holy Writ. Did he not know that he was dealing with the equal of sacred scripture written with the aid of Divine Inspiration?

Last time I looked JRRT was a human being and his work - as great as they are - were and are not perfect. What is so wrong with feeling that you can imporve upon something? In fact, if a filmmaker does not believe he cannot improve in some way upon the written text, they probably should let someone else do it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

ugly and smug ... look down their aristocratic noses ... contempt for their ignorance ... programmed, educated or outright brainwashed

Perhaps you might like to dispense with the "name calling" and stick to arguments? I harbor no ill will toward you personally, but I hold a strong opinion. I would appreciate the same respect in return.

[Sauron the White]

lettlemanpoet...

Rather than name calling I was simply commenting on the tone of your reply which is typified by this comment regarding the world response to the Jackson LOTR films

This does not speak highly of the world.

I do find that to be smug and very condescending. Forget that the world made the LOTR films a great financial success because the world is wrong. Forget that the LOTR films recieved an extremely high level of professional ciritical acclaim because the world is wrong. Forget that the LOTR films won a ton of awards from many professional groups because they are wrong too.

And who is right?

A very small cadre of pretend Tolkien intellectuals who read the same publications, attend the same conferences, share each others group think idealogy and see themselves as the Defenders of the Faith.

If you do not think that comes across in spades in your posts and others who share your approach, perhaps you need to go back and read some again.

You want to argue on the merits? Fine. I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

A very small cadre of pretend Tolkien intellectuals who read the same publications, attend the same conferences, share each others group think idealogy and see themselves as the Defenders of the Faith.

Oh there's nothing like that Even in the Tolkien Society, which is very small, there are huge differences of opinion. I can imagine the usual debates about Balrog Wings have been happening this very weekend! Plus this most 'bookish' of societies also has plenty of film fans - you can buy all manner of film stuff at Oxonmoot and there are usually talks about the films. At the Birmingham event in 2005 the most popular talk was one by Alan Lee (who I met - he is lovely) about his artwork for the films - people had to be turned away! And they showed the films on a loop in a special overnight showing; apparently someone came in and started ranting about the films being terrible and he was met with a hail of abuse and popcorn before being bodily ejected from the room

I'm sorry if you think there's a divide, as there isn't really in my mind. I enjoy much about the films despite them not being 'as good' as the books for me - I've collected a lot of film memorabilia for example, including around 90 action figures.

I think the teleportation joke about the Elves is a fair point - after all, exactly how did they get to Helm's Deep, sneaking past that huge army of Uruk Hai?

[MatthewM]

Like lmp said, everyone was subject to the Ring's power. It played on others different. Yes, Boromir's motives made him vulnerable from the start- however, I still would not compare Boromir and Gollum so closely. Their situations are completely different, and although they both wanted the Ring, they are on opposite spectrums. You know when someone is so bent on making connections between things to fit what they want to see? That is how I feel about someone trying to compare Boromir and Gollum. The only thing similiar to me is that they both fall to the Ring at some point.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But what would have happened to Boromir had he gotten the Ring and held it in his possession for over 500 years?

That's a rather un-fair question though, isn't it? Boromir probably would not have been able to keep it that long, as he is completely different than Gollum and he is a warrior who would be so often in battle that the chances of loosing the Ring would have been that much greater than spending all your days in a cave.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Would he have been able to repent that easily? Boromir repents because the Ring is out of his presense. Gollum possessed the Ring for over 500 years, a bit different.

We all know Faramir's words, and yes, Boromir would have been different, doubtless. He would be carrying the Ring of Power, making him subject to none. But you isolate Boromir here. Anyone who claimed the Ring would be changed and different.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

He very easily could have had Frodo not been smart and kept a large rock between him and Boromir; and then was able to escape. The Ring has a tendency to get people to act in ways they normally wouldn't.

Yet it didn't happen, and "murderer" was not one of Boromir's qualities.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What would have happened had Deagol been able to get away? Smeagol may have been a 'mean son of a thief' but he was no murderer before coming across the Ring.

Smeagol's murderous tendencies were still there. He was evil at the start. If Deagol escaped, he probably would have found him again and murdered him anyway.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Which is why there are characters (such as Smeagol, Denethor, and Boromir) who are targets of The Ring (or anything 'powerful' that would give them what they want), who all fall to the Ring.

Yet they all would have fallen to the Ring. Even Faramir eventually would have fallen. These "targets for the Ring" were simply the first round of combatants if the Ring was not destroyed.

Although I agree with parts of your post, I still can't compare Boromir's situation to Gollum's. They are so different, in my opinion.

[Boromir88]

You want to argue on the merits? Fine. I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.~Sauron

That was me who brought up that stuff, not elempi.

Anyway, as Lal said, the teleportation was a joke to poke fun at exactly how the Elves got there. As it creates a distance problem with the movies. (One noticed not just be the 'book people' but many many movie fans who question the same thing). In the movies Gimli at the beginning of TTT says they have been on pursuit for 3 days (this would be from about Amon Hen and into Rohan).

The Elves presumably came from Lothlorien, which is much farther than the distance Aragorn et all were able to travel in '3 days.' Yet in the films the Elves manage to arrive their overnight? Plus as Lal says they would have had to of gotten past the Uruk-hai army...so how do they do it? This isn't explained in the films and you see it does create a problem with distance. So, I made a joke that the Elves teleported there as that is the only explanation I can think of how they got there so fast. This wouldn't create a problem in the movies if Jackson didn't feel the need to change things around and throw in a bunch of Elves. Why couldn't he have used the 2,000 Rohirrim soldiers who were fighting in Helm's deep? This has been noticed by many many people to and has been a consistant question in the Movie forums.

The Uruk dude Aragorn kills at the end of FOTR is Lurtz. There is no such character in the books. The Uruk-hai's are led by Ugluk and the group from Mordor is led by Grishnakh. In TTT it is Ugluk who leads the Uruk-hai, but for some reason Jackson invented this Lurtz character that got pep talks from Saruman and then gets killed by Aragorn in FOTR. So, I see it as Jackson inventing his own character.

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende.... I am sorry to appear to tar everyone with the same brush when many do not deserve it. Thank you for pointing out the diversity within the Tolkien community. I will certainly keep that in mind when making future observations. I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

Boromir ... sorry to confuse your remarks with someone else. Allow me to discuss your reply.

The Elves in Helms Deep distance problem: It only becomes a problem when you calculate the distance based on the knowledge of the books because the films never make a big issue about it. And even if someone does put it all together based on the distance that others traveled then we have the situation of Elves being able to go without sleep and perhaps would be a great deal faster than mere humans. If people can accept that a short stocky untrained Dwarf can run 140 miles in 3 short days, I would think they would believe almost anything reasonable involving travel from Elves. Both are examples of willing suspension of disbelief. Some are willing to extend it to one area of the medium but deny it to the other.

Neither the book nor the film is perfect. They both contain errors and mistakes and holes.

Lurtz: yes, I know who that character is. Where in the film is he named? As far as I can remember, he never is. What is so wrong about the Uruks having a field commander? How is that some serious violation of the book? So what if Jackson invented an Uruk and gave him more personality, even an off screen name? He knew that the audience would better latch on to one identifiable Uruk than a whole slew of nameless orcs. Lurtz comes to personify the might and brutality of the Uruks both in his slaying of Boromir and in his battle with Aragorn. Having an identifiable character you can hang your hat on means so much more to viewers than waves of unwashed orcs outside of a major battle scene.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir

I would say Tom B. is the one exception.

I agree that he is the exception to the temptation of the Ring, but do you think he is the exception based on personality, or will, or something else?

Originally Posted by Boromir

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by SaurontheWhite

In the final analysis, this then seems to be Jacksons greatest and most serious sin in the eyes of the True Believers and Tolkien Purists. He actually had the temerity to believe that he could improve upon Holy Writ. Did he not know that he was dealing with the equal of sacred scripture written with the aid of Divine Inspiration?

If one is going to use such obvious sarcasm, then one is going to be seen as attacking people instead of their opinions. Nevertheless, I'll deal with both the exaggeration and the actual question that lies underneath: First, to the exaggerration. No, I don't consider LotR to be Holy Writ. And no, I don't consider it to be sacred scripture. And no, I don't see it as Divine Inspiration, although I do consider it to be inspired. Now, to the underlying question: Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did. He did say that he would be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and then he proceeded to improve upon the story when it didn't fit the clichés he wanted to use. The result was to (to varying degrees) compromise, needlessly, some of the strongest characterizations Tolkien achieved, notably in Aragorn and Faramir.

Originally Posted by STW

What is so wrong with feeling that you can imporve upon something?

Not a thing. But then admit that is what you are trying to do.

STW: Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

LMP: This does not speak highly of the world.

STW: I do find that to be smug and very condescending.

Mea culpa. It was an overgeneralization. I grant that LotR-the-movie was an impressive feat of moviemaking. There are scenes that I love from it (Balrog vs. Gandalf at the beginnig of TTT). I cheered when it won the oscars it did. However, there are points at which I cringe because Jackson simply did the story a disservice. Most notably in my mind is Faramir's character, and to a lesser degree the psychologization of Gollum.

Originally Posted by STW

I asked you specifically where you got off criticizing the teleportation devices in TTT when they are none in the film ... BUT ... you ignored it. I asked you about the Lurtz name objection that you voiced ... BUT ... you ignored that.

You have me confused with Boromir. I actually don't object to Lurz as a representative leader of the orcs. I do wish, however, that Ugluk and Grishnakh (what a great evil character!) had made it into the movie; I simply can't see why they were excluded. After all, Lurz dies at the hands of Aragorn, and then the orcs are shown for the rest of the "run to Isengard" with nameless leaders. Why not include the names and characterizations of Ugluk and Grishnakh? Surely there was money to spare to pay two more actors to play such intriguing bit roles! Grishnakh has to be one of the most effectively realized characters in the entire story. He's my favorite orc.

Hmmm..... I didn't realize that Lurz is never named in the movie itself. So apparently that must have been for marketing purposes. And that orc that serves the role of Grishnakh in the movies, I was really, really disappointed that he wasn't Grishnakh. What would it have cost the story to include him? Bummer.

Originally Posted by STW

I do think my remarks do apply to some - especially those Purists who seem to view any attempt to improve on any aspect of the book as something equal to a serious sin.

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

[Sauron the White]

from lettlemanpoet

If Jackson tried and succeeded, I would be happy to acclaim him for it. I do see a number of points at which PJ did a disservice to the story, and I don't see any examples where he actually improved the story. Can you give some examples of where he did?

Where did Jacksons films improve from the book version of LOTR?

I would have to sit down and watch each of the three films - some 11+ hours to give you a thorough answer. But off the top of my head..... and this is just my opinion based on a recent viewing of FOTR and reading that portion of the book...

--- the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book. I felt that making it a personal mano-on-mano thing with Lurtz and giving Lurtz larger and thicker arrows and the attitude and manner of an assassin was a very good way to focus all of the Uruk brutality into one central figure. The actual moments of death with the exchange between Boromir and Aragorn works better than the book.

--- the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did. I remember in the book - outside the Gates of Moria when Boromir is the one to distrub the Watcher with his silly throwing of stones. Hardly the smart move of the great warrior of Gondor. Jackson wisely made it a hobbit mistake. The moment on the snow where Boromir picks up the chain of the ring makes it a far more personal attraction that the audience can visibly see. I even liked the playful teaching Merry and Pippin to swordfight and then they get the better of Boromir. All that added to the character and improved the character of Boromir.

-- Even with eleven hours Jackson could not show everything and this may have motivated his decision not to depict any of the Elves actual battles against the forces of Evil but to instead incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep. For me, it worked. The blowing of the horn announcing their arrival, their march through the gates, that great pivot and turn, their bravery in battle... it all worked for me. I thought that was an improvement. I did not so much see this as a Jackson complete new invention as much as combining a story element that he did not have time to show with one that he was showcasing. ( I realize this is from TTT and not FOTR but it was a subject in your post)

-- Putting more emphasis on the character of Arwen was an advancement. With the exception of Eowyn, its pretty much a male "let me save you" story. Thats probably fine it is day. But in these times women and girls need something more to relate to. Giving them a female character in a leading role who is more than just arm candy was a wise move.

-- Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film. I only wish JRRT had done the same. To this day I see no value in the dancing hippie with the doggerel sing-songs. The idea of introducing the Ring and how its power corrupts everyone, and then you showcase a being who is beyond its power, and THEN DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH IT was not the strongest part of the story. To me its pointless. Even if you get rid of the silly clothes and screwball songs its still pointless. For Jackson, this was addition by subtraction.

-- Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film. In the 21st century, we are used to the anti-hero, the figure who is not comfortable in his own skin and the role he has been cast into. It also makes for a significant character arc as Aragorn can build up his resolve and comfort level with his savior role over thre films. I am sure that Cecil B. DeMille would have had Aragorn as the penultimate HERO from minute one of the film and he would have never had a doubt about anything. That was fine for the first half of the 20th century but there is too much water under that dam to go completely back now. So I looked upon the character developemnt of Aragorn as a positive and more interesting than the Aragorn of the books.

-- And then there is the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth that was near perfection. From the Shire to Isengard to Minas Tirith and everything included. You have to give the Jackson team credit for bringing ME to life.

And thats just from FOTR. Please give me more time to watch the others.

Yes, I take exception to the difference between what Peter Jackson said he was going to do, and what he actually did.

Obviously you care about this deeply and it means something to you. Speaking for myself, I could not care less what Jackson said in an interview, press release, or any other bit of pre-release information. All I wanted was a great film. That is what I felt I got. Further, I do think that Jackson was tiptoeing on fragile glass during the entire pre-FOTR release period. He badly wanted fan support and did not want to do or say anything to dampen pre-film enthusiasm. Were some Tokien purists seduced by that and later felt abandoned? Possibly. But I view this as just part of the film business and its means nothing to me or my feelings. Its the final product that counts. Like Shakespeare said "the plays the thing"... not how it was written or the anguish of getting it right.

But deeper than that, it seems that perhaps your belief in what are the themes and spirit of LOTR and what Jackson sees as important may not be the same thing. As I said in an earlier post, I do not think this is a complete 100% cut and dry situation. Every reader is free to read and bring to the table what they have in themselves. Every reader closes those 1200 pages and internalizes and interprets what they read for themselves. But I would bet that Jackson feels that he was as faithful as he could possible be given the change of medium from a book to three films. You and he would probably never agree, but I guess he feels he was true to the books as much as possible.

In these discussions, it seems that there may be a difference in priorities. Many people I would characterize as Purists, seem to place a very high priority - maybe their highest priority - on being as faithful as possible to the books. I do not know of any filmmaker who would agree with that as their highest priority. Their priorities would include
-- making a good or great film
-- making a profit for the studio so they can keep on working
-- making a film that is praised and will advance their career

I recall the admonition that Ernest Hemingway gave to other authors when selling their work for adaption as a film. Hemingway said there was only one way to do it. The author and producer meet on a deserted beach late at night. The author tosses the book to the producer. The producer tosses a briefcase filled with money to the author. And they never bother each other again.

I think Hemingway had it right and understood the realites of the film business.

Tolkien himself said he did not think the book was filmable. Christopher is still clinging to that fiction. But he went ahead and sold the film rights anyways (and you have to wonder about the ethics of that... "sure I will sell you the rights to build a high rise on this marshy swamp land" hahaha) thinking he could have it both ways keeping the cash without having to see a film made. He may have been right in his time ... but technology caught up with the process.

But Hemingway was right then and Tolkien should have read about it.

I hope this post is more in the spirit of a honest debate and intellectual exchange without name calling or meanness.

[Gwathagor]

Giving Gollum multiple personality disorder is Pete Jackson's cheap and easy way out of a complex character. Gollum isn't that simple.

[Folwren]

Why does everything have to get so fiesty and mean? It's kind of fun sitting on the side lines and just watching - cheering for the people you agree with, and laughing when they make a good point that will apparently squash their opponent's reasoning, but...well, I've done enough of that. I'll throw in my two cents.

The original question of this thread was:

How do you see as the differences? Do you like the book's representation, or the movie's, better? And why?

I don't know if you all had forgotten, but just in case, I figured I'd post it.

A lot of people here have made very good points. I won't site all the posts or anything, but if you've read the thread, you should know what I'm talking about. Gollum in the book had a very deep and intriguing character - one that I could never simply say was 'good' or 'bad' until the end of the TT (at which point I hated him with a vengeance). He was a very pitiable character, but at the same time, he was repulsive you knew he was evil. But something struggled within me to think, "No...he's not so bad...there is a glimmer of good in him..." It's harder the more I read it. I know how it all ends up, I'm no longer surprised and shocked when he betrays them in Shelob's lair, but still as I read it, I always hope, and every time, I think, "If only Sam hadn't woken and snapped at him on the stairs. If only he had repented."

Okay, so that's the book. In the movie it was different. I still pitied him, but I never hoped that he would turn good. I never wished that Sam had slept longer (they didn't even have that part in the movie, instead it turned out that Sam was right about him Sneaking). The struggle between good and evil didn't seem quite so desperate. In the one scene where the good wins - great! It seems finished. In the struggle wherein the bad wins - after Faramir's men are wicked to him - Of course it won! Frodo had just betrayed him.

But I did think he was a great villain. Andy Serkis did an awesome job on his motions and his voice and the crew did a supurb job turning the thing in to Gollum. I will prefer my strong yet subtle feelings while reading the books, but I will also greatly enjoy watching Gollum on screen.

---

As for what PJ did to improve the story...well, we didn't think long, but my Mom could only think of one thing - he drew out the grief of the company a lot more after Gandalf's death than Tolkien did. A valid point.

Pop thought the elves coming to Helm's Deep was cool. I didn't argue with him.

I have nothing to say to that point just now.

-- Folwren

[Quempel]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Giving Gollum multiple personality disorder is ..... Gollum isn't that simple.

As a therapist in training I couldn't agree with you more. Gollum has a much more complex personality problem. DID very rarely presents so evil, and the splits usually do not know about each other, much less talk to each other. There are a handful of Cluster B personality types Gollum could easily fall into, but DID isn't it.

That said I belive anyone would have a hard time putting Gollum's personality into film, and maybe that is why Jackson did it the way he did it. And maybe the professor was right on some aspects not being filmable. And for the record the whole Gollum/Smeagol conversation is a favorite of mine in the movie.