|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 25, 2011 16:46:24 GMT -5
And Jackson made some deliberate changes that completely altered, destroyed or turned over key elements of Tolkien's work. ...Like? I mean, granted there are a few, but not as many as you're claiming.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 17:02:35 GMT -5
-He created an entire sub-plot in the Aragorn/Arwen romance, despite the fact that in the novel Arwen only shows minimally has few meaningful appearances. This meaning that he changed who showed up to save Frodo when they are chased by the ringwraiths (A character much more relevant and important to the themes of the book, whom because of this never actually appeared in the movie). Just to give the audiences a love story. -Had elves show up to help the men at Helm's deep, which not only never happened but set a tone and precedence that is not what Tolkien intended. -Elrond showing up to give Narsil to Aragorn. Something that never happened as shown and in fact in the book, by that point Aragorn had already fully accepted his role as king. -And in fact Narsil was already reforged and his personal weapon since the departure of the company from Rivendell in the first book and it had been renamed Anduril as an important point that Aragorn would redeem the legacy of Isildur. -The whole progression of events from the departure of the Shire to Rivendell. -Bilbo's encounter of Faramir and how they met and parted. Which incidentally eliminated or obscured a big portion of the narrative of why Faramir is different from Boromir. -The ending and how the group parted. -A lot of elements in return of the King. What's worse is just by the case. It's quite clear there will be even more significant changes to the story in the upcoming hobbit. He added at least 5 characters that never appear in the hobbit.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 25, 2011 17:24:48 GMT -5
-He created an entire sub-plot in the Aragorn/Arwen romance, despite the fact that in the novel Arwen only shows minimally has few meaningful appearances. This meaning that he changed who showed up to save Frodo when they are chased by the ringwraiths (A character much more relevant and important to the themes of the book, whom because of this never actually appeared in the movie). Just to give the audiences a love story. Granted. And arguably justified, no? Given that Arwen is barely a character in the books. But how does that change the tone Tolkien intended in the least? Granted, they changed that part of Aragorn's character and added some struggle to him. This doesn't really change the tone of the work in really meaningful way. Cut due to time constraints and little relevance to the story. Hardly damning now, is it? Yes, and this is entirely justified given that Faramir is, by Tolkien's own admission, a Mary Sue. Jackson altered it because he felt it would cheapen Frodo's own struggle with the ring, and frankly, that's one of the few parts he changed in which I completely agree with him. Cut due to time constraints, but agreed. Like? Return of the King was more or less the most faithful one IMO. In total Crom, you're listing changes done to the story. That's fine, they exist for one reason or another, but they don't destroy Tolkien's tone or vision of the story. And, also important, it doesn't lessen the movies in any way. The movies did accomplished as much as they did being what they are. Could they have been better? Maybe. Were they bad? FUCK no.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 17:48:16 GMT -5
Granted. And arguably justified, no? Absolutely not! Arwen's appearance had absolutely no purpose other then to give a greater female presence and a love story to sup up on. And by doing this massive change, they cut out Glorfindel (who is the one actually showing it up to save Frodo's dying ass) which is altogether A LOT more meaningful for many reasons (I'll elaborate later on this greater) First because he's an ancient elven prince in all his majesty. He actually scares and gives pause to the Nazgul just by showing off pissed off. Glorfindel is the descendant of the first Glorfindel, one of the captains of Turgon who made war against Morgoth (Sauron's godly master) and a veteran from thousands of against the dark having actually saved Rivendell on many occasions. His purpose amongst other in the story is to showcase the might of the ancient times, which is nearly gone from Middle-Earth. This doesn't happen at all with the change and role given to Arwen in the movie. All for a love story... But how does that change the tone Tolkien intended in the least? Because a big portion of the theme of Tolkien's work is sad, not positive and one thing that is important is the elves simply don't have it in them as an entire people to go to war on such a massive scale anymore. They are departing from Middle-Earth. Their might is not like the old days. And such that is why it's up to humans, dwarves and hobbits. The elves simply can't go to war like they did in the old days. It makes no sense for them to show up and Helm;s deep in that context and it changes the tone by changing how the elves are in the world. By opening that Arwen plot, they set up a big change with a glorious happy ending where everthing is beautiful rather then the really bittersweet ending the book gives some much effort in highlighting. Granted, they changed that part of Aragorn's character and added some struggle to him. This doesn't really change the tone of the work in really meaningful way. Yes it does, the point of Aragorn is that he's the herald of a new Age. He's already got all the majesty of the Dunadan in him, that's why the 4th age is beautiful in it's own way. Because Aragorn is the strength of men reborn. It's important that he's already determined because his strength is what gives vigor to those he encounters to fight. Like? Return of the King was more or less the most faithful one IMO. The ending, the final farewell etc. Too happy and hopeful loosing much of the point Tolkien was driving home most prominently. But there are issues throughout, like how certain events, battles and characters act. Cut due to time constraints and little relevance to the story. Hardly damning now, is it? Yes it is, by cutting out the dark forest in the end and Tom Bombadil they basically cut out a length of explanation of how Middle-Earth, it's powers and it's history happened and why. By having Aragorn just give the hobbits swords instead of them finding them in the Barrow-Wight hoard and explaining they are magical blades of numenor it completely removes why the Hobbits were able to do what they did in some places and instead replaces it with "well they were brave and good they won". That's fine, they exist for one reason or another, but they don't destroy Tolkien's tone or vision of the story. They do make significant changes, from a bittersweet one to a heroic optimistic one. They shit key elements of theme, and remove a lot of points about why certain things happened like they did. Tolkien's work and Jackson's movie leave completely different precedents and moods. And, also important, it doesn't lessen the movies in any way. Yes it does, they are much less subtle and dramatic in key portions along with removing some key elements of the structure of middle-earth. It could have been so much better. Reread my previous posts I clearly wrote and expressed that I found them good not great. I never said they were bad, they were good. Just not anything close to the quality of the Novels.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jun 25, 2011 17:58:43 GMT -5
It does not matter what changes were made from the book to the movie. The movies are adaptations, not translations from one medium to another.
|
|
Silver
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
The Fourth Precept
Posts: 4,654
|
Post by Silver on Jun 25, 2011 18:00:05 GMT -5
Reread my previous posts I clearly wrote and expressed that I found them good not great. I never said they were bad, they were good. Just not anything close to the quality of the Novels. Not that I completely disagree with the points you maintained here, Crom, but in fairness, no movie is as rewarding as the book it was based on. The Chronicles of Narnia movies are shadows compared to the books. Star Wars is not as good as its novelizations. Really, the only movie I can think of that was better than its preceding book, in my opinion, was I Am Legend, and that was because I personally liked some of the changes made in the movie as opposed to the novel. The novel was very intriguing in its own right, and for people who preferred the novel's tone and mood, which were considerably more melancholy than the movie, the movie would never stand. I just enjoyed both adaptions of the story. In that sense, the Lord of the Rings is similar. The ending was different, details were removed because there simply is not enough time for all of it, and some changes were made to tell the story in a somewhat different light. So, while I agree that changing portions for less epic expriences can be annoying, they were good on their own. I am not implying you said anything different; I just mean that they could never compare to the books even if every detail was perfectly accurate. And therein lies a common foundation among books told in a different medium.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 18:04:04 GMT -5
It does not matter what changes were made from the book to the movie. The movies are adaptations, not translations from one medium to another. It matters when such changes alter the tone, mood and meaning it of the story. The point of adapting a novel is to render to the screen what the author created in his book. If you change too many points, then you completely loose the author's point, style, mood and aesthetic. Thankfully what changes there were in the movies were done well enough that the movies were good. But they are a downgrade compared to the novels and certainly don't leave the viewer with the same impression.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jun 25, 2011 18:19:06 GMT -5
It does not matter what changes were made from the book to the movie. The movies are adaptations, not translations from one medium to another. It matters when such changes alter the tone, mood and meaning it of the story. The point of adapting a novel is to render to the screen what the author created in his book. If you change too many points, then you completely loose the author's point, style, mood and aesthetic. Thankfully what changes there were in the movies were done well enough that the movies were good. But they are a downgrade compared to the novels and certainly don't leave the viewer with the same impression. That happens with every movie because all movies have editors. It is their job to trim the fat and arrange the movie in a way that makes sense and is enjoyable to the viewer. Then there is the fact that not many movies have narration that comes anywhere near the levels of a normal book, let alone J.R.R.-fucking-Tolken's level of attention to detail. It is just not possible when movies are governed by budgets.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 18:24:10 GMT -5
That happens with every movie because all movies have editors. indeed, but there is a right way and a wrong way to edit things. And some of the editing in the LOTR movie was wrong in my opinion. It is their job to trim the fat and arrange the movie in a way that makes sense and is enjoyable to the viewer. There is a difference in my opinion between trimming the fat and changing the story so that it's dumbed down or changed in a way just so you can use cheaper plot devices to fill seats. Then there is the fact that not many movies have narration that comes anywhere near the levels of a normal book, let alone J.R.R.-fucking-Tolken's level of attention to detail. It is just not possible when movies are governed by budgets. True dat, and like I said I found the movies good (barely that level) but still good. I do very much feel that they could have been much better had they'd not changed some key elements and what trimming they'd done had not been made in the manner where it changed tone and scope.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 25, 2011 18:25:13 GMT -5
Granted. And arguably justified, no? Absolutely not! Arwen's appearance had absolutely no purpose other then to give a greater female presence and a love story to sup up on. And by doing this massive change, they cut out Glorfindel (who is the one actually showing it up to save Frodo's dying ass) which is altogether A LOT more meaningful for many reasons (I'll elaborate later on this greater) First because he's an ancient elven prince in all his majesty. He actually scares and gives pause to the Nazgul just by showing off pissed off. Glorfindel is the descendant of the first Glorfindel, one of the captains of Turgon who made war against Morgoth (Sauron's godly master) and a veteran from thousands of against the dark having actually saved Rivendell on many occasions. His purpose amongst other in the story is to showcase the might of the ancient times, which is nearly gone from Middle-Earth. This doesn't happen at all with the change and role given to Arwen in the movie. All for a love story... Arwen's purpose was to give substance to that significant part Aragorn's character which is only off hand mentioned in the books (AND to give a greater female presence, but that's not all it is) The point that the might of the elder days is gone is hammered in quite effectively through dialogue all throughout the movies. Removing Glorfindel is not a huge loss to the story (and, btw, that WAS the Glorfindel who served Turgon. He was brought back to life). What bloody scale? They send one squad to Helm's deep, a few weeks before they canonically beat off and tear down motherfucking Dol Guldur. The book never makes a point how the elves are completely spent. They have plenty of strength left, and are quite willing to get down and dirty with Sauron if need be. In the books, Elves still remain in Middle Earth far into and after Aragorn's reign as king. Did the elves go to war? No. They sent a party to help their ancient allies, and that's after a 10 minute dialogue discussing just how weak they are and how they shouldn't afford to help the men in any way. Granted enough. Again, the blades of Numenor make a minor alteration to the story, not to the vision or atmosphere. So Mery hurt the Witch King through not being a man instead of having an enchanted blade. Okay. Tom Bombadil and the explanations he brings are are of little importance to the story. They are of great importance to the setting. The setting and mythopeia of Middle Earth is undoubtedly one of Tolkien's strong points, but for a movie already three hours long, it is a luxury they could not afford. Oh bullcrap. Tolkien is the one who coined the phrase "Eucatastrophe" as a sudden turn of events that will allow the protagonist to triumph against all odds at the end. Calling his work anything but optimistic is just insincere. Is it bittersweet? Yes. So is the bloody last half an hour of the movie. The ravaging of the Shire, which you are alluding to, does not matter, because like the whole Middle Earth, Shire is rebuilt, better than before. With that in mind, Tolkien's and Jackson's LOTR end on exactly the same note: A tearful goodbye and Sam's melancholic last words of "Well, here I am." And again, it three and a half bloody hours long. Unlike a book which you can put down continue reading tomorrow, a movie has a limit on how long it is. And they still set the standard for movies of the genre since, my point being. I know well enough what you said. You said they're barely good. They're not. Deviating from the book and being lesser than it (which, objectively they are), doesn't mean they aren't awesome in their own right.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 18:48:22 GMT -5
Arwen's purpose was to give substance to that significant part Aragorn's character which is only off hand mentioned in the books (AND to give a greater female presence, but that's not all it is) The point that the might of the elder days is gone is hammered in quite effectively through dialogue all throughout the movies. It certainly doesn't give that impression when an elven squad in ancient battle armor shows up miles upon miles from their homes through enemy lines to help the Rohirim in their last stand at Helm's deep... In my opinion. Not to mention additions of romance sub-plots in adaptations just to have them and appeal to audiences are poor storytelling nearly always to me. (and, btw, that WAS the Glorfindel who served Turgon. He was brought back to life). huh, I'll have to reread the Silmarilion then. My memory failed me there. But if that's the case, then it makes the change all the more bad and a loss. Instead of having one of the most badass and significant elves of middle-earth show up. We have Arwen show up, poor storytelling again in my opinion. What bloody scale? They send one squad to Helm's deep, a few weeks before they canonically beat off and tear down motherfucking Dol Guldur. The book never makes a point how the elves are completely spent. They have plenty of strength left, and are quite willing to get down and dirty with Sauron if need be. In the books, Elves still remain in Middle Earth far into and after Aragorn's reign as king. See above first why it changes the scale. I never said it was gone, I said it was a shadow of the past. Where pissed of elves dueled Balrogs and even more epic feats. And as for the elves remaining strong after Aragorn's reign, it's still developed in the novels at lenght that what remains is nothing like the past. What elves that remain are mostly wood elves. Nothing like the Sindar or the even more badass Noldor, whom all depart for the havens. It is hammered that the elves aren't like they used to especially against an enemy as powerful as Sauron. Again, the blades of Numenor make a minor alteration to the story, not to the vision or atmosphere. So Mery hurt the Witch King through not being a man instead of having an enchanted blade. Okay. It's a lot more significant then this. The reason why the difference is important is to show that in ancient times, there were wonders against darkness (like the swords), now they are either lost or not as numerous. In either case Merry is a hobbit man, he shouldn't have been able to hurt the witchking without magical help. Tom Bombadil and the explanations he brings are are of little importance to the story. I disagree, his interactions with the ring. How he is brought up and talked about at the council all drive very important points to the story in my opinion. Tolkien's and Jackson's LOTR end on exactly the same note: A tearful goodbye and Sam's melancholic last words of "Well, here I am." I disagree completely to me, the glorious crowning. The marriage of Sam, the departure etc in the movie left me feeling completely different. The tone is not the same at all in my opinion. And again, it three and a half bloody hours long. Unlike a book which you can put down continue reading tomorrow, a movie has a limit on how long it is. Which is really irrelevant to my opinion since you can trim down a story without changing characters and events completely or especially tone and mood. Which in my opinion is what happened. In my opinion they weren't "awesome" just good. And they did leave me with the impression that they could have done better especially with the budget they had.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 25, 2011 19:20:48 GMT -5
It certainly doesn't give that impression when an elven squad in ancient battle armor shows up miles upon miles from their homes through enemy lines to help the Rohirim in their last stand at Helm's deep... It's just a squad, there to honor an ancient alliance. You're overblowing this. ...Yeah, that was meh. But to be fair, there was only one romance subplot in the whole movie, and it wasn't that bad. It IS a shadow of the past, or did I miss the part where Saruman had Balrogs assaulting Helm's Deep and Elves slaying them in a fiery battle? The movie makes it painfully clear that the host of elves from the beginning of the film will never be seen again. The movie makes it painfully clear that the elves can't help the fellowship beyond some supplies and words of advice. The fact that they sent a few dozen men to aid the humans speaks nothing of their strength. The fact that they sent only a few dozen speaks much of their weakness. Only Elrond and Galadriel are actually noted to leave Middle Earth at the end. Both of Elrond's sons, as well as Celeborn stay behind, ruling Rivendell, and Cirdan himself stays with his elves in the gray havens indefinitely. None of them are noted in the appendices to actually leave Middle Earth at any point in Aragorn's reign (Though, granted, it can be assumed they did). Yes, granted, but again, it isn't that important to the tone of the work, and the decay of world going on is noted on plenty of other places, both in the book and movies. Those do happen in the book, you know? I suppose it's a matter of personal opinion, but the movie's ending is hardly overwhelmingly triumphant. I personally think you're wrong on both accounts. I suppose this is the crucible we can't debate. But tell me, had you never read the books, what do you think your opinion of the movies would be then?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 19:32:41 GMT -5
I suppose this is the crucible we can't debate. But tell me, had you never read the books, what do you think your opinion of the movies would be then? Not that it really matters. But my opinion would likely have been the same. Changes aside, I have issues with some plotholes, like the eagles. And not all performances were equal, some portions were a little rushed while others too long etc. Really, they are good movies. But they don't rate higher. They're missing on elements to make them great.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 25, 2011 19:37:08 GMT -5
You know, I never got the argument about Eagles. They're so easily explainable away and yet people keep harping on how Tolkien dropped the ball with them...
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 19:39:37 GMT -5
You know, I never got the argument about Eagles. They're so easily explainable away and yet people keep harping on how Tolkien dropped the ball with them... Actually, it's not Tolkien who dropped the ball but Jackson which is 1 of the reasons why I don't rate the movie as anything better then good. In the books, we don't even see the eagles really, they only act like 1 or twice. But in the movie they save Gandalf and he seems to be able to call them with magic, which is not the case in the books. Which raised the question as why they weren't used more. Which is a plot hole. At least Tolkien has a good explanation for their absence, Jackson didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 25, 2011 19:44:01 GMT -5
....Que?
The eagles appear exactly as many times in the movies as they do in the books (Less, in fact, but that's not important). The only difference is the addition of the little hummingbird that goes in front of them and warns Gandalf of their arrival. What are you on about?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 20:50:31 GMT -5
The eagles only appear twice in the books, less then in the movie and none of the times is shown with anything other passing mention how they came to come to the rescue. Whereas in the movie, Gandalf when trapped in the tower by Saruman uses a butterfly to get the eagle over to fly him out which implies that he can summon them with magic.
Which means Jackson dropped the ball because in the book it is explained why Gandalf or anyone really can't call them up as they please.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jun 25, 2011 21:06:35 GMT -5
I never read the books and I thought the movies were great. Would I think the books are better? Maybe, even most likely but that is almost always the case.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 26, 2011 2:48:01 GMT -5
The eagles only appear twice in the books, less then in the movie and none of the times is shown with anything other passing mention how they came to come to the rescue. Whereas in the movie, Gandalf when trapped in the tower by Saruman uses a butterfly to get the eagle over to fly him out which implies that he can summon them with magic. Which means Jackson dropped the ball because in the book it is explained why Gandalf or anyone really can't call them up as they please. ... And exactly how many times do they appear in the movies? Three? Eight? Sixteen? They appear only at those two bloody times, and even then, their roles are considerably shortened. Furthermore, there is much you're overlooking. In the book, after Gwaihir rescues Gandalf, we get a complete discussion on why he rescued him (He came to bring news on Gollum's escape, but found Gandalf trapped instead). He also states that he would carry Gandalf as long as he could, but he's not an effing horse and has limits. The second time he rescues Gandalf from the peak of the mountain and Gandalf later talks about how he had him scouting around, looking for the fellowship for him. That was completely cut from the movies. The third time they appear at Morannon, and while three eagles are busy saving Frodo and Sam, a fourth eagle travels to Minas Tirith ahead of the returning army to bring news of Sauron's defeat. This was also cut from the movies. ... So yeah, they do appear less in the movies, and unlike in the books, we get none of the exposition showing just how much they're willing to help and how much they're at Gandalf's call. Claiming the movies added plot holes to them as opposed to Tolkien himself is quite silly. (mind you, again, I don't think Tolkien himself added any plot holes to it, but that's a different matter)
|
|
Painkiller
Team Buster Ledger
?I?m sorry, did I ruin your concentration??
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by Painkiller on Jul 13, 2011 6:05:46 GMT -5
I had to read the book for school...I didn't like it much at all.
|
|