Split Personality?

[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.

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

STW, what you call PJ's improvements on the book may be separated into two categories. First: works better for movie medium

• the death scene of Boromir
• incorporate the Elves into Helms Deep
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• the physical visualization of the world of Middle-earth

Second: improvement on the book

• entire portrayal of Boromir
• more emphasis on the character of Arwen
• Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil
• character developemnt of Aragorn

One of the two, "getting rid of weaker elements", overlaps into both categories.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

Incorporating Elves into Helm's Deep, I'm not sure it was necessary to the plot for the sake of the movie. It went against my sensibilities at the time, but I see why PJ did it; just not sure it was necessary.

I knew PJ would remove Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. I recognized that they wouldn't fit into his movie, but I do contest that Tom Bombadil was not necessary to Tolkien's story. You say that Tolkien did absolutely nothing with it. This is not actually true. The issue of Tom came up in the Council of Elrond, and more is learned about him there. However, Tom Bombadil is used effectively by Tolkien to bring about the "growing up" of Frodo. But that's only his plot purpose. Tom Bombadil's setting and theme purpose within the whole corpus goes far beyond that, but that's an entirely different discussion.

As to the physical visualization of Middle Earth, it seems that you put the cart before the horse. The two Tolkien artists John Howe and Alan Lee base their art on Tolkien's descriptions, and PJ's art department based their work on Howe and Lee's work. So what you call an improvement, I would call PJ actually achieving (in this one case) what he said he was trying to. So kudos to PJ on living up to Tolkien's descriptoins; but improving upon them? I don't think so.

Now onto what you claim as actual improvements over the book.

As to the entire portrayal of Boromir, it is certainly different. Boromir is more noble in the movie ( I can't help but place that beside his brother Faramir who is less noble in the movie). Boromir in the book is very much the son of his father, whereas in the movie the father is a ridiculous fool, which Denethor was not in the book. But back to Boromir. In the movie (seems odd to say but this just came to me) he had to die because he was more attractive to the viewing audience than Aragorn was. In the book Aragorn is clearly the more noble character. The problem with the representation of Boromir in the movie is that his brand of heroism is unabashadly glorified, whereas in the book the same type of heroism is shown to be shallow as compared to the purposeful and sacrificial heroism of both Aragorn and Faramir. So the book brings it deeper than the movie does. Sorry, I can't call that an improvement on the book per sé, but perhaps I can accept it in the movie (especially since Sean Bean is the actor).

I knew the movie would put more emphasis on the character of Arwen, since that's just the way Hollywood works. Again, not an improvement over the book in my opinion, but a necessary alteration for the movie.

As to the character development of Aragorn: this could take up an entire thread of its own, and I'm betting it already has. Notice that I could not discuss Boromir without mentioning Aragorn. Someone else has said that this is one of the biggest areas PJ "didn't get", and that the latter 20th into the 21st century just can't seem to "get", and that is the possibility of an actual good person, that such an entity simply cannot be believed. If so, that's just downright sad, and not a good sign for our times. If that comes off as smug and condescending, then all I can say is that western culture has apparently descended from something better that has been lost, and that's a shame. One of the things that Tolkien did best, was to communicate nobility of character. The death scene of Boromir in the movie was about the best I've seen it done by Hollywood! - - - and that was actually borrowed from another script (so I'm told)!

Originally Posted by STW

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.... Its the final product that counts.

What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Originally Posted by STW

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.

This comes as no surprise. And of course I think PJ has it wrong.

[Boromir88]

Folwren, nice insight about Gollum. The books set Gollum up as an even more repulsive and wicked person than the movies. So 'wicked' in fact that he has phantom stories about taking babies in the night and drinking their blood. But despite this, there is still that glimmer of hope that Tolkien created...and since there always is that small hope, I always wanted Gollum to pull through in the end.

Maybe it's just because I already knew Gollum wasn't going to repent, that I never got the same feeling in the movies, I don't know. Or also, I didnt like how they handled that Mount Doom scene (with the whole Frodo nearly tumbling in and Sam screaming REACH!!!)

Of course when we're talking about 'better' it's going to be subjective, on your own personal tastes. As far a who's the better 'story teller,' for me without a doubt it would be Tolkien. His knowledge of language, mythology, history...etc was just stunning. As CS Lewis said in Tolkien's obituary that Tolkien had 'been inside language.' And no matter what Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens created it could never come anywhere near the 'cauldron of a story' that Tolkien created.

I will admit that I have a soft spot for large battles and giant slugfests...which Jackson does do a nice job of creating. But that doesn't make LOTR a better story (in my opinion) that just made it cool to watch on screen.

So, let's see what we got...

the death scene of Boromir is both more dramatic and more emotionally touching in the film than in the book.

I actually preferred Boromir's death in the books. Seeing it through Pippin's eyes (as he describes it in the chapter The Uruk-hai) was more emotional than what the movie created:

His last memory was of Boromir leaning against a tree, plucking out an arrow; then darkness fell suddenly.

As great as the movies showed Boromir's final moments (absoluty the most tragic and touching parts of all the movies for me), Pippin's description of the battle made Boromir's last stand not only more heroic but more touching for me. As Boromir sent the Orcs fleeing twice, and the third time he was overcome as "they shot a rain of arrows: always at Boromir."

And I always found his last lines rather cliche: 'I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my King'? I don't know that sounds a little too cheesy and would have preferred them to just end it with Aragorn's 'I will not let the White City fall' and have Boromir's "smile" as is described in the story.

the entire portrayal of Boromir in the film presents a far more likable character than the books did.

This is a tough one because I actually think the book Boromir is a lot nicer, it's just more subtle and harder to notice. But, I see what you're saying because I've seen the movies change the opinions of Boromir in people...they actually did for me.

When I first read the story, I never hated Boromir, I thought he was a great warrior, he made a mistake that he tried to rectify, but he wasn't my favorite by any means (I was a Theoden person). However, after seeing Boromir (and Sean's performance...Bean was a favourite actor of mine even before he did Boromir) I got a different feeling about him. The movie moments of him talking to Aragorn in Lothlorien and him teaching Merry and Pippin how to 'spar' show a more likeable Boromir.

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

Yes, I think Boromir is a sarcastic (and sometimes childish) person in the books, especially when he doesn't get his way. However, that just adds to Boromir's character and his 'growth,' plus it actually makes sense. In Gondor Boromir was used to having 'no rival,' he was used to making the decisions (as far as the military is concerned). He was used to giving orders and having people follow them. Then he's thrust into a situation where he is in far greater company than he, and he struggles with the fact that he is not the leader of the Company. He is not the one in a position of authority to 'give orders' when he's in the Fellowship. So, yes when Boromir doesn't get his way he can be stubborn (to put it lightly), he doesn't know humility. What really makes it work, is the contrast with Aragorn who is quite humble and willingly accepts orders (even orders from Boromir).

By Boromir's death however he has grown and learned humility. After trying to take the Ring from Frodo he goes back to the camp where Aragorn tells him to go find Merry and Pippin, and Boromir does so with no fight...then we have his final words to Aragorn: 'Go to Minas Tirith and save my people. I have failed.' Boromir's stubborn, sometimes childish, and 'anti-Gorn' qualities actually makes a great story because by his death we see how much he has grown through his journey with the Fellowship. Not only is he just a great warrior strongman now, but he recognized his mistake and I can't put it any better than Gandalf:

'Poor Boromir! I could not see what happened to him. It was a sore trial for such a man: a warrior, and a lord of men. Galadriel told me that he was in peril. But he escaped in the end. I am glad.'~The White Rider

I say it's a tough one because I've also seen people who have watched TTT EE when Denethor sends Boromir off to bring back daddy his little gift and seeing that Boromir's reason for joining the Fellowship was to sabotage it. I wish that part of the EE wasn't in there as FOTR did such a great job in creating Boromir's character, but that EE scene when Denethor pulls him aside is just irritating.

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.

But this was a fight that 'men' had to resolve...or mostly do on their own. Some Elves were staying around and had their own battles, but it was time for Men to deal with Sauron, the Elves have been doing it for too long.

Also, as I mentioned it is a distance problem, that isn't just recognized by a few book people...Jackson has actually been questioned about it many times. The Elves came from Lorien, well that was the wooded place way back in FOTR the Fellowship went to. And then Gimli says they've been chasing the Uruks for 3 days through Rohan...so this is something anyone can put together, you don't even have to know the name Tolkien to realize we have discontinuity. Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny. Aragorn actually remarks that he wishes he had the endurance of the Dwarves while they were chasing after the Uruk-hai (and it wasn't Aragorn making a joke). This adds to the trashing of Gimli's characters, as I've seen people making posts saying Legolas and Aragorn should have just killed Gimli because he was holding them back and he never does anything anyway. Making an argument that Gimli was a useless character that just cracks a bunch of jokes (I really liked Gimli's portrayal in FOTR, but by watching TTT and ROTK, I can't say I disagree with said people's view of Gimli when watching the movies).

Getting rid of the weaker elements such as Tom Bombadil was a wise decision which made for a tighter tale and better film.

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there. Why Tom is so interesting? Perhaps its there is so much mystery about him, and an enigma such as Tom, can attract a lot of intrigue and interest from readers. I won't add much more than what was said, but also Tom goes to help forshadow the events at the end, when Saruman takes control of the Shire.

Lots of folks hate what he did to Aragorn, but I think it is understandable given the developments of post WWII literature and film.

Grant it book Aragorn seems much more certain and the all righteous hero in the books when compared to the movies; however this isn't so. Aragorn first serves as a good foil to both Boromir and Denethor, so all of Aragorn's good traits come through, so much so that it seems like Aragorn is just the perfect hero. However, this is not so, as Aragorn also has his own struggles and doubts in the books. Particularly after Boromir's death and the capturing of Merry and Pippin. Aragorn is at a loss, and starts doubting himself as the 'leader' of the company, but luckily for him Legolas and Gimli are there to pick him up. Plus, there is the confrontation with Hama when he asks Aragorn to hand over Anduril. Aragorn shows a little bit of power-hungriness as he tries to usurp Theoden's orders by saying he's the 'heir of Elendil' and his will should therefor trump Theoden's. But, again lucky for Aragorn that Gandalf is there to tell him he's being stupid.

I think this post that I came across a little while ago sums up elempi's (and many others) complaint about what Jackson did with the movies:

Okay, I started LotR a few days ago, and I am up to page 131. So far it has been a good read, and I like the way Tolkein writes, but so far it’s been pretty dull. When I say dull, I don’t mean bad, but just a little boring. It seems like it’s taking forever for little things to happen. Anyway, I’m just wondering, by what page or chapter does the action start to pick up? By action, I mean like fighting.

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that). They want to see the high action, Orli surfing adventure, Jackson created. There is a lot of action in the books, it's just not in 'fighting.' The action is the suspense, forshadowing, tension building, character interaction, character development, The Big Bad Read, and the language itself. Now, not everyone who was introduced to LOTR by the movies has these expectations from the books. But, I do think that Jackson did (whether intentionally or not doesn't matter) create a misrepresentation of the story, that leads to some fans when they go and read the books for the first time wondering why is this just a drag?

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet... it would seem that there is some middleground here that we both can stand upon with a degree of comfort. I am glad to hear you say that you see that some of the things Jackson did were better for the film.

I grant you that the death scene of Boromir was moving and was better for the movie than the book version, which was better for the book.

I see it pretty close to the way you do regarding this scene. A book does not have to be as dramatic and as emotional as a film does. What JRRT wrote was excellent for the book and worked extremely well. For the film version, it would have bordered on underplaying the whole moment. So Jackson made it more dramatic, more poignant and it turn took on more emotional resonance with the audience. And of course, that was Jacksons intent.

I see it much the same with the expanded role for Arwen within the LOTR story (as opposed to the Appendices). The entire Arwen-Argorn story is far more emotional in the film than it is in the book. In the book that type of showcase for the love story may have distracted from the rest of the tale and tried to turn the book into something it was never intended to be. But for the movie, what Jackson did worked well and it helped make the movie the success it was.

Perhaps the difference in how some of see these things is the perspective we are coming from. Allow me to explain how I have always seen this.

A book is one thing and a film is quite another. Each has its own internal laws, rules, constructions, devices, approaches, techniques and methods that further and aid in creating the world that it becomes. And each of these elements are somewhat different when you go from one medium to another. What makes for a great book does not always make for a great film.

I accept that and do not expect my films to look like my books.

I also accept the economic and business realities of the film making business and harbor no fantasies about what the true bottom line is and what the purpose of any film is.

In the end, I view the LOTR as a magnificent tale told by two different story tellers using two very different mediums. The story tellers are divided my more than half a century in time, and separated by different sides of the world. One had complete control of their end of the tale while the other had to work within from an established and beloved template and within a corporate and team concept. One had to answer to only himself since it was his own creation. The other had to answer to a host of masters, some of which had far different agendas.

So we end up with two LOTRs. The books and the films. Of course the books are THE LOTR. No doubt about that. The films are merely an adaption and can never supplant or gain the authenticity of the books. But having said that, the films are out there and were most likely seen by more people than who have read the books. In the minds of many, the LOTR has become the films. The story as portrayed in those films - for some viewers - is the LOTR. Sheer numbers have made it so.

The books are dearly loved by me ever since I read them right out of college in 1971. Among my most valued and treasured possessions are first editions - US sadly - of both THE HOBBIT and each of the three volumes of LOTR. I have the record album of THE POEMS AND SONGS OF MIDDLE EARTH with the actual signature of JRRT himself that came from the collection of a very well known and legitimate collector. I have lost count of how many times I have read the books and THE SILMARILLION over the last 36 years. And I have in the same room, shelf upon shelf of stuff from the films. I love and appreciate both for what they are.

The same story told by two different storytellers each emphasizing different parts and different characters but largely the same. At least, that is how I see it.

In reading many posts over the last six years on many sites, it is obvious that some people do not see it that way at all. And that is fine.

The one area we can debate about seems to be the following comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by STW
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.... Its the final product that counts.

from littlemanpoet
What you're saying, essentially, is that the end justifies the means. Your contention here seems to be that PJ lied in order to seduce Tolkien fans to watch his movie. And that's not a problem? In other words, PJ was saying to Tolkien fans the same kind of thing Saruman said to Gandalf when he was trying to win him over in order to use him as a pawn. If you are correct, then what PJ did was base betrayal. Do you really think that was what PJ was doing? If so, then it's worse than anything I've critiqued him for.

Ends justifying the means? Who knows? Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I certainly do not believe in cutting off peoples limbs but I certainly can also concede the need for it given certain medical situations. Lots of things are like that. The older I get, the less I cling to rigid principles, absolute black-and-white right and wrongs, clear cut moral choices and all that.

If we are going to engage in a discussion as to IF Jackson lied and seduced Tolkien fans with his early remarks it would probably be a good idea to find those exact remarks and reproduce them. To accuse someone of "base betrayal" is a pretty damning charge. I give you credit with the comparison to Saruman - its very cute and clever but we both know that Jackson is not Saruman or any such creature. He is a filmmaker who took on a task that even JRRT himself that was not possible. Jackson is not evil in the sense that Saruman was.

You ask if I think PJ was guilty of that. NO. What I do think happened was that Jackson wanted to make the best series of films he could that made the most money both for his studio and for himself. To do that he did not want to alienate hardcore and longtime Tolkien fans. He tried to enlist their support early on. Did he lie? Dunno. Does everybody "lie" when they promise to love someone forever and then things end sadly apart? A lie is not the words but what is in the heart as the words are spoken. Only Jackson knows what his intentions were.

Based on all the stuff I have read and watching all those features on the DVD's, it is my individual opinion that Jackson tried to satisfy all his constituencies as best he could given the realities of the situation. And that would include Tolkien fans.

Also, Gimli being a terribly slow runner that held Aragorn and Legolas back was just something Jackson threw in because I guess he thought it would be funny.

This is a sore point with me that you may have seen on another thread here. Having been a long distance runner for the past thirty plus years, the idea of an untrained dwarf running 140 miles in three days over rough terrain is simply ludicrous beyond anything remotely approaching reality. Sure, JRRT throws in the obligatory comments from other characters to help explain and justify the superdwarf feat that Gimli is undertaking, but its absurd just the same. And I do not give a single whit about how "hardy" or "strong" dwarves are. Running and especially ultralong distance running - is a world of its own that has nothing to do with strength or hardiness. I do not view the handling of that three day run any better in the film than it was in the books. But at least in the film we were spared a daily listing of milage which only added to the impossibility of it all .

from Boromir 88

Then I went back through the books and noticed all the small things I missed with Boromir that made him my favourite character. Moments like when Pippin describes his 'lordly yet kindly manner,' moments that describe the bond between him and Faramir, moments where even Eomer of Rohan has great praise to say of Boromir, and even lines from Boromir like 'The Men of Minas Tirith do not abandon their friends in need.' Also we see that it is Boromir's strength that he adds to the Fellowship (something that the Fellowship greatly needed on Caradhras and in Moria).

I would mostly agree with your statement here. I too enjoyed the book Boromir more after seeing the films and picked up far more of the subtle nuances that Tolkien employed in his devolopemnt. If the film helped make that possible for both you and I, as well as others, then it is saying something very positive. You make a good point about the childish of Boromir being contrasted with is later growth as a character and that is valid. However, in the films, we have several other characters, dare I say more important characters, in their own stages of growth and development. Perhaps Jackosn felt that you could only have so much growth and development in changing characters and some had to be more constant. Especially in a character who is around for pretty much only the first film.

from Boromir88

Jackson was actually asked how he explains the Elves getting to Helm's Deep so fast he squirmed and looked at Walsh and Boyens...to which he answered that the Elves left almost immediately after the Fellowship left Lorien, and that scene in the movie with Galadriel and Elrond is a 'flashback.' Seems like he came up with a quick answer to cover his tail as he realized there was a mistake.

Well, at least he had some explaination for it..... and I say that a bit sheepishly. There are mistakes both in the book and in the films and this could well be one of them. I do think that given the physical gifts of the Elves, you can make a far more rational and logical case for a squadron of trained Elven warriors to make that journey than you can for a squat, chunky untrained dwarf. But I do understand the point and concede some of its validity. I do think - and some will crucify me for this - that there is a "now thats cool" factor in movies. When we see something totally cool - like the Elves marching into Helms Deep - it aids to our willing suspension of disbelief and we push those nagging milage questions to the back of our mind. Perhaps only to be resurrected a few years later on sites like this one.

from Boromir88

Yes I agree that getting rid of Tom Bombadil for the film was a very smart move. That would have been film suicide to put in Tom. But I agree with elempi that Tom certainly does have a purpose in the story, and adds a lot to the story. Afterall besides Balrogs Tom seems to have the most questions asked about him, so he has to be an interesting character to many many books fans out there.

Nice to see we agree on the film TB- or non-TB. I realize that this thread is not the place to discuss TB in detail. Perhaps you can refer me to where this has already been hashed out? Having read the books countless times I still see no actual purpose in him. If you excise him from the tale and come up with a different way to save the hobbits from the barrow wights, what is lost? Is that TBs main purpose? If not what is it?

from Boromir88

After watching the movies people expect to go into reading Tolkien and thinking there's going to be just lots and lots of slash'em up fighting. They are left dissappointed and dull when they find out that of the 1000+ page story probably only 20 pages describe actual fighting (if that).

If that is happeneing, then it is sad that they do not see the beauty, depth and complexity that the books offer. I quickly concede the point that there is much more action and fighting in the films than in the books. But I thinks its an unfair oversimplification to hang the label of a mere action flick on the films. Just yesterday I was watching FOTR with my six year old grandson and the amount of slash'em up fighting is rather small. There are large portions of the film which move rather slowly and have nothing to do with violence or fighting. Of course, the battles are the set pieces of the last two films, but we still have lots and lots of exposition, character development and other bits of business that the standard thud and blunder film never has.

Again, the books are one thing. The films are quite another. I am glad to see there is some middle ground here for many of us.

[alatar]

Catching up a bit:

• Boromir, the more I read this thread, sounds a lot like Turin "I wanna build a bridge" Turambar in they both wanted what they wanted now...or else there's going to be some complaining. I agree that not only did Sean Bean's/PJ'S Boromir come off better than in the books - and the EE version added to that - but placing the Steward's son's death in FotR was a great idea. Score one for the Anti-Purists!

• Can't remember in which post it appeared, but think that I been told that certain changes had to be made to update the material from whenever it was written into today's language. And yet when I propose Gollum as a normal gent who suddenly splits his personality to deal with a horrible trauma (he lost a friend for gosh sakes! ), I'm told that this is not the deep character that could have been. So I'll retract that theory and add this one, based a little more on Peter Jackson's words: Smeagol/Gollum is an addict. The Ring, the "drug" effects all, but like the real world some fall sooner than others. Was Smeagol more animal that hobbit in that his id was more control than his superego, making him more open to the call? Gandalf had the sense to not touch the thing; if he did, would he have been quickly ensnared?

• The elves left for Helm's Deep while Galadriel was waving. Celeborn, having seen the future of Middle Earth in the hands of Pippin, thought that he'd better send help south as soon as possible.

• The elves were one of PJ's experiments. We judge the results of that experiment by (1) its result and (2) by what we already know. I was fine with PJ placing elves at Helm's Deep - initially. Couldn't help but feel emotional when Aragorn hugs Haldir. So far, so good. But when the elves rush an enemy when they have arrows to burn, and when none survive (and are quickly forgotten) then I'd have to say that PJ was careless with his thinking. I'm all for trying the new, but he could at least follow through. Given the result, I would leave them out. Score one for the Purists!

• More about the running. Back in the day, we were conscripted into going on these walkathons where we'd get people to give us money for each mile/kilometer that we successfully walked. This money was then donated to charity. So we'd walk, and the first mile was like, "We're walking! We're walking!" while the later miles weren't so Yellow Brick Road and Dorothy-like. My shoes were the cheapest that my parents could afford, and my one relief was extra socks. So, on all occasions I was able to make the 18-20 mile (29-32 km) walks. Afterwards I was sore - which I guess was the point of it all - and we would complain the next day at school about what a big adventure the whole deal was. During the event, note that some passed us by like we were walking with cinder blocks attached to our legs, as they made the mileage in much less time. Now, here's how my brain works: if I can complete a distance of whatever miles in so much time, having no training, no professional equipment/support and definitely no sense, what could someone in the top 1% of all walkathoners of the world do?

• The lottery, with "Powerball" odds of 1 in 146,107,962, seems like a losing bet, and yet people play daily with the thinking that they will win. If one can overcome this logic, overcoming the leap of faith that three beings in a fantasy world can run 135 in 3 + days given that these persons may represent the top Middle Earth runners ever (save Tulkas) doesn't seem too hard to believe, (yes, I know it can't be done, but...), as from above if average me can walk 20 miles in a day and live to tell about it, right or wrong, I can extrapolate that someone could do more in less. You see in the papers stories about persons hitting the lottery twice, and so if they can win, so can I (if I played).

• What did Gollum want with the Ring? In the movie, as stated, it's shiny and he wants it. After this, he uses it as a way to eat (I think), but with the exception of getting him into the Books and Movies by giving him something to lose and pursue, what does the Ring do for Gollum?

• And lastly, regardless of Gollum, elves at Helm's Deep, Boromir and Faramir et al, PJ made successful films, and yet we will not ever know how much more or less successful if he were to have done it my way (which, of course, is the only right way of doing things).

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

--- 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.

Can you be more ignorant and wrong? I do not think so. Sauron the White, your argument holds no substance. You are arguing that Boromir of the movies is better than Boromir in the books. WRONG. You can call me ignorant yourself if you like, but you are wrong. Boromir in the books is far more superior than PJ's mush ball Boromir. You obviously have little to no knowledge on the character, or at least have not studied his character. Maybe you should do that before making horrible misjudgments on Boromir.

I wish you would, before blurting out about Boromir, read the discussion Boromir88 and I had, in which he (Boromir88) kindly gave you the link. Here it is-

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...3&postcount=17

I would go on and on about defending book Boromir, the lordly and kind, and continue to tell you how wrong you are about movie Boromir's death scene being better than the book (for what Tolkien wrote is better) yet I see no need right now as Boromir88 laid it out on the table nicely.

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

You are never going to win this battle, defending the films against the books so irriationally. Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies. They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side. Read the SbS to see my scene by scene criticisms regarding Peter Jackson's work where I quibbled on most everything; yet in all of that I hope to never ever to be on 'your' side as it's been the Movie-lovers' points of view that have extended my appreciation for both the movies and books.

And alatar...I'm disappointed in you.

Why? I never knew that you appointed me...

[Sauron the White]

Alatar - I read the very short article you linked to. It said nothing which changes the information I have been giving in this and the other thread on running and the necessity for extensive long distance training to run long distances. The only mention of glycogen is that is not exclusive and that other things can be employed in addition to the function glycogen serves to fuel the muscles of the body. "Limited use of free fatty acids" are not the same as fat people or a 4 foot 200 pound dwarf. Again, walking, be it on level ground or up a mountain, does not prepare one for the equal of 1.6 marathons a day for three days. The only thing that would do that is extensive training sessions over at least a three month period structured around long distance running possibly mixed with nearly equally strenuous power walking. . By my calculations, it would take a three months base base of nearly 18 miles per day to be able to run the 45 miles necessary in a single day. And then what happens on days two and three? Answer - you are flat on your back nursing a very tired, aching and depleted body which would not be ready for exercise for many more days. And what would it take to get up to that 3 month base of 18 miles a day. Most probably a year of serious training. Again, this is all mathematical and psyiological.

The article you linked to has no research stats beyond 10,000 meters or 6.2 miles. That was the limit of their research. The training methods for ultra-marathon distances does not change because of the discovery of using fatty acids. Again, not the same as fat people or fat dwarves. But I think you already knew that.

Matthew M ... since Alatar already said it, I will allow his words to speak for me

You've made Sauron the White's point rather well, and just when I was hoping that he was coming over to the Books side.

more from Matthew

Say all you want about your cinderblocks. You are wrong. The book always rules out the movies.

Well it seems that indeed you have all four aces up your sleeves. You will willingly engage in playing with me and others but in the end you can always play your aces as you have now done. Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

more from MatthewM

They are not supposed to be two different things, they are both "The Lord of the Rings" and the way that PJ chose to portray certain characters and events counter to the book does not rest well with the true Tolkien enthusiast, except for you and a small majority.

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

[Folwren]

My word! Why do things have to get so defensive and nasty?

Honestly, people, this isn't even on topic! If you want to discuss the three runners, why don't you do it on a thread made just for that? It seems that there is enough stuff to argue about!

This thread of Elempi's isn't even meant for whether or not the movie was accurate - or if the book was better. It was merely asking 'which do you prefer - the books' Gollum/Smeagol or the movie's - and why?' I don't believe Elempi meant for it to become a battle of whether or not PJ did a good job - because Gollum happened to be something that PJ did a particularly good job with.

Be reasonable and stop acting like children.

-- Folwren

[Quempel]

StW

I have been a long distance speed walker for some time now, and ok its not running, but I like my backbone and knee joints. Your assumption that Gimli wasn't physically able to run is just that, your assumption. No where in the book or the movie does it say that Gimli was unable to run. He would not have been able to keep up with over 6 foot tall Legolas and Aragorn simply because of stride length, but he is in shape. He had been walking and running with the fellowship for a long time, thus building up his endurance. And sorry StW, walking at a fast pace builds the same endurance as running, there are many medical studies that show walking does as much good as running, without the pain. So here is Gimli who has been out walking at a rather fast clip, in snow, over mountains, through mountains, and now all of the sudden he is so out of shape that he can't do anything.

The other flaw in your argument is that you are applying modern day human standards to non-human. Gimli is not human, he is a dwarf. You assume that Tolkien’s dwarfs fall under the same standards of humans, and Tolkien clearly distinguished the differences between the races in middle earth. Dwarfs did not have the same physical characteristics as humans. Same as humans did not have the same characteristics as elves. In fact the only paring of human with other races were with elves. There are no hobbit dwarf mating, no human hobbit mating. Perhaps this is because the DNA would not mix. Applying modern human standards to a fictional non-human dwarf is assuming that you know everything about Tolkien's dwarfs. The same standards you believe you know about the human body and running can and possibly do not apply to Dwarfs.

By the way are you a trained doctor? Or just a runner? There is a difference between a doctor who has spent years studying the human body and a lone runner who has only his own experiences to draw upon. It's like saying since you fix your own car you are certified mechanic.


And one more question, are you on Pete's payroll? Your disdain of Tolkien comes out loud and clear in your posts, and I have to wonder why you even read the books to begin with and simply didn't wait for Pete's much superior action flicks to come out.

[Sauron the White]

Quempel...

no I have never recieved on thin dime from Mr. Jackson. I have no disdain of JRRT - in fact I count LOTR as my all time favorite book. I truly love it. I have been reading it and rereading it for over 35 years now. I do however, view JRRT as a human being who created a book which has its own beauty, its own wonder and its own flaws. After all, it is a creation of a flawed human being and we are all in that category. Divine perfection is not achieved by any of us, JRRT included.

My entire point here began in the thread labeled as DENETHORS PLUNGE. In it, someone, I believe Knight of Gondor, went to great lengths to reproduce stills from ROTK to show the exact distance that Denethor had to run while on fire before his plunge off the edge. It was concluded that this would have take at least three minutes to complete and thus was impossible for a man to do while being consumed in flames.

Fine. He did a good job and was technically correct in his findings.

I pointed out two things: one, we only see Denethor on fire for a total of ten seconds in his run not three minutes - so what the audience saw was a ten second sprint - something they have seen many times in many movies with people on fire for far longer durations. Two - what ever happened to willing suspension of disbelief? You know what that is right? Its what every fantasy, horror and science fiction tale needs to survive beyond the "that cannot really happen" statement from viewers who apply actual science and reality to these type of tales.

None of us could enjoy the LOTR as a book or as a film if we did not employ a healthy dose of willing suspension of disbelief.

My point was a simple one: Why is it that when it comes to the books, many here can willingly engage in suspended their disbelief and just go with it - while at the same time - doing what Knight of Gondor did in the previously mentioned thread, applying reality and science to mock and ridicule the films?

In fact, when something in the books is criticized for not being feasible, even in the confines of a fantasy world, many here go to great lengths to come up with all manner of intellectual exercises to show that Tolkien could never have made a mistake. But when it comes to Jacksons films, its a whole different ballgame with a whole different set of rules.

I see that as a hypocritical double standard.

I merely used the example of Gimli not being able to run 140 miles in three days as an obvious hole in the book. As predicted by myself, many Tolkien book enthusiasts came up with all manner of intellectual explainations to show why a four foot, 200 pound dwarf, in heavy boots and carrying heavy weapons, with no long distance running training, could accomplish what a marathon runner could not do with months of training.

You still cling to this fiction. Your latest tact is that Gimli is not human and thus all bets are off. I refer you to this site

http://www.answers.com/glycogen?cat=health

If you read the article about glycogen and how muscles utilize it you will read that it applies not only to people - of which I thought Gimli was one - but to all animals as well. Somewhere in there is Gimli. Or is he such an alien creature that all normal rules of muscles do not apply to him. Thats a pretty big loophole if you are going to maintain that.

Even in a fantasy novel such as LOTR there is an internal logical structure that applies to its inhabitants. It is not by job to show you that Gimli DID NOT TRAIN. How does one point to what is not there? Proving a negative comes to mind. It is your job to demonstrate that he did. The book gives us no evidence that Gimli engaged in the type of long term long distance running or even race walking that is necessary to rack up the kind of miles that Tolkien uses. Tolkien gives us no evidence of it. Its simply not there. If it is please quote me the edition, the chapter and the page. I will be glad to read it.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by alatar

Why? I never knew that you appointed me...

My comment towards you was pertaining to your remark on Boromir from book to film.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Since the books will always triumph in any discussion, any debate, any difference of opinion, we might as well all just shut up and go home right now.

Please do!

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Regardless of your opinion, you cannot change reality. A book is one thing. A film is a different thing. In this case, the subject matter is the same, however, they are clearly not the same thing. And how is it that you speak "for the true Tolkien enthusiast". What is the litmus test for being "true"? I suspect I know the answer to that one. Were you elected or appointed to this position? Or perhaps self- appointed? And how did you determine that a "small majority" agreed with the Jackson films and me? Please show me the stats on this as many here would find them most illuminating.

Yeah, right, because your posts did not hint at anything doubting your belief in JRRT's work... (extreme sarcasm)

It is obvious that there are, here at least, few people who agree with your book bashing movie thumping opinions.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It is most interesting that cooler heads here and myself seem to be able to find some middle ground on these issues. But you come along and we go back to square one with the Defenders of the Holy Word denying even the possibility of value in the Jackson films.

Touching. Funny enough, I happen to love the films. In fact, they are my favorite movies of all time. I am just not about to defend them over the books, and the things/characters/events wrongly portrayed in the films deserve talking and complaining about. Again, keep your apples and your cinderblocks. You can use me as an example to prove your relentless point if you wish, I care not.

It's also rather funny how my post toward you was concerning your skewed opinions of Boromir, and not so much on your flawless movie talk.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

As Alatar said - you prove my point for me. Thank you MatthewM.

You are very welcome, Sauron the White.

[Sauron the White]

from MatthewM

I happen to love the films. In fact, they are my favorite movies of all time. I am just not about to defend them over the books, and the things/characters/events wrongly portrayed in the films deserve talking and complaining about. Again, keep your apples and your cinderblocks. You can use me as an example to prove your relentless point if you wish, I care not.

Matthew - you are mistaken that I want you or anyone to defend one over the other. I am not picking the books over the films or the films over the books and I want nobody else to do that either. All I have asked for is one thing and only one thing: you employ your willing suspension of disbelief to aid in your appreciation and love of the book version of LOTR. That is great. Please also employ it when viewing the film version of LOTR. That is all I am asking.

[Quempel]

Dwarfs apparently, according to Aragorns qoute, also have high endurance. Is that not the main quality a long distance runner needs?

And you ask us to suspend our disbelief about the movies, yet are unwilling to suspend your own disbelief about Gimli.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Please also employ it when viewing the film version of LOTR. That is all I am asking.

No.