Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sir Kohran]

I had a big post that covered all of davem's points but the bloody internet came up with a 'cannot display' page so I'll have to be short:

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish.

Not really. Tolkien was gory:

Then Pippin stabbed upwards, and the written blade of Westernesse pierced through the hide and went deep into the vitals of the troll, and his black blood came gushing out.

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

The movie violence is extreme & often gross

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

And anyway, it's realistic - a bunch of fighters with swords and axes hacking into flesh is going to be brutal. What are you suggesting, that the camera cuts away every time we see Aragorn or Gimli swinging at an enemy?

its often presented in a humourous way

I don't agree. Was Boromir's death, grunting as the arrows slammed into him, depicted humorously? Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.

What's more powerful and moving - seeing a man sitting next to a tree with some arrows in him, or seeing him fighting an overwhelming enemy desperately and slowly being shot? Also, Boromir's death is only surprising ad shocking on the first read - after that you epxect it. However the movie's death scene remains powerful every time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I actually have little problem at all with Boromir being shot onscreen. I think it's powerful and moving, and follows a very real dictate of cinema: "show, don't tell." What I do have a problem with is what follows immediately, Aragorn's o-so-Hollywood duel with an invented superorc character. Yest even that didn't bug me as much as, not the *acting* or *emotion* of Boromir's death-scene, which were palpable; but the *dialogue*, which was stupid, and reflects the supercession of Tolkien's powerful laconicism for more Aragorn-the-reluctant crap.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

So what does this mean? It's okay for Tolkien to do something but not for Jackson to do the same?

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I think you're exagerrating here...they are violent, but compared to films like Gladiator or Braveheart they aren't very gory.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

Did anyone laugh when Haldir was cut down by the Uruks?

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Occasionally he did:

Merry had cut off several of their arms and hands. Good old Merry!

I don't interpret that as humourous.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings. My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

Yes, but Jackson was told to aim for a wider audience in order to make as much profit as possible. In the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over). Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

I can't answer this.

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

Why do you have this strange ability, davem? Can't you think something good about something in the movies for a change? But of course not. [sarcasm]You worship at the altar of Tolkien. You probably consider him a saint.[/sarcasm] Jackson is a heretic, a blasphemer who dares change what doesn't work. You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

It is, even if the humor is unintentional, which is unlikely.

[Folwren]

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have.

[Sir Kohran]

Images are still more powerful than words, & thus require more control in their depiction. My memories of the movies are overwhelmingly of violence, bloodshed & beheadings.

This sounds overly-sensitive. In movies with multiple battle scenes, how could there not be violence? There was little real bloodshed in the movies at all, and the beheadings are accurate for what would be very brutal battles.

And anyway, it's accurate to what Tolkien wrote - the books have many beheadings too. Aragorn 'cleaves' the head of the Orc-chieftain in Moria, Ugluk beheads two Orcs in Rohan, Gimli beheads two Orcs at Helm's Deep, and the Mordor Orcs behead fallen Gondorian soldiers to launch their heads into Minas Tirith.

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

My memories of the book are overwhelmingly of beauty, sadness, loss, vast landscapes & the like.

I get the same memories from both the books and the movies.

the UK FotR got a PG certificate (for a general audience) & TT & RotK got 12 certificates (for 12 & over).

So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

Gladiator was given an 18 certificate.

No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15.

I did. By that point the whole thing had descended into farce for me. Actually I cheered when the ugly fat Elf bought it.

No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

I don't interpret that as humourous.

So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

[Sauron the White]

Folwren asks an interesting question

I wonder if Tolkien would have liked the movies?

I personally don't believe that he would have

Based on several of his LETTERS, I think it would be safe to say that there is one very definite aspect of the Jackson films that he would have absolutely loved and would have put a big smile upon his face for some time.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Based on several of his LETTERS, I think it would be safe to say that there is one very definite aspect of the Jackson films that he would have absolutely loved and would have put a big smile upon his face for some time.

What, the music?

In all seriousness, I think the music would have been his favorite aspect about the entire thing. Howard Shore's music (and P.J's choice of hiring Shore) was fantastic.

Tolkien would also probably like the scenery of everything. That was another great thing about the films. I think Jackson did a good job of taking Tolkien's landscapes and putting them on screen.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

Folwren... yes you are right. The music was great as was the visual scenery, sets and design. That probably would have appealed to JRRT.

The obvious area I was referencing was the money it made for the Tolkien Estate. If you look at the sales of Tolkien books for the six months before the movies came out and take it five years down the road and compare it to the previous five years, they sold a ton of books. While the Estate did not share in the film receipts, they certainly did cash a whole lot of greatly increased book royalty checks during those five years. And who gets the thanks for that? Peter Jacksons films spurred that increased sales flood.

Given the written comments of JRRT and his want of money in his waning years, I am sure (had he lived) that he would have loved the increased royalties and it would have been hard to hate Jackson and his films the way some do today.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find it frankly astonishing that you criticise Jackson so often for changing things, and then criticise him when he depicts what Tolkien wrote.

Yes, he depicted in graphic detail the violence. Shame the moral vision, the philosophy, & the beauty of the books went by the wayside.

I get the same memories from both the books and the movies.

Well, its also possible to read the books as action adventure novels.

So? TTT and ROTK are darker movies with a lot more fighting and death, as are their book counterparts.

The point I was making was that the LotR movies were aimed at a younger audience & so the violence had to be toned down.

No it wasn't; look at the IMDb page - it's a 15.

I concede. I didn't check. That clearly means you're right about everything you've said. I feel totally humilated by your devastating point there. I'll just nip off & shoot meself....

No one laughed when I saw it. I also think it's in bad taste to laugh at a soldier's death regardless of whether you agreed with the changes from the books.

That's a silly point. We're talking about the 'death' of an actor in a movie that had become a complete joke by that point.

So what do you interpret that as? The horror of war? No, it's Tolkien using the severing of limbs as some 'light relief' for Pippin, hence the affectionate sounding 'Good old Merry!'

Its an expression of relief, of pride in his friend. Its not reducing death to slapstick in order to get a laugh.

[Essex]

very interesting debate. Just to add a point regarding the title of this thread. The narration on audio tapes of the whole trilogy is 54 hours long I believe.

Therefore to create the "film"version word to word from the book would require a 4 or 5 season mini series - now wouldn't that be great?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Annatar

The books contain violence. They contain gore. Do you not remember this? And the movies are action movies. They need excitement to keep the plot going. This means violence. Would you prefer the camera cut away every time Gimli and Legolas killed an Orc? Would you prefer that the words "death" and "kill" were replaced with euphemisms? Gore in moderation is good. And the movies have gore in moderation.

When I was 17 I would have agreed with you. Thirty years on I find the focus on gore & violence for the sake of it to be juvenile, dull & frankly silly.

You don't care about the quality of the material or the way it appeals to the audience. All that matters is the degree of change from the book. And that is Bad, in your opinion. But it isn't. Some changes are necessary. In fact, a lot are.

I'm sorry if the fact that I find the movies dull, overwrought &, frankly, a wasted opportunity bothers you so much. I just don't think much of them. I wanted to like them. I've watched the theatrical & extended versions but in the end I don't care for them. Its personal taste. What do you want - are only positive comments to be allowed? Is it heretical to express a personal opinion about the movies unless your opinion happens to be that they are the greatest movies ever made? I don't like the movies & I've stated why.

This whole 'worshipping at the alter of Tolkien' accusation is frankly silly (not to mention meaningless if you think about it). Tolkien's story came first & is the standard by which I judge the quality of the movies. It is true that some changes are inevitable when translating a book to another medium, but the fact that changes are necessary does not make every single change good - some changes are made for the wrong reason, are mistaken, & some are frankly silly, or worse, pointless.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The films could not afford to spend $300 million US dollars and attempt to recapture the Victorian Era complete with their stylizings and sensibilities.

Not Victorian; Mediaeval.

Although it is true that even the Victorians and Edwardians still recognized certain ancient virtues as virtues, unlike the ages of Modernism and Postmodernism: in Shippey's eloquent phrasing, "Tolkien was quite clearly... recommending virtues to which most moderns no longer dare aspire: stoicism, nonchalance, piety, fidelity."

PJ caved in to his audience's meaner aspirations and lowered horizons, and his films are the poorer for it.

*****

Incidentally, Peter Weir and his producers didn't shy away from spending millions to recapture the Nelsonian Era complete with its stylings and sensibilities.

[Sauron the White]

PJ caved in to his audience's meaner aspirations and lowered horizons, and his films are the poorer for it.

That is certainly one very uncharitable way of looking at it.

Another way to look at is that Peter Jackson was not insane and decided not to make a $300 million dollar movie for a small group of people who clung to these ancient values and had not yet realized the world had advanced beyond the years of the great plague. In other words, he is a realistic man of his times.

[Sir Kohran]

davem? Are you going to tackle my previous post?