![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
![]() Quote:
But the things you're talking about- no. TTT (the film) especially has some strange storytelling decisions in it which I can't defend artistically and which I think might have more to do with the production history than anything else. I didn't realise this until recently, but it seems originally Jackson & Co. wrote the script for LotR as two films, meaning, presumeably, that everything in TTT (the book) was either cut or moved. And then when they did get the green light for three films, I suppose the middle part had to be sort of Frankensteined out of a.) the other scripts, b.) the Appendices and c.) thin air. I think the result is still a decent film, but arguably the fact they got away with it that time set an unfortunate precedent. As an example of a major change I think was quite justified: giving Glorfindel's role to Arwen. Yes, I know you're all going to scream- but the fact is the "Glorfindel" section occupies such a tiny amount of screentime that there would have been no time to do anything with the character anyway. It would have been quite weird to introduce an apparently significant character only to have him disappear after a minute, never to be seen again. (Tolkien, by contrast, had a lot more time/space to work with). I think much of the hostility to the "different mediums" argument from book fans comes from the way it has often been used as a supposedly irrefutable blanket defence of, well, everything. Also, perhaps, the fact that some of its proponents want to have their cake and eat it- some people who don't think the films should be like the books ("different mediums, guys") will happily bash the books for not being more like the films ("all those boring descriptions"). This was particularly noticeable in "The Hobbit" honeymoon period, when one heard quite a lot about how Jackson had "treated the material with more respect than Tolkien ever did"- because apparently JRRT wrote the book as a children's story by mistake. ![]()
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Blossom of Dwimordene
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The realm of forgotten words
Posts: 10,492
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I have been recently introduced to a Finnish adaptation of LOTR. It was made with little budget, no CGI, no fancy action scenes, but really good acting and many book dialogues. I thought it was brilliant. But the thing is, there's also very little plot. Most of it is described in narration. It's the exact opposite of PJ movies: long slow dialogue scenes are connected by plot summary narration. No proper movie nowadays would make such choice. But what we get is very good acting, nearly pure Tolkien dialogues, theme and character exploration - and I think that's what many of us want to see when we think of a good screen adaptation. So hope is probably better placed in low budget fan films than in large scale productions.
__________________
You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 785
![]() ![]() |
Yes, for me a lot of the "spirit" is found in Professor Tolkien's particular use of language, which for me at least is rather "music to my ears", and the dignity and high seriousness of much of the work. These are elements I don't think the films capture at all well. For instance I find a little lightness of heart from the Hobbits in the book highly preferable to the film's tendency to have Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli crack jokes or for characters like Denethor to be presented as grotesque and vulgar (which makes him annoying rather than tragic).
Ultimately however the adaptation is just an adaptation, and to me the book is the "real" thing, so it almost doesn't matter to me anymore because no adaptation is going to be able to give me what the book gives me - because it's not the book. Over the years this train of thought has led me not towards wanting more faithful adaptations of source materials I already like, but rather towards a view that there is a certain kind of adaptation, typically the 'straightforward page to screen' one, which is quite pointless beyond making me aware of the source material, which I inevitably prefer.
__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir." "On foot?" cried Éomer. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
![]()
I found this interesting article which suggests that JRRT would support Jackson's adaptation had he been alive to see it. At least, he would have been less hostile towards the trilogy than Christopher Tolkien turned out to be.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013...-of-the-rings/ I think we need to remember that JRRT was already a practiced borrower and integrator of different sources - old English myths, Scandinavian myths, stories of civilisational conflict, mixed with his training as a linguist. I wouldn't say he was the Jimmy Page of fantasy, but obviously he drew on many sources and he was open to revisions and re-tellings of his stories to some extent. He revised Gollum's chapter in The Hobbit, for example, as part of his effort to integrate his two main works with each other. And before CT collated the Silmarillion, there was no set backstory to Middle Earth outside of what's written in LOTR. He said he was trying to create a sort of English national myth, a story which was more like history than fiction. Why wouldn't he be in favour of its realisation on the big screen? As a side point, I will never understand why George RR Martin allowed the Game of Thrones show to be made before he finished his novels. Surely he must have known that he wouldn't finish A Time for Wolves by the end of the HBO series. It's a travesty that the ending to our generation's fantasy epic will be spoiled by a couple of hack showrunners who have to invent the characters' dialogue and actions from a list of plot points. I guess that's what the offer of a truckload of money will do to an author. But JRRT's seminal work is forever complete and self-contained - no movie trilogy, however terrible, can undermine it as an experience. Luckily, Jackson's first effort was pretty good. Quote:
Quote:
The same goes for Theoden, unfortunately. Narrative tension must be driven by characters. The book's excitement comes from material constraints - can they muster enough of the Rohirrim and travel to the Pelennor in time? There is less sense of geography in a film, where characters can travel hundreds of kilometres between scenes, without page-turning establishing a feeling of time passing, so we need something else to establish the same narrative roadblocks. That's why we need Denethor refusing aid, Theoden refusing to help, Faramir's rout, and Gondor's military failure all building towards the final triumph. The long list of failures makes final success more vivid - Theoden's initial reluctance ramps up his change of heart and bravery in the battle as well. Think of the movie Ents initially deciding to take no action, for another such example. I do agree that Denethor was a badly-written caricature, though. To me, the most annoying, but not deal-breaking features of the films are a) tonal shifting between gritty realism and video-game action and b) character setbacks which are particularly contrived. For the former, think of Legolas riding an Oliphaunt minutes after we've watched hundreds of skilled riders fail to take it down. We want our characters to do heroic things, but we want their feet on the ground when they do it. We can accept Eomer throwing his spear through the Mumak's handler, as a once-off, because he still seems mortal while doing it, but Legolas's antics were a step too far. If he simply shot it through the eye from a distance, PJ could have still hit the hammy "still only counts as one" dad-joke and our credulity would be intact. Maybe even make it a bit of character development since the fight scene in FOTR, where Legolas has to try three times to hit that cave troll in the neck (that would actually be a cool idea ... I wish I was on set for these movies). Another example was the Bridge of Khazad-dum bit, with the pillars conveniently swinging like a pendulum for our heroes to leap. What was so likeable about LOTR was how we could see the rain on the Uruks' helmets and the rust on their blades, how we felt the pain of Boromir being pin-cushioned and Frodo losing his fingers. We were viscerally engaged, on the ground, in the action scenes, despite their heroic elements. It goes without saying that Hobbit CGI trilogy was all video-game, and no grit. For the latter, I think of Frodo deciding to tell Sam to "go home" as a plot contrivance in ROTK, and Aragorn falling off a cliff, Skyfall-style in TTT. I get that these movies needed something interesting to happen in the middle of their three-hour runtime, but those two examples stood out for me most as cliched or out-of-character. I was also a bit annoyed that Pippin and Gimli were painted as quite so stupid and comical, respectively. Then again, the uniform, demonstrative heroism of every Walker in the novel is a bit boring too (don't shoot me for that one). I would cut a few scenes and lines as egregious in all three films, like Pippin dropping the suit of armour in FOTR to set off the goblins. Again, these aren't massive quibbles, because they don't really affect the core elements of the story. They don't affect the communication of the themes of the work, unlike in The Hobbit, where Bilbo is nonsensically sidelined for large parts of a story supposedly about his courage and self-development. I think we can definitely tell when dialogue has been written by an author rather than a screenwriter, and the more authorial source material, the better (assuming they're a decent author and not Suzanne Collins). You can just imagine how certain lines would have been written had there not been written dialogue to parse from the novel in LOTR. "I would cut off your head, dwarf, if it stood but a little higher from the ground" would become something like "don't make me behead you, dwarf". Gandalf's fantastic dialogue would be eviscerated. This is what makes me fear most for A Song of Ice and Fire, actually, as the showrunners have finally expended the last dregs of source dialogue now, and I think the difference will be (ahem) stark next season. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,448
![]() ![]() |
I'll defend the Pippin Armor Well scene.
The book has Pippin deliberately drop a stone in the well. It never sat well with me that that somehow alerted the goblins and orcs. The armor on the other hand a loud banging clanging ruckus makes much more sense to me.
__________________
Morsul the Resurrected |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Also one can never go to the goblin versus orc argument (orc/goblin same exact thing) too often! Beware of thread hijack. It can happen. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
![]() Quote:
In the book, Pippin idly drops a stone down the well in the guard-room; they hear the ominous "tom-tap-tom" hammer, and hope nothing will come of it. This seems to be correct, they go on their way, and only later when they get ambushed in the Chamber of Mazarbul does it become clear that the goblins- or as it may be orcs- which are of course the same thing- or are they? ![]() In the film, the well is in the Chamber and the stone is replaced by an armoured skeleton which makes an awful clatter and causes an immediate response from the denizens of Moria. Both of these are fine with respect to their different formats- a novel can afford to move slower and spend more time building up atmosphere; a film has to be quicker and (often) more spectacular.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
I didn't mind the armor in the well bit... Rhys-Davies sounding like Bert Lahr's sobbing lion was a far more horrific sound to my ear.
And yes, I can bloat any thread with pages and pages of goblin versus orc blather. I've done it before. We all have our hobbies ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Laconic Loreman
|
The Appendices to the Extended Editions of the LOTR trilogy are well worth viewing (at least for myself, I don't think they would be for Inzil
![]() I don't agree with Faramir's alteration, Théoden's, Frodo's and some others. But I do understand the reasons for Denethor's (I don't see the need to have a scene with him being a slob). There was going to be an EE scene revealing Denethor also having a palantir, but ultimately it was removed even from the Extended because there just wasn't sufficient time to establish why Denethor has a palantir as well. Jackson didn't want to give the impression he was in league with Saruman and Sauron, but that he was a noble man that has been beaten down with grief by the death of his son (sons) and hopeless situation. In the end, it's got to be about Aragorn's arc becoming the King and saving his people. So an over-the-top portrayal of Denethor makes sense given the limited screen time and where Aragorn's arc has to end. He's clearly caricatured as a mad man, but the reasons for his madness are the same as Denethor's decline in the books...grief, despair and hopelessness. Boromir's scene with Aragorn in Lothlorien is one of my favorites..."My father is a noble man, but his rule is failing. He looks to me to make things right." (Then Boromir describes the White Tower of Ecthelion, which is a description lifted right from the books..."Glimmering like a spike of pearl and silver...etc). But it establishes Gondor's desperation and need for the King's return. In the movies, Denethor's motivations for not lighting the beacons is stated as "Do you think the eyes of the White Tower are blind?" He knows Aragorn is with Théoden and he "will not bow to this ranger from the North; last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship." Denethor sending Faramir off on a death mission to retake Osgiliath. Gandalf's call out "Your father loves you Faramir. He will remember it before the end." And in the Pyre scene, Denethor shouting "You will not take my son from me." So, overall, Denethor's decline into madness, while being over-the-top is caused by the same reasons as the books. He becomes tainted by politics, grief and despair. I think the one mistake they made with him (besides his eating habits), is I sorely miss the exchange between Faramir and Denethor (in the books)...when Faramir reminds his father that it was he who gave Boromir leave to Rivendell, and Denethor's reply "stir not the bitterness in the cup that I mixed for myself." (The Siege of Gondor). Such a wonderful line from the books, that I think John Noble could have pulled off masterfully. I've said enough about The Hobbit trilogy being bloated, rushed, slapped together with CGI, it doesn't come close to the time and care that was put into the LOTR films and it really shows.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
![]()
Boro, my problem with the film version of Denethor is that he comes across throughout as feeble and self-indulgent, such that it has no real impact when he finally cracks completely- whereas in the book it's really horrifying. A missed opportunity, I think- and I'd say he's given enough scenes to have been done "properly".
Quote:
BOROMIR (grimly) This is no mine ... It's a tomb! GIMLI (in horror) Oh ... no ... no ... no...! LEGOLAS pulls a crude arrow out of a SKELETON. LEGOLAS Goblins. Technically speaking, most authorities regard Goblins and Orcs as being effectively the same kind of creature, but in practice we tend to use the term "Goblin" to refer to the smaller breeds only, whereas... The FELLOWSHIP draws swords and backs away, towards the ENTRANCE, while LEGOLAS continues to BABBLE like an IDIOT. BOROMIR We make for the Gap of Rohan. We should never have brought Legolas.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. Last edited by Nerwen; 06-15-2017 at 12:33 PM. Reason: Grammar. Not mine, the original script's! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I believe Tolkien was open to the idea at one point, until he saw a film treatment filled with (in his opinion) unnecessary alterations and large scale point-missings, illustrated by his comments in the "Zimmerman letter". After that, I think he closed the door, and only later gave way due to cash fears, plus feeling that he had "once" made a sorta-agreement with his publisher (cash or kudos), concerning which he was later reminded of more than once, by his publisher. Quote:
Quote:
In any case, Jackson's stated reason here was basically that there were too many introductions at this point, including a character that would drop out of the story. An arguable film concern, which again, does not lead only to his specific choice of how to address that concern. And so on and so forth, mediums are different. Lather, rinse, repeat ![]() Last edited by Galin; 06-15-2017 at 06:45 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quote:
![]() Is that a threat?
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | ||||||
Wisest of the Noldor
|
![]() Quote:
My point really is that though that particular change is often assumed to be all about gender politics, it really has just as much to do with narrative economy. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Agreed on Gimli. My least favourite aspect of the entire trilogy. Maybe if John Rhys-Davies was actually, you know, funny... ![]() Quote:
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |