Inviting you to share my LOTR wrath

[Scottomir]

Now that I have had the opportunity to view The Two Towers Extended DVD a few times, I have finally gotten around to updating my LOTR Movie Webpage. This is my running catalog of the changes that the filmmakers have made to the story (what Jackson and his co-writers have humorously called "Sins against the Book"). If you would like to share in my wrath, I invite you to take a look at all the changes I've been able to take notice of:

http://www.geocities.com/scott_metz/lotrmain.html

Just follow "The Two Towers" link. Enjoy!

[Phantom]

Uhm, tried three times and got "Page cannot be displayed" each time.

[REG]

SIGHS.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let you ruin my enjoyment of the adaptation films. If you don't want them, don't watch them and wait for someone else to want to do an exact "translation" of the book.

If you're doing this to side with Christopher Tolkien, then you side with him. But if he has his way, the film right would not exist for anyone to purchase. And if he can purchase the right back, he'll just squat on it.

P.S. here's the proper link: http://www.geocities.com/scott_metz/lotrmain.html

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by REG
Sorry, but I'm not going to let you ruin my enjoyment of the adaptation films.

You're certainly entitled to your perspective, as I am entitled to mine. This is why I entitled my post "inviting" and not "commanding/ordering".

By the by, I don't think I am quite as extreme as Christopher Tolkien. I greatly enjoy and admire the films. However, I do think the filmmakers betray a bit of hubris when they muse on how they may have "improved" on Tolkien's stories.

P.S. Thank you for fixing the link, I don't know how I screwed it up the first time.

[Ineti]

Ehh, the books are the books and the movies are the movies. I enjoy both.

There are aspects of the books I like better, and there are aspects of the movies I like better. Since this is a perfect world, I can have both!

[Ramage]

I, also, am in the "Books and Movies are Different" category -- if I wasn't there was no way I could have liked Master & Commander, given how little it was like any of the books

My feeling about the movies, in both cases, is this -- both movies have encouraged more people to read the books.

If that is not a good thing, what is?

[Dan Stack]

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a perfect example of a film made to religiously follow the book it was based upon. I didn't particularly enjoy the film though I loved the book. It captured the "text" while, in my opinion, losing much of the feel.

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy is, in my opinion (at least so far, having not seen RotK), a perfect example of making reasonable compromises for the sake of the film medium. The only change that I actually disagreed with was that of the character of Faramir in Two Towers. Aside from that, I agree with or at least understand the reasons for the changes.

[prophetsteve]

I agree with the "Books are the books and the movies are the movies" sentiment.

While I enjoyed the first 2 books (still trying to find the time to get through the third) its clear that any movie based on Tolkien would have to have major retooling.

I am not saying that the trilogy is necessarily a good adaption of Tolkien's work. Jackson sure took a lot of liberties here and there. Some of it works, some of it doesn't sit right. That is, if I compare it to the books.

But I don't. I look at Jackson's LotR on its own merits. Its the fantasy movie that I have always wanted to see. A mature hollywood production that didn't fall into the traps other movies of its type have fallen into.

They are great movies in their own right; who cares if they are not 100% faithful to Tokiens original works.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
The only change that I actually disagreed with was that of the character of Faramir in Two Towers. Aside from that, I agree with or at least understand the reasons for the changes.

Ok, I just have to ask this first. What was so wrong with the way Faramir was portrayed in TTT? I like both ideas of the character, in the novel Faramir is an incorruptable and noble man. In the movie he is portrayed as a man who has lived under the harshness of an unloving despot of a father who refuses to see any good or use for him in life. Of course Faramir is going to be hard and ruthless, and want to finally prove himself in the old buzzards eyes just to spite him. Psychologically the movie version is the more realistic of the two.

As to my feelings about the faithfulness of the films to the book, I have to say that the Jackson movies are the best book-to-film rendition I have ever seen. Of course somethings would have to be sacrificed here and added there. If he followed the book religiously there would have been snoring as soon as Tom Bombadil hit the screen. I know alot fans of the books wanted to see this scene, sorry it was BORING!!! Except for the Helm's Deep part I found the TTT rather dry and hard to get thru. If things in the movie had been exactly like the book I would not have enjoyed it as much as I did.

Don't get me wrong I do also think he did take too many liberties in places, notably the "Scouring of the Shire" which was a scene I was looking forward to, but won't be in the movie. When a book is made into a movie you can't have your cake and eat it to, you have to let go of something.

[Scottomir]

I think this is a really profitable discussion, I'm glad I was able to spark it with my humble thread.

I agree with the "movie is movie, book is book" position in principle, though I think it depends on both the merit of the book as well as the marketing of the movie. First, the merit: the stronger a book is, the more that it means to people...and anything that has come to mean so much to so many people is worthy of careful respect. (Fortunately, it is my feeling that Jackson's crew have by-and-large shown *great* respect for almost all of the source material.) Second, the marketing: if a book strays too far from the source material, it is disingenous to market it as "the author's title" (e.g., Bram Stoker's Dracula)...the only reason to do this would be to persuade people to see the movie, which can prove to be false advertising if your marketing loudly trumpets the source material. (Also fortunately, Jackson films are among the most faithful screen adaptations of novels ever made.)

Surely, any reasonable person admits that edits must be made in any book story in order to make it a movie...you simply can't squeeze everything in a novel into a screenplay. Heck, this is true even of plays like Shakespeare. (Remember Kenneth Branagh's 1996 four-hour full-text "Hamlet"? It was quite tedious, and his 2.5 hour abridged edit was much more pleasant to watch.) Jackson's films are full of reasonable, understandable, and judicious edits. Tom Bombadil is quaint and charming, but brief and unnecessary (unless you want to include the Barrow-downs). Likewise, Gildor Inglorion and Glorfindel are intriguing on the page but hardly essential on screen. I personally might miss Quickbeam, but again this young Ent is far from essential. When ROTK is released, it is almost certain we won't see Halbarad and the Grey Company--again, not really essential.

That said, sometimes edits can go too far. Whenever changes go simply beyond length or detail and instead change a theme or character spine, they are much more debatable and fair-game for criticism. What I liked most about FOTR is that, although this movie had quite a bit in the way of length/content edits, it really didn't have many theme/character-spine edits. TTT, I feel, had fewer of the former but more of the latter. I do not feel that they were effective choices. Perhaps the most unnecessary was Merry and Pippin "tricking" the Ents--the filmmakers intended this change to make the hobbits seem more proactive, but I think it just ended up making the Ents seem dumber. And it changed one of Tolkien's themes: the hobbits felt like "luggage" and this is one of their motivations in ROTK for becoming more proactive.

The Faramir/Osgiliath alteration is one of the substantive, more serious changes. The reason why some fans feel this was so "wrong" is because it not only weakens this particular character but also one of Tolkien's themes. Tolkien establishes Boromir and Faramir as a study in contrasts. Boromir is a Dunadan who has lost touch with his ancient roots, becoming more like the common-blooded warriors of Middle-earth. Thus, when Boromir is confronted by the lure of the Ring he can only think of it as a weapon--and the Ring plays on this weakness. Boromir dies in an uncertain condition, partially full of regret but still unable to commit to Aragorn (in the book he merely asks Aragorn to "save my people" and does not pledge "I would have followed you"). Had Boromir lived, it is very uncertain whether Aragorn could have become king without a civil war in Gondor.

Faramir, on the other hand, is a Dunadan who still holds true to the ancient ideals of Numenor. This is why the young Faramir is so apt a pupil for Gandalf, and this is what puts him into conflict with his father Denethor. Boromir did not have a scholarly mind, and so his manner better suited his father's needs. Faramir's mindset, however unbefitting his father, better suited the needs of Middle-earth and his homeland. Faramir knows the ancient lore, and he knows the power of corruption. This is why the Ring can never gain hold over him. It is a fortunate accident that Faramir almost immediately pledges to Frodo that he would not take the Ring even if he found it lying on the roadside. When he later learns that Frodo actually possesses the Ring, the strength of his honor pre-empts any hold the lure of the Ring could have had over him: a true Numenorean who gives his word cannot break it, even at the cost of the Ring of Power. And when the king returns to Minas Tirith, it is the Numenorean nobility of Faramir (and Prince Imrahil) that welcomes Aragorn to the throne. The honor of Numenor runs deep in Faramir.

All of Faramir's subtleties are lost in Jackson's films. Partially, this is a function of needing to rein-in complexity: the Numenoreans receive barely a mention in the films, and portraying Faramir's motivations as described by Tolkien would require the long history lesson in the film. Instead, we are given a Boromir and Faramir as two sides of the same coin: they are basically the same kind of men, but in the end Faramir is just a little stronger in spirit.

[whiteknight]

Well spoken Scottomir.

[prophetsteve]

Perhaps the most unnecessary was Merry and Pippin "tricking" the Ents

I think it was a wise decision from a movie standpoint myself. Merry and Pippin did need to be more active in the movie, as essensially they were luggage for Uruks and Ents.

The Ents are really important for a small part of the movie overall, the sacking of Isengard. So if the Ents seem a little less proactive and the Hobbits, who are a higher Tier in the Roll Call (being main characters in all 3 movies), it is okay in my book.

Personally I find it a small issue - I never thought of the Ents as being dumb because of the trick and even if I did, the raw power of the Ents a few scenes later would probably remove such doubts from my mind.

Maybe it could have been done better but honestly its never been an issue for me. Then again, there only has been one change I strongly disagreed with (see below).

The Faramir/Osgiliath alteration is one of the substantive, more serious changes.

I will agree with you that I didn't like the portrayl of Faramir initially, and it still rubs me a bit wrong. The extended cut of the TT makes him a much interesting character but still...

I guess I feel that while Jackson's revision is pretty cool in general, its a character I really liked as he was. Faramir was one of the secondary characters in LotR:TT that I really enjoyed reading about; The noble brother of Faramir who, unlike his brother, was able to hang on to his nobility and resist the lure of the ring.

I hope that in Return of the King, Faramir gets to shine on camera. I know he'll do well ultimately but I hope some screen time is devoted to him.

[Phantom]

I agree with what you say for the most part Scottomir. But, I think you also have to take into consideration the way Jackson is portraying the power of the Ring. Even Gandalf and Galadriel where hard pressed to resist it's power. How difficult would it be for Faramir? Being a noble person to be sure, but still only a Man.

[Publius]

Interestingly enough I agree on most of the "Faramir points" with both Phantom and Scottomir:

Scottomir hits dead-on why Faramir is an interesting and pivotal character in LoTR: the man who shows that the race of men is worthy and true; the one person who is not even tempted by the ring. I would have preferred that Faramir told Frodo what he should have told him in the book.

On the other hand, Phantom has a point as well, Jackson has been playing up the rings corrupting influence in the movie far moreso than it was in the book. The Gandalf scenes after Bilbo's Birthday Party I think especially set that tone. When Frodo extends the ring to Aragorn near the end of Fellowship is another. They are playing that side of the ring up in order to dramatize something that is a very subtle point in Tolkien. Now, I disagree with the "how could a mere man stand up to the power of the ring" idea because that was what made the Faramir character so compelling in the book -- it was his one true and shining moment, and by extension the race of men.

Dramatizing the subtle nuiances of the book is the crux of the thing. Jackson already had the "Ring offered to human who turned it down" scene in Fellowship (true it was added) to have another in TT would have lessened its impact. Also, Jackson is trying to dramatize the dysfunctional relationship between Faramir, Boromir and Denethor and this is the best way to do so.

Once again, I would have liked Faramir's character to stick to the book. Especially since the "voiceover" ("video-over"? Cuts with Elrond and Galadriel) at that point in the movie is talking about how worthless humans are ("Ring? No thanks." Take that Fairy Bee-atch!). I liked the qualities of Faramir that Scottomir brought up. Nevertheless I can see how Jackson has shifted things in order to increase the impact of the story by way of a largely visual, and also rather truncated, medium.

p.s. On an unrelated note, show of hands for those who think Eowyn doesn't deserve Faramir (Faramir: "Allow me to show you every kindess and respect while I woo you." Eowyn: "Gosh, I can't have the man I really want so I guess I'll settle for you.") and that Faramir gets a raw deal politically too ("Gee Faramir, thanks to you and your entire line for taking care of things while there was no King in Gondor but I'm back now. By the way, can you live out the rest of your life in semi-exile in Ithilien? As a... reward for your... service." Yeah right.)

[T'lara]

I am of the philosphy that movies and books are two seperate entities. Period. When making a book into a film there will be changes for reasons of time, flow in the movie etc. As long as they stay true to the story as much as they can. Lord of the Rings Trilogy is one of those, a movie like the Bourne Identity is not for example.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is amazing. The fact that Peter Jackson has done such an amazing job with the material and time he had and the fact he filmed them back to back is one of the reasons I like this. He has stayed as true to the story as he can and the changes he made still keep with the essense of the story and helps with the movie flow. Not every little detail that is great for a fan of the novels would be in the film. These movies are as true as anyone can to Trilogy and that is amazing.

These movies are nothing compared the monstrousity known as the Bourne Identity starring Matt Damon. Where Lord of the Rings follows the story as closely as they can., Bourne Identity is nothing close to the novel it was based on. The changes they made did not make sense of the flow of the story and was a completely different story. The novel is about a man whom has lost his memory and believes he is an assasin named Jason Bourne. The woman he kidnaps in the story, a financial professor from Canada, does not believe he is right. In the story he finds out at the end he was undercover as Jason Bourne to bring out a terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal. The man who helped raise him his father figure is killed by Carlos in the story and Jason barely survives. Carlos whom was chasing and trying to kill Jason in the book escapes but Jason get's his life back.

In the movie with Matt Damon. He was an assasin, the woman he kidnapped was a gypsy, he ends up killing the man who raised him in revenge. The US government is trying to kill Jason because he is an assasin and ther is no Carlos the Jackal which is part of the story. The whole movie is different the only thing it had in common was the name Jason Bourne. This is akin taking out the Hobbits and Solomon and have it about a man finding out he is king with no ring, golem etc.

This is when fans should complain when the story and feel are not there. Lord of the Rings fans nit picking as a bunch of fan boys and not paying attention that yes this is the story even if their favorite SMALL elements are not in the movie should grow the hell up. Lord of the Rings is amazing it is as true as someone can do and it is a truimph. It is not like the Bourne Identity that had little to nothing to the story. There are other movies that have nothing to do with the novels they are based on. Bourne Identity is one of those. The Lord of the Ring trilogy is not. Grow Up Fan Boys.