# Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?



## nikolai (Jan 9, 2004)

Now that the whole opus is out there; what does everyone think of the alterations made to the plot of the books for the screen version?

Frankly, I think it's almost as if it was adapted from version of the books from a alternate universe. Places are represented very close to the way they are in the novel and the fellowship travel along roughly the same path, but there are dramatic differences in what happens and why it happens. I'm not sure all of this is for the best or was essential for the adaptation to be a success.

nikolai.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 9, 2004)

IMO: The movies are great movies; the books are great books.  Movies != books.

I think PJ did a reasonable retelling of the original story that preserves the spirit of the original, if not the scene-by-scene letter of it.  Would I have made the same changes?  No -- but I might have made others.

Heck, history is being "revised" all the time, and constantly reinterpreted.  You can't get two historians to agree on the same interpretations of historical facts.  If we were to imagine LotR as real events, of which Tolkien and PJ are both chroniclers, should we expect them to agree at every point?

PJ got close enough that I'm satisfied.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 9, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Now that the whole opus is out there; what does everyone think of the alterations made to the plot of the books for the screen version?
> 
> Frankly, I think it's almost as if it was adapted from version of the books from a alternate universe. Places are represented very close to the way they are in the novel and the fellowship travel along roughly the same path, but there are dramatic differences in what happens and why it happens. I'm not sure all of this is for the best or was essential for the adaptation to be a success.
> 
> nikolai.




I agree completely.  PJ took an epic work and turned it into a good action flick.  I can't think of a single change I agree with, save perhaps omitting Bombadil for the sake of time, and perhaps giving Arwen a more central role to satisfy women film-goers.  He raped the characters of Faramir, Theoden, and Denethor, completely screwed up the scene with Eowen and the Witch King (which is quite possibly my favorite scene in the book), turned Gimli into Jar-Jar, and for some godawful reason he doesn't like magic in a fantasy flick.  To me that's kind of like not likeing guns in a western.

I think the movies were great, and I would have probably been a blubbering fan-boy had I not read the books several dozen times.  I stand my comments from earlier threads, though, that PJ made changes for no other reason than to leave his fingerprints on it, and to try and one-up Tolkien.  LotR has sold more than any book EVER, excepting only the Bible, and PJ has the nerve to try and improve on it?  I'm not saying it's perfect, but that's a bit arrogant, imo.

*Donning flame retardant suit now*


----------



## Endur (Jan 9, 2004)

I am in the "close enough" school.

Was he as close as I wished, no.  But he did such an excellent job on the sets that I forgive him completely.

The Shire, Bree, Rivendell, Moria, Lothlorien, Edoras, Helm's Deep, The Gate of Morannon, Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, and Mount Doom were exactly as I envisioned them.  Absolutely beautiful.

The only "visual" image I might have a problem with was the "eye".  I would have thought only "sensitive" people would be able to actually see it.  Rather than a great spotlight hovering in the air above Barad-Dur.  And that was a reasonable intepretation, not mine, but fair.

That and the Mumak were too big.  They were big in the book, but not as large as in the movies.  Tolkien's Oliphaunts were Mastadons, larger than African/Indian elephants, but not much larger.  PJ's Oliphaunts were probably three times larger than normal elephants and looked like At-Ats.  Tolkien's elephants would not smash a horse and rider flat like a bug if they stepped on him.  Tolkien describes the Mumak from the point of a view of a hobbit.  For a hobbit, an Elephant would look "as big as a house."


----------



## nikolai (Jan 9, 2004)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> IMO: The movies are great movies; the books are great books.  Movies != books.
> 
> I think PJ did a reasonable retelling of the original story that preserves the spirit of the original, if not the scene-by-scene letter of it.  Would I have made the same changes?  No -- but I might have made others.




I agree completely that the books are great books and the movies are great movies. It's also wrong to expect a scene-by-scene adaptation of the books; which would have made a very strange film to watch.

However, what strikes me when I watch the films is that the *story* being told is very different to that in told the books. I've no problems with the necessary stuff of adaptation, like showing scenes in a different way to the books, but it's just very strange to me that *the tale being told on screen is not the same as the one in the books*. That really the point I'm trying to make; rather than moaning that dialog isn't word-for-word from the books or that scenes are different. Just to clarify what I meant above.

In the film: Sauron is bent on genocide, Saruman is his lacky, Theoden is possessed and a puppet, Denethor is mad for no apparent reason, Isengard is destroyed and the warbeacons lit because of tricks a child could see past, and I could carry on... There are major differences. It just seems strange when I watch them.

And the finale is changed. In the film: Gollum bites the ring from Frodo's finger, Frodo fights with him to regain it, and because of this both fall, with Gollum and the ring ending up in the lava. In the story: it's a lot more complicated and nuanced; but the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 9, 2004)

What's the plot of LotR? It is the story of the Free Peoples destroying the Ring of Doom. The key of the plot is that the Ring is utterly corrupting and thus cannot be defeated though positive action -- only resistance supported by the action of grace can bring about its destruction. The key theme of the story is that sacrifice is required to defeat evil -- real sacrifice, not the sort where your best friend dies but in the end you get the girl and Ewoks dance happily.

Both the plot and the theme of the story are unchanged in the movies.

That many changes were made, no question. That some of those changes were ill-advised, no question.

That those changes were made for some particular reason none of us are qualified to say, and to pretend otherwise is every bit as arrogant as what PJ is accused of.

But the plot and the central theme of the story are clearly identical to what's in the book. I am interested to hear exactly HOW people think they were changed.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2004)

he made his money.

i don't agree with it. but i still watched it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 9, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> In the story: ... the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.



Yes it was. That's EXACTLY how the Ring is destroyed in the book. Frodo claims the Ring, puts it on, and Gollum attacks, biting off Frodo's finger and then falling into the Cracks of Doom.

You'll need to be much more specific if you're trying to point out a difference, because to my mind the sequence of events is almost identical.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> And the finale is changed. In the film: Gollum bites the ring from Frodo's finger, Frodo fights with him to regain it, and because of this both fall, with Gollum and the ring ending up in the lava. In the story: it's a lot more complicated and nuanced; but the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.




Umm, yeah, that's pretty close to how it was destroyed in the book. Frodo and Gollum fight, Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and begins dancing around in glee. Gollum loses his footing and falls into the volcano.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  PJ took an epic work and turned it into a good action flick.  I can't think of a single change I agree with, save perhaps omitting Bombadil for the sake of time, and perhaps giving Arwen a more central role to satisfy women film-goers.  He raped the characters of Faramir, Theoden, and Denethor,




Theoden got a major boost in the movies. It was Eomer who got screwed.



> completely screwed up the scene with Eowen and the Witch King (which is quite possibly my favorite scene in the book),




How? The action in the movie proceeds almost identically to the action in the book. He changed some dialogue, which I think was a mistake, since the dialogue in this scene in the book was very powerful, but he got all of the elements of the scene correct.



> turned Gimli into Jar-Jar, and for some godawful reason he doesn't like magic in a fantasy flick.  To me that's kind of like not likeing guns in a western.




What examples of magic do you recall from the books that didn't get incporporated into the movies? LotR is a very "magic-lite" fantasy epic. There are only a handful of "magical items", and spells and so on are few, far between, and subtle. One could very well argue that PJ _added_ magic to the stories (like the wizard duel between Saruman and Gandalf in LotR, and Saruman's possession of Theoden in TTT).


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 9, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> And the finale is changed. In the film: Gollum bites the ring from Frodo's finger, Frodo fights with him to regain it, and because of this both fall, with Gollum and the ring ending up in the lava. In the story: it's a lot more complicated and nuanced; but the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.



A lot more complicated and nuanced? This is what happens in the book: Frodo and Gollum fight, Gollum finally gets the Ring, and he is so happy that he dances with joy and falls into the lava. It's not complicated, and it's not nuanced: the ring was destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst _dancing_.

I think it's the perfect example, actually. When _Lord of the Rings_ purists take offense at some of the decisions Peter Jackson had to make, most of the time, they're not defending Tolkien's words, they're defending their own interpretation of it, solidified and polished by years and years of zealous reading.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> One could very well argue that PJ _added_ magic to the stories (like the wizard duel between Saruman and Gandalf in LotR, and Saruman's possession of Theoden in TTT).





yeah, i agree. i always pictured gandalf and saruman facing off like psionic battles before.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2004)

they did remove some of the magic of the World tho...

the Mountain top did not crash down on the Fellowship b/c saruman commanded it in the book. it was the mountain itself who resisted the interlopers.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 9, 2004)

I don't think the Elves at Helms Deep is a minor change, and the drastic changes to Faramir, Theoden, & apparently Denathor are not different visions of those characters, they are different characters in a lot of ways.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 9, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> they did remove some of the magic of the World tho...
> 
> the Mountain top did not crash down on the Fellowship b/c saruman commanded it in the book. it was the mountain itself who resisted the interlopers.




That's not so much a case or _removing_ magic from the story so much as simply _changing the source_.

Which menas that the complaint that PJ had some sort of aversion of having magic in a fantasy story still doesn't seem to hold up.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 9, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't think the Elves at Helms Deep, and the drastic changes to Faramir, Theoden, & apparently Denathor are different visions of those characters, they are different characters in a lot of ways.



 Not arguing that any particular story details were not changed. Just saying that the plot was not altered in any significant way, nor was the basic theme of the story.


----------



## KenM (Jan 9, 2004)

IMO the movies are very good adaptations, and better becuse I don't like JRRT style of writing, but thats not what this thread is about. I was a little surpised that PJ left out: 



Spoiler



The fact Frodo and Bilbo share the same birthday, as it would have explained they're connection more. Also, the movies don't do a good job of explaining that Gandalf and the other wizards are not human.


 Just little things I would have liked to have seen.
  I belive in the book, after Gollum bites Frodo's finger to get the ring, He dances around and falls into the lava, Frodo does not continue to fight him after He looses finger.


----------



## ASH (Jan 9, 2004)

I have to say that PJ's movies were probably the best movies I have ever seen. He gave us a visualization of how he perceived the books.  I like the way that he portrayed Eomer, and Theodan.  Granted there was a few things that he did that I did not care for, but over all I think that he made an incrediable movie.  

Also, understand there is alot more people who have not read the books and watched the movie than people who have read the books and watched the movie. He was a director making a movie.  Not a director trying to make the Tolkin elitest's happy... 
My advice, if you hated the  movies because of the changes, dont watch them, read the book instead.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 10, 2004)

*re*



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> I am in the "close enough" school.
> 
> Was he as close as I wished, no.  But he did such an excellent job on the sets that I forgive him completely.
> 
> ...




I'm pretty much in this camp, save that I don't forgive him completely for the way he ruined Faramir and Denethor. I forgave him for Theoden because RotK returned quite a bit of the old kings stature. 

His visualization of Middle Earth was stunning. 

Still don't like many of the changes to the story he and Phillipa made though. Whenever I hear him or Phillipa talking about script changes and how they think they improved on the story makes me want to puke. They improved nothing about LotR. The original story was far better than the BS they decided to add. It just made the characters seem less like the characters all us fans know and love.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jan 10, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Not arguing that any particular story details were not changed. Just saying that the plot was not altered in any significant way, nor was the basic theme of the story.




I can see your point of view, but allow me to present a different interpretation of the changes.

The novels have several themes running simultaneously:

1) As you already indicated, the idea that to defeat evil, sacrifices must be made. But the sacrifices were so much greater than the movies indicated. 
*The elves knew that victory in the war would result in their fading from Middle-Earth. The few remaining would have a choice of travelling over the sea to Valinor, or staying and fading into legend. Only someone who had read the novels could have understood the depths of their loss while watching the movies.
*The strength and endurance of the people of Gondor, as poignantly shown in the novels, was given very little attention in the movies - Denethor despaired because he fought Sauron for so long, not because he was just some raving madman. What of Beregond, who faced the terrible choice of fighting his kinsmen to save Faramir from Denethor's madness? 
*The hobbits also sacrificed, as we read in the Scouring of the Shire, yet that was completely cut from the movies. The whole sense that Frodo was permanently scarred by his ordeal was barely touched upon in the movies.

2) The time of Men. 
*The defeat of Sauron beckoned the coming Age of Men, the Fourth Age. While elves (and dwarves) fought in the War of the Ring, they did not do so in alliance with Men. The scene created by PJ et. al. where Haldir leads elves from Lorien to Helm's Deep never occurred in the books. Why not? Because, by this time Men and Elves had become estranged - such an alliance was a thing of the past. And Lorien needed all its strength to resist the armies of Sauron which assaulted the forest kingdom, as the appendices make clear. Thankfully, PJ and company felt no need to add a battalion of dwarves too.
*The transformation of Strider into King Elessar. If Sauron was indeed defeated, then Men would reclaim their birthright, re-uniting the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor. The novels do an outstanding job of showing how, through all the trials, Aragorn began to show forth his personal power, truly becoming the rightful King of Gondor. One of the best scenes in the novels is Aragorn leading the rangers (and Gimli and Legolas) into the Paths of Dead, through nothing but the force of his will. The choice was his, after wresting the Palantir of Orthanc from Sauron's control to his own (not Elrond's). The movies did a credible job of showing Aragorn confronting the oathbreakers in the Paths of the Dead, but otherwise he didn't really come into his own until the confrontation before the Black Gate. 

3) Power corrupts.
*One important juxtaposition in the novels was the difference between Boromir and Faramir. Boromir was the greatest warrior in Gondor. The bravest. The strongest. The most valiant. But he lacked wisdom. He failed the test of the Ring. Faramir, second only to Boromir in these qualities, possessed a far more valuable trait: true wisdom. When Frodo and Sam were within his power, he did not take them part-way back to Minas Tirith to be presented to his father. He saw more clearly Isildur's Bane must not go to the city, and courageously faced his father's wrath for this choice. The movies showed the fall of Boromir well, they completely messed up Faramir's character.

One added theme in the movies, which does not exist in the novels, is that no one on the side of Good seems able to do anything right unless a member of the Fellowship did it for them. Examples:
*Gandalf telling Aragorn to go with Theoden to Helm's Deep, because the King was "leading his people into a trap" and Aragorn must "save them". Aragorn, Gimli, and the elves from Lorien end up "saving" the Rohirrim. Excuse me? In the novels, the King knew his course was perilous, but it was the best that could be done, and both Gandalf and Aragorn supported it. Further, it was Theoden's idea to charge the orc hosts at dawn, not Aragorn's.
*The hobbits "tricked" Treebeard into getting involved in the War. Huh? They started the ents thinking about Saruman's depradations, but only through their presence with Treebeard. The old ent was too wise to have fallen for anything so idiotic as what the movie showed.
*Pippin starting the fires to summon the Rohirrim to Gondor's aid. Why? Why couldn't PJ and company have left it the way it was in the novels, with Denethor ordering the fires lit? I suppose because they had made such a travesty of his character, it wouldn't have made sense. More likely, it seems part of the theme that only the Fellowship could do anything right.

I do agree that if one reduces the story to its most basic elements (weak little people take powerful artifact to volcano to destroy great evil), then the movies' changes were only cosmetic. If one, however, views the trilogy as more than just the story of the Fellowship, then a great deal was lost. Remember that the trilogy was just a piece of the story of Middle-Earth composed by Tolkien, a story which reached back thousands of years before Frodo. This depth was lost in the movies.

No doubt, some of the changes were necessary due to the different medium (film vs. book), but many cannot be explained by this. While I don't claim to read minds, I can only conclude that PJ et. al. simply couldn't resist making changes they felt would improve the story told by the movies. And in doing so, a great deal of Tolkien's original story was lost.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 10, 2004)

It seems, Sir Whiskers, that your primary argument is that the movies do not possess the depth and power of the books. To this I make no argument whatsoever. That's self-evident.

The books are masterpieces, surely among the great literary works of the century. The movies are pretty good movies (even, for Fellowship and RotK, great movies). In terms of sheer artistic power, I happily agree that there is no comparision.

But I don't agree that the changes made to the story in the film have resulted in dramatic change to either the plot of the primary themes of the books. Now we may disagree on the notion of what constitutes a _dramatic change_, but let's try and find some middle ground.


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> 1) As you already indicated, the idea that to defeat evil, sacrifices must be made. But the sacrifices were so much greater than the movies indicated.



Agreed that the movies did not show the depth or the history of what was happening. But that's only a difference of degree, not of kind. Differences of degree do not form a dramatic change.


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> 2) The time of Men.



It is entirely clear from the films -- from _Fellowship_ on -- that the time of Men is at hand and that the influence of the elves is fading. Again, I agree that there are questions of degree, but I do not consider such difference to justify the use the term "dramatic difference".


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> 3) Power corrupts.



Again, the movies show this again and again. That it takes Faramir longer to come to the understanding of true wisdom does not mean that he does not come to the understanding.

AGAIN, you seem to be saying that the movies do not provide the same amount of emotional impact, the same amount of intellectual investigation, the same amount of philosophical insight.

And I agree. Absolutely, no question. What I disagree with is the notion that movies present a drastically different story or view of human nature than the novels.


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> One added theme in the movies, which does not exist in the novels, is that no one on the side of Good seems able to do anything right unless a member of the Fellowship did it for them.



I'll only address this for completeness' sake -- that's not a theme, that's a function of the narrative. And, for completeness' sake, I'll repeat that I'm not saying that there were no changes to the narrative, nor that all changes were good ones. I am saying that the changes to the narrative did not drastically alter the plot or the theme of The Lord of the Rings.


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> I do agree that if one reduces the story to its most basic elements (weak little people take powerful artifact to volcano to destroy great evil), then the movies' changes were only cosmetic. If one, however, views the trilogy as more than just the story of the Fellowship, then a great deal was lost.



Here is my position on the subject:


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It is the story of the Free Peoples destroying the Ring of Doom. The key of the plot is that the Ring is utterly corrupting and thus cannot be defeated though positive action -- only resistance supported by the action of grace can bring about its destruction. The key theme of the story is that sacrifice is required to defeat evil -- real sacrifice, not the sort where your best friend dies but in the end you get the girl and Ewoks dance happily.



Of course there are many DETAILS in the books that are of greater or lesser importance, but they don't change the PLOT of the story. Obviously you can take any point of view as to what details are or are not important, and of course any movie made from a book will include certain details and exclude others -- the question isn't "How many details were included?" but rather, "Do the details that were included support the plot and key theme of the story?" 
I agree that certain key details were missed, or clumsily handled, but I do not agree that the details used undermine the plot and key theme of the story.


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> While I don't claim to read minds, I can only conclude that PJ et. al. simply couldn't resist making changes they felt would improve the story told by the movies.



I guess you are claiming to read minds then. There exist literally an infinite number of reasons why they might have made those changes, but you're concluding it must have been the one you find easiest to believe. But it doesn't matter.

Why the changes were made is utterly immaterial unless you're just looking for ad hominem reasons to attack PJ's work. All that matters is the substance of the changes themselves.

And I don't see that any of the changes (which may have been good or bad in and of themselves) drastically altered either the plot or the theme of Lord of the Rings.


----------



## KenM (Jan 10, 2004)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> *The hobbits "tricked" Treebeard into getting involved in the War.





  Well, if Merry and Pippin did not get the ents to join the war, they would have done nothing major in TTT, just escape from the orcs and sit in a walking tree for the whole movie. Like someone else said, PJ made a movie, not an excat translation for JRRT fanatics. 
   One of the changes that I think makes sense is in the movie, once they find out they have the ring, they immedatly start out for Rivendale. They don't wait years before taking action, like in the book, to me that did not make sense.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> One of the changes that I think makes sense is in the movie, once they find out they have the ring, they immedatly start out for Rivendale. They don't wait years before taking action, like in the book, to me that did not make sense.




In the books, it takes years for them to figure out that they have the One Ring, and Sauron was not making obvious moves at the time.  Waiting until they are sure is a good thing, when you don't know where Sauron is or what he's up to.  And in the books, Gandalf isn't sure until the ring gets put into the fire at Bag End....


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 10, 2004)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> *The hobbits also sacrificed, as we read in the Scouring of the Shire, yet that was completely cut from the movies. The whole sense that Frodo was permanently scarred by his ordeal was barely touched upon in the movies.




I reread the section a week ago. (I waited until after the movie's to reread the books)

I gotta say, the Scouring is horrible.
1) it's not brought by the War, it's a hobbit's doing. Until Saruman comes at the end.
2) Saruman TELLS them he's going to go cause trouble. They then procede to go to Rivendell to visit Bilbo!
3) Frodo is a wuss. I can understand if he does stuff and ensure's that no harm is done that is not needed, but he doesn't. He just whines.
4) Merry & Pippin are lawless bullies.
5) Sam must have kept The Ring, since he seems mostly invisible through the events. The pony does more than Sam.

Okay, so that's a little harsh, but that's what I got out of the Scouring. YMMV.

I do think they made a point of Frodo's morgul blade injury, but don't recall seeing anything that wuld be Shelob's bite. (though, not sure why that should leave a yearly pain)

The entire movie has a different pacing than the books, they don't contradict the time span on most counts, but they certainly dont mention 17 years passing between party and leaving. IIRC.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 10, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The entire movie has a different pacing than the books, they don't contradict the time span on most counts, but they certainly dont mention 17 years passing between party and leaving. IIRC.




The movie specifically says "13 months to the day after we left...". As for your points about "The Scouring of the Shire", all I will say is YMMV all right. You are a funny, funny man


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jan 10, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'll only address this for completeness' sake -- that's not a theme, that's a function of the narrative. And, for completeness' sake, I'll repeat that I'm not saying that there were no changes to the narrative, nor that all changes were good ones. I am saying that the changes to the narrative did not drastically alter the plot or the theme of The Lord of the Rings.




Well, perhaps one man's narrative is another man's theme...  

Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree on the importance of the changes. What we do agree on is that the movies are quite good. 

IMHO, they're just not as good as I think PJ could have made them.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 10, 2004)

PJ did a great job with his "Classics Illustrated" version of the Lord of the Rings.

That's what I expected when I heard of the project, and that's what I got.

I dearly love the movies, but I maintain it would be folly to expect them to be a faithful adaptation of the books.

They are what they are.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Whenever I hear him or Phillipa talking about script changes and how they think they improved on the story makes me want to puke. They improved nothing about LotR. The original story was far better than the BS they decided to add. It just made the characters seem less like the characters all us fans know and love.



Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

And I am so sick of this Tolkein-fanboy opinion that _I_ could puke.

I have a question for anyone who thinks that PJ did a bad job in adapting an unfilmable, meandering, mistake-ridden book like LotR:

Do you really think that JRR Tolkein didn't make mistakes in the book that needed to be fixed to be able to make a film out of it?

And I'm not just talking about omitting Tom Bombadil either.

I'm talking about things that Umbran conveniently omitted in his reply to KenM - that Frodo was told that he had the One Ring, and that he should pack and leave....  and he promptly waits months in packing and leaving.
His overdescriptiveness and ridiculous dialogue make it painful to read in comparison to the crisp efficiency of the movie's scenes.

I REALLY wish I could find a webpage that details the things the documentary/featurette mentions.

Here's a page that is pretty close to my (overall) opinion on LotR book (minus his 'state of fantasy writing' bit): http://www.theferrett.com/showarticle.php?Rant=69
"But his writing also meanders. He spends a lot of time focusing in on things that better writers would discard. His plots are filled with side-trails that wind nowhere, just like real history, and interchanges that really don't matter much at all. But like a man with no editor, Tolkien regurgitates it all so that you can see it. 

There are those who will say that part of the charm of Tolkien is that his books read like history books. To which I say: This isn't real life. And worse yet, he commits the fatal flaw in that a lot of these sidelines are boring."

Meanwhile, Tolkein purists concentrate on anal differences between the books and films...
Here's what "True Tolkein Fans" think are mistakes in the movies: http://groups.msn.com/LordoftheRingsTrueFans/moviemistakes.msnw


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Here's what "True Tolkein Fans" think are mistakes in the movies:




I give up... how is a Director's Cameo a mistake in the film?

It's not like he was giving last minute directions to the actors and accidentally didn't get out of frame!

-Hyp.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jan 10, 2004)

Personally, I agree with those who have said that the movies and books are two very seperate entities. The movies are good movies and the books are good books (most of the time). That doesn't mean that one has to be better at the expense of the other. 

A movie that was _exactly_ what Tolkien wrote would be practically unfilmable, and certainly unwatchable. Although I do disagree with a few choices that Jackson made, that is not reason to despise the movie and anything remotely related to it. Nor is it reason to constantly complain about every detail that was changed.

And besides, there's already an example out there of how _not_ to do Tolkien on film. People who whine about Jackson's LoTR need to watch the animated LoTR, which was absolutely terrible. Perspective is key.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 10, 2004)

I remember an article by Newsweek discussing and making a comparison 
/constrast of the movies versus the books. And I think it had one of the best lines I've read in a while. "This movie is more of Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth than Tolkien's. But that is what we all have, our own slightly altered yet similiar visions of Tolkien's grand work." To me I love movies because this was PJ saying "I'm going to read you this story. It may sound familiar but there might be some changes too. But it still the same story nonetheless." And that's how I feel most movies that adapt books should go. Take the writer's original vision and have the director tell us the story in his words. 

So yeah now that it's out, there are things that bugged me about Jackson's vision of LotR, but not enough for me say he's not a great storyteller telling a great story. It's much like any great myth being told by another. It's not the same but still grand IF you have the right person telling it.

I'd also like to say I'm a Tolkein purist, but I love Jackson's work. To me I wish Tolkien had lived long enough or at least had some idea his works would be put to film. Then we could have his input as well. But I'm also sure it wouldn't be nearly as good since the man was a complete procrastinator at heart as well as often drawn in by too much detail. Doesn't mean though I think less of Lord of the Rings, the books. Just wouldn't be the same as a movie.


----------



## ConnorSB (Jan 10, 2004)

Here's all I have to say:

LotR the movie may not have been perfectly accurate to the book.

But Starship Troopers was infinitly more wrong.

And Eowin was hot.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 10, 2004)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> A movie that was _exactly_ what Tolkien wrote would be practically unfilmable, and certainly unwatchable.



Here's something to consider. The unabridged audio version of LotR is 55 hours long.

Let's just consider that for a second, shall we? _55 HOURS_

So in making a 13-hour epic (assuming RotK:EE clocks in at 5 hours and the first two at 4), PJ has stripped roughly three-quarters of the story out -- and that's assuming it takes as long to film something as it does to read it -- frankly, I'd bet the reading was faster, but let's assume they're reasonably close for now.

So, given that 13 hours is pretty close to as maximum length anyone was ever going to be allowed to make these films at, can somebody suggest a three-quarters of the story that PJ would have been better off cutting?

And to forestall "but that's not all" comments -- cutting necessitates combining, and in some cases creating out of whole cloth, scenes and moments and storylines. There's no other way to do.

I've had to cut a film from 25 minutes to 20 and I can tell you it darn near killed me. Pretty much killed the film, too. To go from what was written to what was on the screen and present in large strokes the ideas that Tolkien explores so deftly in tiny scratches -- my hat's off.

He did better, frankly, than any of us had any right to expect. Good for PJ. I hope _King Kong_ rocks.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 10, 2004)

I wanna see the Hobbit myself.   But King Kong is okay. 

And yes Starship Troopers along with Battlefield Earth SUCKED.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jan 10, 2004)

The question being asked is: "Did Peter Jackson lose the plot?"

My answer: "No."

But, as we're starting to discuss some of the changes Peter has made, I'll add in some of my opinions on those mentioned. 

I think the change to Faramir was great. It was much needed. And I'm pretty sure it will be even better when RotK Extended Edition comes out. Right now, his character's story arc ends kinda lamely because of cut scenes. Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh had excellent and valid reasons for making these changes. The only character change I'd disagree with the most is really the whole thing with Arwen's health being linked to the quest to destroy the one ring.

I'm glad Tom Bombadil isn't in it. I like his character and all....but I just think its needed. They really wanted to keep the number of people immune to the One Ring to a total of zero. A decision I totally agree with. I also agree with leaving out the scouring of the Shire. Its a pretty lame addition to the over all trilogy. Its like me writing about the epic battles of World War II and adding this part at the end where one Nazi general escapes and starts to rebuild his army by starting to take over a small town in Kansas.  

From a directing view-point....I think there were more mistakes I could point out. Chief among them were my gripes with the Nazgul scenes (Weathertop for instance), Eowyn vs. the Witchking, lighting of the beacons, Denethor's decent into further madness, and Cirith Ungol. Other than that.....everything else was pretty enjoyable. I got a pretty good feeling the RotK EE will fix most of my gripes. Probably the only remaining gripe that would never get fix is the one I have with most of the Nazgul scenes. 

And while I'm listing things I didn't like: I want to bring up a tiny tiny gripe of mine. Its one that barely even hurts the film....but it was something I wasn't too happy with. It was the bad body language acting of some of the Orcs. Too me, the only bad acting in the whole trilogy. Such high calibre acting EVERYWHERE by everyone. But then.....you got these extras who do these cheezy cliched Orc performances. The worst being the one Orc from Cirith Ungol who explains how old Shelob feeds. I absolutely hate how he acts, walks, everything. Ok....that's off my chest now...heh heh. But remember...that gripe is really a minor concern when looking at the whole trilogy. Really really minor.

These movies kick butt....I'm so glad they came out. 

I mean, what else are we gonna watch?  Conan The Barbarian for the 239th time? Willow? Deathstalker? Kull?

Yah......exactly.......the LotR trilogy is like a beautiful long cool drink of much needed water in a continent sized desert named " Fantasy Movies ".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> From a directing view-point....I think there were more mistakes I could point out. Chief among them were my gripes with the lighting of the beacons...




Really?  That's one scene I've seen referred to by numerous people as fantastic (although they were speaking from an audience point of view, rather than directorial or critical)... what did you dislike?



> I mean, what else are we gonna watch?  Conan The Barbarian for the 239th time?




Ooh... I'm up for that!

-Hyp.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 10, 2004)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I mean, what else are we gonna watch?  Conan The Barbarian for the 239th time





			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ooh... I'm up for that!



I'll bring the Cheetos!


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> And yes Starship Troopers along with Battlefield Earth SUCKED.



Mentioning Starship Troopers in the same sentence... nay, the same _paragraph_ as Battlefield Earth makes me believe that you didn't see the same movie I (and many other people) did.

Most people I know of (other than slavish Heinlein fanboys who can't abide ANY variation from a book they love) enjoy the heck out of the movie.
My guess is that you 2 are doing exactly what Tolkein book-fans are doing with the LotR films: letting their handcuffed vision of the book blind them to a screen adaptation.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Most people I know of (other than slavish Heinlein fanboys who can't abide ANY variation from a book they love) enjoy the heck out of the movie.




The first time I saw Starship Troopers, I was just incredibly depressed about the armour (well, the lack of it).

The second time I saw it, I quite enjoyed it.

-Hyp.


----------



## KenM (Jan 10, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The first time I saw Starship Troopers, I was just incredibly depressed about the armour (well, the lack of it).
> 
> The second time I saw it, I quite enjoyed it.
> 
> -Hyp.




  I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.
 The audio LOTR clocking in at 55 hours? I wonder how much of that is traveling/ songs, ect..


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right.




I didn't care _why_ they took them out.

I just remember hearing "Starship Troopers movie", and thinking "Powered Armour - _yeah_!"

And then seeing the trailers and thinking "You're kidding, right?"

It was a major letdown for the first viewing.

-Hyp.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> My guess is that you 2 are doing exactly what Tolkein book-fans are doing with the LotR films: letting their handcuffed vision of the book blind them to a screen adaptation.



To be quite honest, that's exactly what I did.

My initial opinion of RotK was pretty low for just that reason. I spent the entire time eagerly anticipating my favorite scenes from the book, only to have disappointment mounted upon disappointment.

My appreciation of the movie increased greatly with later viewings, since I was no longer burdened with those expectations.


----------



## buzzard (Jan 10, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.




Not that we haven't been over this before, but no. The movie was an intentional mockery of the books. I suppose it is possible that I would have liked the movie, had it not been named Starship Troopers, but I doubt even then it would be the case. 

Let's look at commonality- plot not much in common (depending how much your strip from the book in rationalization, I suppose you might see something in common, but you would be grasping), themes- nothing in common, neato stuff- all dropped, I mean other than the overall name, and character names, what really was in common?

I'm no Heinlen fanboy. I like some of his works, and have no use at all for others. But when you have a director who hates a book make a movie out of it, I don't think you can expect a reasonable interpretation. 

buzzard


----------



## Dimwhit (Jan 10, 2004)

I'm of the opinion that:

a) Tolkien's LotR books aren't the bible, nor the greatest books ever written. They were very good fantasy books (I've read better) that are classics only because of WHEN they were written.

b) Tolkien worshippers both intrigue and frighten me.

c) Movies and books aren't the same thing. What works in a book doesn't necessarily work on film. They are two different media, and hold a movie to a book's standard, or vice versa, is pure lunacy.

d) The films were amazing. Not perfect, but amazing. (In fairness, I'm not sure there's a perfect movie out there--except may Shawshank Redemption.)

e) I can't wait for the EE RotK.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I'm talking about things that Umbran conveniently omitted in his reply to KenM - that Frodo was told that he had the One Ring, and that he should pack and leave....  and he promptly waits months in packing and leaving.




Heh.  I'm not the only one conveniently omitting things - like the fact that there was a method to that particular madness. Let us consider...

Bilbo, on his adventure, came into posession of the ring, and took it home ot the shire.  Something like 77 years pass...

Then comes Bilbo's 111th (and Frodo's 33) birthday.  Gandalf, having seen some very vague signs and portents, is a little suspicious, and gets Bilbo to leave the ring with Frodo.  Note that Gandalf is not yet up in arms in panic.  It's been 7 decades since he and his friends ousted the Necromancer from Mirkwood.  He's only recently gotten the idea that the Enemy may have gone back to Barad Dur.

Three more years pass, as Gandalf does research, among other things.  It is during this period that he really begins to suspect what the ring is, and comes upon Gollum and finds out that the Enemy may know about the Shire.

At this point, the ring has been sitting in the Shire quietly for about _80 years_.  And only now the Eye may be looking towards the Shire.  If you're trying to be stealthy and stay hidden, the one thing you don't do is make sudden moves when the enemy is looking at you.  

So, Frodo takes months (for two of which Gandalf is even hanging around!) to pack and leave because he's trying to not attract too much attention.  The idea is for him to fade from the public eye before he leaves the Shire entirely - so there won't be any scuttlebutt about his disappearance that might raise a spy's eyebrow, so that nobody will know anything useful if questions are asked.  Given the time that's already passed, a couple extra months don't seem particularly important, especially when time should provide cover.  If everything had gone smoothly, Frodo would have quietly slipped away to Rivendell ahead of scrutiny in the Shire.  

Unfortunately, that pesky Saruman turns out to have gone bad, and louses this up, causing Frodo to delay a bit too long, so he doesn't get to leave ahead of the scrutiny.

The movie compresses three years of events into mere weeks.  With that compression, of course you can't have Frodo take his time leaving.  But that's not a "mistake" in Tolkien.  That's just a change for cinematic reasons.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Hmmmm....   we're close to caught up on this, Umbran, but one thing:
KenM said this-







> One of the changes that I think makes sense is in the movie, once they find out they have the ring, they immedatly start out for Rivendale. They don't wait years before taking action, like in the book, to me that did not make sense.



then you said:







> In the books, it takes years for them to figure out that they have the One Ring, and Sauron was not making obvious moves at the time. Waiting until they are sure is a good thing, when you don't know where Sauron is or what he's up to. And in the books, Gandalf isn't sure until the ring gets put into the fire at Bag End....



Then I pointed out how you were omitted certain facts in your reply, instead solely concentrating on what you wanted to reply to. (In other words, you made an explanatory post that purposely covered only half the story, while ignoring the point: that there are problems with Tolkein's sequences.)

Now you still attempt to explain away the actions, without acknowledging either
a) that the actions are mistakes, AND are silly to the reader.
b) that you haven't been forthright in your explanations.

I'd like to clarify more, but I think you get my gist. That's all. No big deal.

edit: About you dodging point a) above- 







> Unfortunately, that pesky Saruman turns out to have gone bad, and louses this up, causing Frodo to delay a bit too long, so he doesn't get to leave ahead of the scrutiny.



Every reader can see clearly that this is a mistake by the characters, and paints Gandalf in a VERY bad light.
The need for haste in the light of Sauron's expanding strength and vision is ignored by the lazy hobbit and wizard.
They created their own problem with procrastination, even AFTER realizing they had the most powerful and dangerous artifact ever known to Middle Earth in their possession.

Galactically stupid decision there, and everyone can see it. It can't be explained away, and it lessens the stature of the heroes (a bad thing to do in an epic hero novel, by definition. 
Unless the heroes' fatal flaw is procrastination, which it isn't in LotR).

THAT'S just one example of the things me and KenM are referring to, Umbran.
If you'd like to respond, please address our point(s), or acknowledge them.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 10, 2004)

reap,

No I just didn't enjoy a movie where Michael Ironsides shows up out of the blue and saves everyone's ass. That along with killer bugs, a show with more teen flesh than most romance flicks, and the fact it was cheesy period. Same with Battlefield earth. I've never read any Heinlein or Hubbard.


----------



## blackshirt5 (Jan 10, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> reap,
> 
> No I just didn't enjoy a movie where Michael Ironsides shows up out of the blue and saves everyone's ass. That along with killer bugs, a show with more teen flesh than most romance flicks, and the fact it was cheesy period. Same with Battlefield earth. I've never read any Heinlein or Hubbard.



 Trust me, in not reading Battlefield Earth, you didn't miss much.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> No I just didn't enjoy a movie where Michael Ironsides shows up out of the blue and saves everyone's ass. That along with killer bugs, a show with more teen flesh than most romance flicks, and the fact it was cheesy period. Same with Battlefield earth. I've never read any Heinlein or Hubbard.



This "review" makes no sense.

What does Michael Ironsides "saving everyon'e ass" have to do with it?
There was no deus ex machina that I remember in the film. All troop movements were within the realm of believability, including *gasp* Michael Ironside's character.

And you went to see Starship Troopers, yet you list KILLER BUGS as a reason that it was a bad film? 
WTF?!
Didn't you WATCH the previews? Did you just stumble into the theater blind? The movie is a war movie, that happens to use humans vs giant killer bugs.
How'd you miss that?

And what the heck is "cheesy period"?

BTW: anyone who thinks Starship Troopers was a REALLY bad movie (with nothing to it) should revisit it again.
It, more than almost any movie I know, was misunderstood when it came out, and has subsequently gotten more respect every year, since the film is not a teen pro-war film, as it may seem on the surface to an unexamining eye.

The film is actually about how the populace can be manipulated into going to war for "patriotic" reasons, and the dangers of fascism. This is cloaked within a pretty-teen action film.
Many people, especially when it first came out, missed this.

Since then, most people who see the film are aware of its dual levels, and give it a big thumbs up.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Also, re: Powered Armor suits.

IIRC, they mocked up some suits, and very quickly realized they wouldn't work on screen.

A rule of filmmaking is "never cover up the actors faces. It gets in the way of emoting, and the audience loses sympathy/understanding of the characters."


----------



## buzzard (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> The film is actually about how the populace can be manipulated into going to war for "patriotic" reasons, and the dangers of fascism. This is cloaked within a pretty-teen action film.
> Many people, especially when it first came out, missed this.
> 
> Since then, most people who see the film are aware of its dual levels, and give it a big thumbs up.




Then there are those of us who knew all this and realize that this premise the directly contradictory to the premise of the nook, and dislike it for that. Call it Bug War, and I may have been able to stomach it (though probably not since it simply wasn't a good movie). 

Also I am not about to suffer through the movie again. It wasn't good the first time, and repetition won't add to it. I undertand the message. It didn't impress me. 

buzzard


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 10, 2004)

blackshirt5 said:
			
		

> Trust me, in not reading Battlefield Earth, you didn't miss much.



I'll take your word for it Blacky.

Reap,

Okay well yes I saw giant bugs but all they did was swarm. I guess I expect my bugs to act like Shelob. Sue me.   

I also agree with Buzzard. I've seen it twice...and twice I was like "Why did I do this to me?!!" Enough said.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

True, buzzard.
There are those people who so enjoy the book's themes, that they can't abide what Paul Verhoeven did with the film version.

They don't like the changes made from a WW2 era book, to update it with modern-day sensibilities (and with hindsight).

They don't like seeing the bugs as anything but a all-Evil Boogeyman, that exists to be destroyed/taken over.

They are the minority, though.

Most people who say the things that the other poster said are simply ignorant about the movie.
Nothing wrong with that, but saying the things he said about the movie sure doesn;t make him look like an intelligent reviewer of the subject.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 10, 2004)

All I said was I didn't like the movie. It has no bearing on the material presented in the actual book by Heinlein. If I feel a movie sucks, it sucks. I felt the life drain out me watching characters I'd much rather have shot myself than watched more of on the screen. I've had more depth in a window pane than I did from these performances.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> The film is actually about how the populace can be manipulated into going to war for "patriotic" reasons, and the dangers of fascism. This is cloaked within a pretty-teen action film.
> Many people, especially when it first came out, missed this.




That's pretty amazing, given how amazingly subtle Veerhoven's message was.  

It's a decent enough sci-fi movie with a load of silly and over the top anti-war propaganda in it, nothing more.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 10, 2004)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> That's pretty amazing, given how amazingly subtle Veerhoven's message was.
> 
> It's a decent enough sci-fi movie with a load of silly and over the top anti-war propaganda in it, nothing more.



Thank you. It wasn't even a decent movie in my opinion. I fell asleep about 2/3rd of the way through it. So I was like huh...and then shrugged and finished napping.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 10, 2004)

I just want to post to bolster my claim that the plot of the books is different to that of the films. There are other small alterations, but the driving idea behind the books it the battle over the possession of the Ring. A short summary would be this:

_Sauron wants to enslave Middle Earth, and needs it to be safe, and Gandalf wants it destroyed. Saruman, in awe of Sauron's power, "allies" with Mordor, but seeks to capture the Ring for himself and use it against Sauron. So when Pippin looks into the Palantir, Sauron thinks Saruman has betrayed him. And when Aragorn looks into it, Sauron fears that he has the Ring and will use it to overthrow him, so lauches his attack on Gondor as a pre-emptive strike. Denethor then goes mad when he sees Frodo has been captured in Cirith Ungol: and Sauron has the ring and is unstoppable._ The books is set around a drama over the possession of the Ring; and Frodo's journey and what's happening elsewhere are closely connected.

In the film this is lost; the whole chain of causation behind the books is altered. From the films, you'd think that Sauron wants to commit genocide, replacing men with orcs and everyone else just has to stop him. And all the stuff with the rest of the fellowship doesn't have much connection to Frodo and Sam's quest.

It's a different story. They're very good films, but I find watching them (particularly TTT and RotK) quite strange, because in terms of story the similarity between them is pretty superficial.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 10, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> In the story: ... the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.






			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yes it was. That's EXACTLY how the Ring is destroyed in the book. Frodo claims the Ring, puts it on, and Gollum attacks, biting off Frodo's finger and then falling into the Cracks of Doom.




No it wasn't. In the film - after losing his finger and the Ring, and Gollum's dance - Frodo fights with Gollum to remain the Ring, and Gollum falls while fighting, there is also a complicated "have they both gone in" action pic cliche used.

In the books the ultimate reason for Gollum's fall is left ambigous. I don't want to express a view on why what happened, and risk the thread being sidetracked; but arguments can be made for luck, providence, temptation, or the use of the power of the Ring on Gollum. In the film: the most obvious cause of Gollum's fall was because Frodo was tring to beat him senseless. I fell this is a little strange given the importance of the mercy shown to Gollum that the film took from Tolkien. What saved Middle Earth was Frodo's decision to smack Gollum around some; so much for pity and mercy.

nikolai.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

nikolai - you are concentrating on the minutia, and missing the point.

Your "summary" just 'happens to' bring up elements that were not in the theatrical releases of the movie.

Really - WHO CARES about the minutia of Tolkein's plot other than fanboys?
It's not essential to the plot what internal motivations Saruman had in joining Sauron. IIRC, it is ambiguous in the book, and presented similarly in the movie.
It is not essential the EXACT impulse that caused Sauron to start the attack on Gondor. It was well-known that he was ammassing an army to take out Gondor - how is it SO important that Aragorn looking thru the Palantir makes him pull the trigger to attack?

And the fact remains - Denethor went mad. How and why is just quibbling things (and will highly likely be covered in the EE).

nik - you are furthering the myopic picture of fanboys that people perceive.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> What saved Middle Earth was Frodo's decision to smack Gollum around some; so much for pity and mercy.



WHAT?!?

Dude, you have gone off the deep end here.

WHO CARES if the movie actually had the balls to SHOW SOMETHING in the scene where the ring is destroyed?
Would you ACTUALLY have rather the film NOT show the cause of Gollum falling off?

Do you realize how many millions of people would have RIGHTFULLY mocked PJ if he'd taken such a weenie way out of plot resolution and drama?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Now you still attempt to explain away the actions, without acknowledging either
> a) that the actions are mistakes, AND are silly to the reader.
> b) that you haven't been forthright in your explanations.
> 
> I'd like to clarify more, but I think you get my gist. That's all. No big deal.




a) I acknowledge that, in the light of hindsight, there may have been better courses of action than the ones taken in the text.  My explication of the course of events was merely to show that, without the light of hindsight, the actions could have seemed reasonable to the characters at the time.  Odd, isn't it, that Tolkien chose to create characters that aren't omniscient, so that they sometimes take sub-optimal paths?  

b) No big deal?  Funny, it seems from where I sit that you're calling me a liar or deciever.  In order to call me less than forthright, you'd have to have some information indicating that I intentionally left information out, with specific intent to decieve.  You don't have any such information, so stop with the (admittedly eriudite) name-calling.  Attack the information and logic I present, and leave your ill-founded guesses on my motives out of it, please.



> Galactically stupid decision there, and everyone can see it. It can't be explained away, and it lessens the stature of the heroes (a bad thing to do in an epic hero novel, by definition.




Everyone sees it, but only after the fact.  Gandalf is not Merlin, who lives backwards so that he can see what will result.  

As I recall the text, before Saruman turns on him, Gandalf has every reason to think that the plan will work swimmingly. And we have no reason to think otherwise, either.  If not for Saruman, Gandalf would have made the rendevous, and they would have tripped it off to Rivendell with the Ringwraiths nowhere in sight.  

Rarely is failure to see the treachery of an ally considered to paint a character "in a bad light", or lessen a character's stature.  Epic heroes frequently miss treachery - they wouldn't think of doing it themselves, so they tend not to see it in others.

And as for Frodo - at the time, he's not yet an epic hero.  He's pretty darned ignorant, and feels pretty small and unimportant, so his hesitation is easily understood.

And, let's pile on top of this the simple fact that tripping it off to Rivendell simply and easily would have been monumentally boring.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> It's not essential to the plot what internal motivations Saruman had in joining Sauron. IIRC, it is ambiguous in the book, and presented similarly in the movie.
> It is not essential the EXACT impulse that caused Sauron to start the attack on Gondor. It was well-known that he was ammassing an army to take out Gondor - how is it SO important that Aragorn looking thru the Palantir makes him pull the trigger to attack?




I may have gone off the deep end and be giving fanboys a bad name. After all no-one else seems to care much. I do think the plot and reasons why things happen are important. In the books it's critical, since it makes Sauron take his eye off Frodo and Sam. Without it I think, is this Lord of the Rings, or could he have filmed any of the many monster filled Tolkien clones, and have it turn out pretty much the same.


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Hmmmm....   we're close to caught up on this, Umbran, but one thing:
> KenM said this-then you said:Then I pointed out how you were omitted certain facts in your reply, instead solely concentrating on what you wanted to reply to. (In other words, you made an explanatory post that purposely covered only half the story, while ignoring the point: that there are problems with Tolkein's sequences.)




In your opinion theres a problem, I don't really think there is. Gandalf has at first only a few vague suspicions about the ring. Until that point as far as he knew the ruling ring had been lost. Saruman told him this, and at that point Saruman is not only considered a "good guy" but also the head of the White Council and also the top Istari in Middle Earth. It takes Gandalf years to finally verify that the Ring is in fact Sauron's ring. Can't really see many problems up to that point. Gandalf can't make himself learn about the ring any more quickly than he actually learns about it, thats just the way it panned out.




> Now you still attempt to explain away the actions, without acknowledging either
> a) that the actions are mistakes, AND are silly to the reader.
> b) that you haven't been forthright in your explanations.
> 
> ...





Again I don't have much of a problem with how its written in the book. Gandalf wants Frodo to pretty much disappear from the Shire without courting interest. That way the Ring can effectively be removed from Sauron's knowledge altogether. If Frodo had left with Gandalf immediatly then that would have almost certainly found its way back to Sauron and the whole point of trying to keep the Ring hidden would have been made moot. 

The reason that Gandalf's decision is made to seem extremely poor is because he doesn't a) suspect Saruman's treachery and b) because he was not expecting the nine to be so quick on the trail of the Ring. Those are two rather large spanners to be thrown in the works at the best of times  and Gandalf says that if he had realised that the danger was as great as it actually transpired that he *would* have left immediatly with Frodo. You also seem to be forgetting that Gandalf pretty much planned to stay with Frodo until he left. He leaves Frodo to check out some news on the borders regarding Gondor's war with Sauron and  also because he's heard a rumour about the Nazgul, from there he is directed to Isengard by Radagast ( again note that Gandalf says that depending on the news they might have to leave immediatly before he sets out). So its not as if he intended the Ring to be out of his sight for all that long, his imprisonment by Saruman is what makes everything go pearshaped, up until that point he has things in hand quite nicely.

 Gandalf's choices are not perfect but as he doesn't have flawless hindsight they wont be anyway. His simple plan of staying with Frodo for a few months to allow him to leave the Shire quietly goes wrong mainly because of Saruman's treachery which he doesn't foresee. To say that these actions are silly to the reader and are obvious mistakes is a little innane I think (If only because this a matter of subjection and not something you can speak in the declaritive about  but I'm sure you knew that anyway   ). They might seem silly because of what transpired but based on what Gandalf knew at the time they seem fine particularly as he never intended to be parted from Frodo for very long at all.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

Gentlemen - let's be certain we don't devolve into bickering here.  Disagreeing with an opinion is one thing; attacking the character of the person who holds that opinion is another.

Make sure we don't cross the line 

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> A rule of filmmaking is "never cover up the actors faces. It gets in the way of emoting, and the audience loses sympathy/understanding of the characters."




Meh.  I'd have had more sympathy for those characters if they'd been kicking ass in space marine armour.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 10, 2004)

HS,

I might agree..but even then the only way is if they all had Stephen Hawking's voice used for all of them.


----------



## buzzard (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> True, buzzard.
> There are those people who so enjoy the book's themes, that they can't abide what Paul Verhoeven did with the film version.



Then there are those who don't think it's a good movie by any measure, and even worse because it is associated with a good book. 



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> They don't like the changes made from a WW2 era book, to update it with modern-day sensibilities (and with hindsight).




The book was orginally published in 1959. That's 14 years after W.W. II. Try again. I am not  going to debate your impression of 'modern day sensibilites' because we would get into politics. Verhoeven evidently didn't like the book or anything about it. That's why he trashed it in the movie. 



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> They don't like seeing the bugs as anything but a all-Evil Boogeyman, that exists to be destroyed/taken over.




However in the book, the bugs were pretty much an all-evil boogeyman. In the movie, the government became that boogeyman instead. Not a hell of a difference in complexity if you ask me. 



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> They are the minority, though.




This is an unsupported assertion. Minority of who? What did you use to come to this conclusion? 



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Most people who say the things that the other poster said are simply ignorant about the movie.
> Nothing wrong with that, but saying the things he said about the movie sure doesn;t make him look like an intelligent reviewer of the subject.




People can dislike the movie because it was an unimpressive B-movie as well you know. You don't have to be a Heinlen fan to dislike it. Gussied up mini-14s shooting lots of blanks at fair-to-middling CGI combined with T&A does not a fine movie make. You might think Verhoeven is a genious for making an anti-fascist statement in a Sci-Fi flick, but it's hardly innovative or fresh. You like the movie, which is fine (this would have been a good one for Guilty Pleasures IMHO, just not one of mine). Just don't try to make that case that it has anything to do with the book, other than being a mockery. 

buzzard


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> a) The book was orginally published in 1959. That's 14 years after W.W. II. Try again.
> 
> b) This is an unsupported assertion. Minority of who? What did you use to come to this conclusion?
> 
> c) Just don't try to make that case that it has anything to do with the book, other than being a mockery.



a) Come on.
You know what a "WW2-era" description means.
It means that the backdrop is about a war that is fought for Good reasons against a truly despicable foe, with a loss meaning genocide.

To retort that the book happened to be published in 1959 is completely argumentative and ignoring the point.
Do you disagree that Starship Troopers is a "WW2-type" book?

b) I totally guessed.

c) Never did.

Do you guys understand that many other people are able to read a book, then see an adaptation that is DIFFERENT from the book, and still enjoy the influences on the film from the book?
Many people don't require a wrote-recreation of a book (even if it WAS filmable) to make them happy with a movie.

Hell, I think I could make a pretty good objective case that people who read books and don't like a movie becuase it's not exactly like the book are (at best) ineffecient and unrealistic in their expectations.

Here's how:
The people who like the book (most likely) are fans of the material and genre.
The movie is almost always in the same genre and uses a lot of the same material/backdrop.
Therefore, any person who likes the book should like the genre and material that the movie presents. That (IMO) is the majority of the way towards liking a movie.
The majority of films made do NOT have material or a genre that appeals to the average person (total guess).
Therefore, using the fact that a movie doesn't follow exactly by the book as reason for not liking a movie that matches the genre and material that the viewer enjoys, is inefficient and unrealistic.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Since then, most people who see the film are aware of its dual levels, and give it a big thumbs up.



...And some of us choose to ignore the filmmaker's political opinions and _still _give it a big thumbs up.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> Gandalf's choices are not perfect but as he doesn't have flawless hindsight they wont be anyway. His simple plan of staying with Frodo for a few months to allow him to leave the Shire quietly goes wrong mainly because of Saruman's treachery which he doesn't foresee.



This is a total copout, and doesn't convince me at all.

Handwaving Gandalf's mistake(s) by saying he wasn't 'omniscient' or 'perfect' ignores that he himself related to the reader the dire danger the One Ring represented.
Who did the reader hear the background of the Ring from?

Are we supposed to forget the sense of dread and danger that he instilled in us the previous chapter?
No.
That's why it's a MISTAKE.
A HUGE mistake, in both character actions AND storywriting.

I don't believe for an instant that a millenia-old character who is known for his Wisdom, who just spent years researching to make SURE that the Ring WAS The One Ring, a person who knew (firsthand?) the terrible nature and strength of Sauron.... I don't believe that Gandalf would make so collosal of blunder as underestimating Sauron's influence and power.

Fanboys can handwave the writing mistakes in the Trilogy, and say that it doesn't bother them, but that doesn't make it any less obvious to me (and others).
While I think it's objectively proveable, I know 2 things:
1) People are capable of believing the sun is blue if that's their opinion, regardless of proof to the contrary.
2) We're dealing with subjective enough subject matter here, that I would have to write a thesis paper, and research and annotate my proof(s) to make it clear enough that it could be called "objective proof", and it's not worth it to me.

BTW: another example, similarly handwaved and "not a problem" by fans of the book is the orcs killing each other at Cirith Ungal conveniently allowing Sam to waltz thru the heart of the enemy unobstructed, even after a warning had been set off.
I'm sure there are many other examples, that just are "not problems" to fans of the books, that other people find are obstacles in heaping praise on the original story.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> ...And some of us choose to ignore the filmmaker's political opinions and _still _give it a big thumbs up.



oh, absolutely.
I don't think ANY war movie with kick-ass giant bugs in it needs anything else (certainly not politics) to get a big thumbs-up from me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 10, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> a) Come on.
> You know what a "WW2-era" description means.
> It means that the backdrop is about a war that is fought for Good reasons against a truly despicable foe, with a loss meaning genocide.
> 
> ...




Wait - "WW2-type" has a very different meaning to "WW2-era".

When I read "WW2-era", I immediately assumed it was either written or set in the late 30s or early 40s.

"Era" refers to time, not theme.

-Hyp.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

thanks for pointing it out, Hyp.

In my eyes, though, in the context I wrote it, it's rather obvious that I'm intimating "WW2-type" book (especially since the previous sentence, I'd mentioned the book's THEMES).

"type" or "era", the discussion was (is) about Starship Troopers material being a statement about war. A very clean, easy-to-support war like WW2, where the enemy was an almost-cartoonishly Evil force.
I am not aware of many other wars that were as blatantly-clear in the mandate to oppose the enemy than in WW2. Similarly, a book that details a war between mankind and an alien race of bugs who's sole directive in the war is the extinction of man is equally blatantly-clear.

A movie that calls upon that "era" or "type" of war is what was being mentioned.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> In my eyes, though, in the context I wrote it, it's rather obvious that I'm intimating "WW2-type" book (especially since the previous sentence, I'd mentioned the book's THEMES).




Well, to be fair, in the sentence _in question_, you compared "WW2-era" to "modern-day".  Thinking that you were comparing 1940 to 2000 was a reasonable interpretation of the sentence, given that you used two temporally-inclined phrases.

It might be a nitpick that didn't advance the debate, but it was a fair one 

-Hyp.


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> This is a total copout, and doesn't convince me at all.
> 
> Handwaving Gandalf's mistake(s) by saying he wasn't 'omniscient' or 'perfect' ignores that he himself related to the reader the dire danger the One Ring represented.
> Who did the reader hear the background of the Ring from?
> ...




You seem to have totally ignored all the reasons I gave for why Gandalf did what he did and then launched into a rant on the matter. What specifically was Gandalf's mistake, he wanted Frodo to leave the Shire unnoticed to avoid news reaching Sauron (this is due to Gandalfs extreme paranoia regarding Sauron in case you did'nt twig), leaving quickly and in a dramatic fashion simply makes it all the easier for Sauron to trace the Ring so theres nothing really wrong with this. He then goes to investigate rumours which could affect their journey intending to only be away for a short time and gets captured in the process. There is nothing really wrong with Gandalf's plan, its only Saruman's defection that totally throws things out of order.

And its all very well saying that fanboys can wave away all the mistake but detractors can and often will try to make cite mistakes using the art of fitting square pegs into round holes. Personally as obnoxious as some of the Tolkien zealots are I don't have quite the same problem with them as I do with some of the Tolkien detractors who are just as blinded and often more purile partly because people who want to spend their time trying to tear things down rather than talking about things they like are generally like that IMO. They are often as blinded by their dislike of Tolkien as the fanboys are of their admiration for him.



> While I think it's objectively proveable, I know 2 things:
> 1) People are capable of believing the sun is blue if that's their opinion, regardless of proof to the contrary.
> 2) We're dealing with subjective enough subject matter here, that I would have to write a thesis paper, and research and annotate my proof(s) to make it clear enough that it could be called "objective proof", and it's not worth it to me.




If its so obvious then why doesn't everyone agree with you? Your not one of these tedious people who thinks that somehow his or her viewpoint is the only correct one I assume? Or is it just that the only people who don't agree with you are Tolkien fanboys


----------



## buzzard (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> a) Come on.
> You know what a "WW2-era" description means.
> It means that the backdrop is about a war that is fought for Good reasons against a truly despicable foe, with a loss meaning genocide.
> 
> ...




Oh, so I'm supposed to argue with what you think, rather than what your write. I see. So if I catch you in anything other factual inconsistencies, you were obviously thinking something else. BTW W.W. II is not the only defensible war in history or legend. 



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Do you guys understand that many other people are able to read a book, then see an adaptation that is DIFFERENT from the book, and still enjoy the influences on the film from the book?
> Many people don't require a wrote-recreation of a book (even if it WAS filmable) to make them happy with a movie.




Do you understand that maybe Starship Troopers was a lousy movie? Maybe it was so unrelated to the book that it shouldn't have had that name? How about it be called Starship Poopers, since it was just a joke anyway?



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Hell, I think I could make a pretty good objective case that people who read books and don't like a movie becuase it's not exactly like the book are (at best) ineffecient and unrealistic in their expectations.
> 
> Here's how:
> The people who like the book (most likely) are fans of the material and genre.
> ...




That argument made essentially no sense whatsoever. It is logically inane, and inconsistent. However, undoubtedly what you wrote isn't what you were thinking, so any counter arguments will be dismissed with appropriate handwaving. 

However I have never said the movie had to be eactly like the book. However I would like it to have something to do with the book other than mockery and some character names. Your little ramble does not even come close to adressing my concerns, or even bear on them in a tangential way. But then you were obviously thinking something else. Ahem. 

Let me sum up, enjoy the movie, you are entitled to your opinion. I still think the movie is crap, and an insult to the book. I'd think it was crap even if I hadn't read the book. 

buzzard


----------



## Endur (Jan 11, 2004)

All I want to say about Starship Troopers or Battlefield Earth is that I am so glad LOTR didn't turn out like them.   The books were ok, but the Battlefield Earth movie is unwatchable, and Starship Troopers was also bad (but not as bad as BE).   Those are good examples of a director deviating from a book and making a movie bad because of the deviations.  The lack of powered armor in Starship Troopers was a major change.  I understand the reasoning, but it was a major deviation from the book.

With regards to ROTK, Aragorn and Gondor were somewhat short-changed.  Aragorn didn't challenge Sauron through the Palantir, Aragorn didn't do anything with Anduril other than wave it around, we see hardly anything of Gondor besides Faramir + Denethor, etc.  Oh well, there just wasn't time for more.

The Scouring is an "odd ending" and including it changes the whole tone of the story.  I understand his choice to not include it.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 11, 2004)

Jeez,

You come on here, critize ONE lousy movie and people call you a heathen. Oh wait I do that anyway.   So I guess I deserved. Or maybe no.

Buzz, I agree with you about Starship Troopers being a lousy movie. Glad someone agrees with me.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> a) You seem to have totally ignored all the reasons I gave for why Gandalf did what he did and then launched into a rant on the matter.
> 
> b) If its so obvious then why doesn't everyone agree with you?



a) I didn't ignore them - they simply didn't convince me, and they didn't counter my stated reasons.

b) That's a big question.
But there are many reasons, not the least of which is human nature/psychology:
The more people read (and/or learn) something, the more their approach becomes similar to the material. They become more agreeable towards the subject, to justify their long exposure to it.
This is the basis of brainwashing, and a recognized psychological observation, AFAIK.

Further, most people that are fans of something prefer not to point out its flaws. I'm not talking about the internet - I'm talking about real people.
When people like something, they seldom talk about the parts they didn't like - they concentrate on the parts they did. This is human naure - to appear agreeable, and fun to be around. Conflict and disagreeableness are not virtues in human society (again, not talking about the internet).

It's usually people who DON'T like something that will talk about the flaws in a work.
Guess who reads these LotR threads?
People who LIKE the work, for the vast majority.

I even like LotR - quite a lot, actually.

This doesn't blind me to the things that don't work in it.
To me, something that can hold up to scrutiny INCREASES my respect for the work.
Which is why I started this thread here to debate what I perceive to be things that don't work in the book. I'd appreciate more input.
However, what you've mentioned here is not convincing at all, mainly because you haven't been addressing my points.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 11, 2004)

Endur said:
			
		

> With regards to ROTK, Aragorn and Gondor were somewhat short-changed.  Aragorn didn't challenge Sauron through the Palantir, Aragorn didn't do anything with Anduril other than wave it around, we see hardly anything of Gondor besides Faramir + Denethor, etc.  Oh well, there just wasn't time for more.




Aragorn's Challenge could be worthwhile, depending on how it's done. The part where Aragorn grabs the Palantir in the movie may have done, if they'd added him saying he felt Sauron or something. They never did Sauron's Side in anything, or that could have worked. (Image of Sauron "They have Isildur's heir!", but what image of Sauron?)
I think <that hobbit>'s grabbing of the Palantir worked fine, in the book is a bit more time and a different location, but no matter.

For Denethor's madness, I wonder how people that never knew anything about the book thought of it. We don't have a lot of Denethor's scenes, so it's perfectly logical that he's always nutty. 

I wanted more of the war from inside Minas Tirith. So much work for the sets and stuff, and then they show mostly the Field. I like teh field though 

Sam taking the tower would have worked better had they shown him using the ring. I think they wanted to avoid having it seem "easy" for him though. (resisting/ using the ring that is)

Faramir deserves more time in RotK, I can see Eowyn getting her time, I think her part was done enough. Faramir is mostly just a body getting carted around. A Weekend at Minas Tirith perhaps...


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 11, 2004)

I guess what doesn't work for me is reap going around being supercilious, denigrating others, and oh yeah if you hate ST you're an idiot. (Again I hate the MOVIE not the book. I haven't read the book.)


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> a) I didn't ignore them - they simply didn't convince me, and they didn't counter my stated reasons.
> 
> b) That's a big question.
> But there are many reasons, not the least of which is human nature/psychology:
> ...




LOL So in this case anyone who does not agree with you must be brainwashed?
Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk   Surely its more a case that people like to think that what they believe or like is somehow correct and will therefore go to extreme ends to justify their feelings towards something (which cuts both ways of course both for justification and criticism). You seem to be taking the view that somehow justification works on some sort of brainwashing syndrome but on the other hand refuse to belive that criticism, such as your own for example might also stem from an equally illogical or emotive standpoint. Critics can be equally as culpable as zealots when it comes to objectivity....



> Further, most people that are fans of something prefer not to point out its flaws. I'm not talking about the internet - I'm talking about real people.
> When people like something, they seldom talk about the parts they didn't like - they concentrate on the parts they did. This is human naure - to appear agreeable, and fun to be around. Conflict and disagreeableness are not virtues in human society (again, not talking about the internet).
> 
> It's usually people who DON'T like something that will talk about the flaws in a work.
> ...





Right so let me get this straight, you direct people to reviews posted by individuals who apparently really dislike Tolkien and say that his view mirrors your own as you said here.



> Here's a page that is pretty close to my (overall) opinion on LotR book (minus his 'state of fantasy writing' bit): http://www.theferrett.com/showarticle.php?Rant=69
> "But his writing also meanders. He spends a lot of time focusing in on things that better writers would discard. His plots are filled with side-trails that wind nowhere, just like real history, and interchanges that really don't matter much at all. But like a man with no editor, Tolkien regurgitates it all so that you can see it.




And then you say how much you like LoTR. I hope you'll forgive me if I take your "I like Tolkien and am just being objectional" line with a slight pinch of salt or rather whole mouthful to be honest


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

Salthanas - stop the straw man stuff.

I never said that anyone who likes Tolkein is brainwashed.
You asked, I went out of my way to make a fairly insightful (I thought) reply.
I rooted my answer in established psychological observations and techniques (i.e. the brainwashing comparison).

It's (at best) a digression and a dodge on your part to make it like I said that all Tolkein fans are brainwashed.

Similarly, I explained why I linked to theferret's rant: because he makes some salient points that I'd like to see countered, and because it's one of the only anti-lotr pages I could find. (In fact, the only one that used any references to the books or detailed anything).

Maybe you can't imagine how someone who can point out things that don't work in a book or movie, while still enjoying and respecting the overall work. But I can do that, and have my whole adult life, so please stay impersonal and stick within the debate, please.

BTW: your point about both fans and reviewers staying objective is well noted.
I strive at all times to try to stay objective - I wish others would return the consideration.

Speaking of which, Nightfall, your post has been Reported to the Moderators.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

> ... so please stay impersonal and stick within the debate, please.




That's good advice... for everyone.

Keep the atmosphere at least 'civil'; 'pleasant' would be even better.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

re: Starship Troopers

I have based my comments on observations about what was in the film.

All I've heard bad about the film boils down to "it wasn't like the book" "it's bad" "teens" "t&A" "bad performances".
Not too many solidly objective responses there, guys.

If you want to critique ST in an objective way, it might help to reference specific parts of the movie (as I have done with my critique of LotR).


----------



## Storminator (Jan 11, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> [SNIP]
> LotR has sold more than any book EVER, excepting only the Bible, and PJ has the nerve to try and improve on it?  I'm not saying it's perfect, but that's a bit arrogant, imo.
> 
> *Donning flame retardant suit now*




If you consider the trilogy as one film, it has out sold every film in history, including the Star Wars trio. And all three movies hit Internet Movie Data Base's top 10.

In short, it's a contender for the best film work in history.

PS


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Salthanas - stop the straw man stuff.
> 
> I never said that anyone who likes Tolkein is brainwashed.
> You asked, I went out of my way to make a fairly insightful (I thought) reply.
> ...




Sure  I can imagine works I like not being flawless, personally I havent yet read a book to date which I would think of as being perfect and I doubt I will do. I just generally try to dwell on the positives of the fiction I read than concentrating on the negatives.

What was exactly the purpose of spouting your particular views regarding psychological techniques, it was an answer after all in relation to why this obvious hole you see in the book was not universely agreed on. Rather than avoiding the obvious answer based on the general level of disagreement that maybe its not as clear cut as you imagine and that some people might not have the same problems with the said passage in the story as you do you went on to spout on about the general principles of brain washing techniques which as it amounted to your only explanation as to why, was as good as saying that anyone who thought otherwise was somehow deluded or not all their in the head


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 11, 2004)

Salthanas said:
			
		

> What was exactly the purpose of spouting your particular views regarding psychological techniques



Because I was answering your question.
If you'd prefer me to dodge your questions, like most people are exhibiting today, than I think I'll do that next time and save myself the time and insult of being deliberately misrepresented.

To wit:
You asked "if it's so obvious, than what explains other people not agreeing that it's a problem?"

I gave you multiple possibilities.
The fact that humans tend not to like pointing out bad things (appearing disagreeable), the tendency for people to start adopting the approach of things they have great familiarity with (the brainwashing comparison), and the tendency of people to fawn over things they have spent a lot of time/effort on.
I also pointed out how it's more likely that people who are reading this thread are fans of Tolkein, and not "haters".

So that was 4 applicable answers to your question.

I guess I should just dodge the questions, generate straw man arguments, or attack the person I'm talking to personally like other people have been doing today.


----------



## Orius (Jan 11, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, yeah, that's pretty close to how it was destroyed in the book. Frodo and Gollum fight, Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and begins dancing around in glee. Gollum loses his footing and falls into the volcano.




Yeah, but in the film, Frodo _pushes_ Gollum in and nearly falls in himself.  That's not how it happened in the book.  The book may have been less dramatic, but the reality was that Frodo failed, and the Ring was destroyed only because Gollum was careless.


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (Jan 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'll bring the Cheetos!




I'll bring the Mountain Dew


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 11, 2004)

Somehow managing to stay clear of the endlessly entertaining efforts of everyone to pretend they're not insulting each other, I thought I'd re-address nikolai's points on the topic of the thread.

But please don't let me stop the "you're brainwashed!" debate. 


			
				nikolai said:
			
		

> Sauron wants to enslave Middle Earth, and needs (the Ring) to be safe, and Gandalf wants it destroyed. Saruman, in awe of Sauron's power, "allies" with Mordor, but seeks to capture the Ring for himself and use it against Sauron. So when Pippin looks into the Palantir, Sauron thinks Saruman has betrayed him. And when Aragorn looks into it, Sauron fears that he has the Ring and will use it to overthrow him, so lauches his attack on Gondor as a pre-emptive strike. Denethor then goes mad when he sees Frodo has been captured in Cirith Ungol: and Sauron has the ring and is unstoppable.[/i] The books is set around a drama over the possession of the Ring; and Frodo's journey and what's happening elsewhere are closely connected.



One by one...


> Sauron wants to enslave Middle-Earth and needs the Ring to be safe



Perhaps you missed pretty much all of Cate Blanchett's opening monologue in _Fellowship_, or most of Ian McKellen's lines from the first half of that movie. It is made abundantly clear that Sauron seeks dominion over Middle-Earth and if he gets the Ring his victory is assured.


> Gandalf wants it destroyed.



I don't have to touch on this, do I? I can't believe anybody could watch these films and NOT get the impression that Gandalf wants the Ring destroyed.


> Saruman, in awe of Sauron's power, "allies" with Mordor, but seeks to capture the Ring for himself and use it against Sauron.



Again, if you were watching the same movie I was watching, this is exactly what's happening.


> So when Pippin looks into the Palantir, Sauron thinks Saruman has betrayed him. And when Aragorn looks into it, Sauron fears that he has the Ring and will use it to overthrow him, so lauches his attack on Gondor as a pre-emptive strike.



Now indeed we do here encounter a change. The narrative is changed. But first, in the book, we don't in fact know what Sauron's reaction to seeing Pippin was. Gandalf theorises, but we are never told what the truth may be. Therefore, your attempt to build a case for necessary causality is lacking -- because you're pretending that it's crucial that Sauron thinks Saruman has betrayed him. It's not, nor is it crucial that Sauron thinks Aragorn has the ring.

That is, it's not crucial to the PLOT. The plot is NOT what characters think or feel. It is only the line of the action of the story. The plot of the Lord of the Rings is the effort to destroy the One Ring. In the book, what's important to the plot is that Pippin looks into the palantir, as does Aragorn, and after that, Sauron launches his attack on Minas Tirith.

So what do we have in the movie? We have Pippin looking into the palantir, and subsequent to this (because of it, Gandalf theorises) Sauron launches his attack on Minas Tirith. The missing component to the narrative is Aragorn looking into the palantir. However the plot is maintained, and even causality is provided as Gandalf suggests that Sauron thinks Pippin is in fact the Ringbearer, and will therefore begin his attack speedily.


> Denethor then goes mad when he sees Frodo has been captured in Cirith Ungol: and Sauron has the ring and is unstoppable.



Denethor's madness has nothing to do with the plot of Lord of the Rings. It is an interesting part of the story, and has a great deal to do with Pippin's character arc (to say nothing of Faramir's), but it has nothing to do with the plot.

From a plot standpoint, Denethor can be dispensed with because he is no longer needed: the King is about to arrive and with Denethor gone there is no barrier to Aragorn assuming command. The mechanics of how he goes are immaterial to the plot.

You are in some cases indeed pointing out changes between the movie and the book. And you have every right to dislike those changes, or even to feel that you couldn't enjoy the story because of them. I have no argument with that.

I'm just pointing out that the plot from novel to movie is not DRAMATICALLY changed.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 11, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> Yeah, but in the film, Frodo pushes Gollum in and nearly falls in himself.



I did not in any way get this impression from the film. The two times I've seen it, what I see is: Frodo claims the Ring and puts it on. Gollum attacks and they fight, which fight ends when Gollum bites off Frodo's finger. Frodo lunges for Gollum, they struggle on the edge of the precipice and both fall. Frodo catches a lip of rock to avoid death while Gollum plunges to his doom.

I most certainly did not see Frodo push Gollum into the Cracks of Doom. He wanted the Ring back -- he would never have deliberately sent it to its destruction.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> So what do we have in the movie? We have Pippin looking into the palantir, and subsequent to this (because of it, Gandalf theorises) Sauron launches his attack on Minas Tirith. The missing component to the narrative is Aragorn looking into the palantir. However the plot is maintained, and even causality is provided as Gandalf suggests that Sauron thinks Pippin is in fact the Ringbearer, and will therefore begin his attack speedily.




From memory, isn't Merry the only one in the movie who actually suggests that Sauron thinks Pippin has the Ring?

-Hyp.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jan 11, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Really?  That's one scene I've seen referred to by numerous people as fantastic (although they were speaking from an audience point of view, rather than directorial or critical)... what did you dislike?





From a directorial point of view... we're talking about the craft of movie making...the scene with the "lighting of the beacons" starts out awesome but starts to get sloppy as it goes on.  Jackson on several occasions says he wants these films to be realistic [and I assume 'realistic' means that all things that happen are within the realm of possibility upon the setting: Middle-Earth]. Well, its not established that the beacons are magical at all. In fact, as an audience member, you come to believe that the beacons are lit by guards or 'caretakers'. These could be villagers or whomever that lives next to a beacon and sworn an oath to light it when the time comes. 

Heh heh....here comes the sloppy part [ mind you....this is so nit picky...but we're talking about the craft of movie making. And that sometimes involves taking everything apart...even the small stuff]: The last couple of beacons before the one Aragorn sees are so ridiculously out of reach from any sane human sentinel, guard, militia, villager, volunteer, fisherman, farmer, etc, etc. 

We made jokes about this afterwards. About Joe-Bob the villager, decades ago he promised to light the beacon at the summit of the snowy mountain should he see the other beacon on the other mountain lit. He said yes to that duty because the Steward gave him a tax break if he would. After so many years, he thought the day would never come. But it did. 

 "Damn them! Now I gotta climb all the way up that friggin mountain with a torch in my hand! Helga, where are my climbing pitons and rope?!? I gotta go climb that peak! Its gonna take me at least a two days to get up there so I gotta start now!"

I mean, did you see some of those peaks?!?! I wanna meet that guy who climbed up there to light it! Because he should've been in the Fellowship. Anyone that good at climbing up there that fast should've guided our heroes over Caradhras.  Or did he just simply live up there like a weird hermit all his life? What a crappy job! 

Anyways, the first 3 or 4 beacons were totally within reason and believability. But man, those last two before the one Aragorn saw were just plain silly! 

Music was awesome during this sequence though. And I must say, despite the nit pick I have with it, the scene is still dramatic. Does it ruin the film? Nah, not at all.....but its one of those things I wish Peter would've made sure that it was done better.



> Ooh... I'm up for that!




Hey, I love "Conan The Barbarian" too....but man can't live on bread alone. I got to have variety. 

I don't know about you guys, but when I sit down to draw fantasy genre art or sit down to write out my group's next adventure....I get into the mood by watching fantasy movies. I let 'em play on the tv in the background by my desk.

 Well, not much to choose from there eh? Before LotR The only good fantasy films post 1980 were *Conan The Barbarian*, *Excalibur* (does that count?), and *Dragonslayer* (although it was only half fantasy).

Weird things about movies like *Dragonslayer* and *Princess Bride* for instance....is that, are they considered totally fantasy? Because some parts of their setting are on Earth. I kinda call them "Historical Fantasy".

After those movies, I'd watch the crappier ones. Because I have no choice really. Like *Willow*, *Dragonheart*, *Kull*, and even the stupid Hallmark made-for-tv movies like* Merlin* .

Then you go to just Historical movies or movies that are fictional but take place in a real time period on Earth. Because...even though they aren't fantasy, they do have swords and stuff. So you watch *Braveheart*, *Gladiator*, *13th Warrior*, *Robin Hood Prince of Thieves* , etc, etc.

Then you're at the end of your list fast. So you settle for animation. May not be live action...but it extends the list. So you watch *Berserk* , *Heroic Legend of Arislan*, *Record of Lodoss War*.....and.....and....well, just those three really.

So you can see why I was sooooooo happy when the LotR trilogy came out!


----------



## Camarath (Jan 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That is, it's not crucial to the PLOT. The plot is NOT what characters think or feel. It is only the line of the action of the story.



 I disagree. I think that plot is more than just the line of the action taken in a story. I believe that what characters think and feel is very important for character development. Which in my opinion can be down right central to a book or movie's plot.


----------



## Salthanas (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Because I was answering your question.
> If you'd prefer me to dodge your questions, like most people are exhibiting today, than I think I'll do that next time and save myself the time and insult of being deliberately misrepresented.
> 
> To wit:
> ...




You are dodging the question totally. All your arguments centre around the basis that everyone who thinks different from you is wrong. Your reasons are

a) people are essentially brainwashed by the material
b) that people fawn over things they've put effort into

If those are your only thoughts then fine, more power to you  I'd direct you to the word irony however when you start talking about straw man arguments however if that really is your only explanation as to why anybody disagrees with you about LotR


----------



## Bob Aberton (Jan 11, 2004)

I'd just like to make a point about Aragorn challenging Sauron...

I think it actually did happen in the film, just not via the palantir.  Did anyone notice how, when the Armies of the West are getting ready to storm the Black Gates, the Eye falls on the Aragorn?

You see Aragorn looking into the Eye, and hear in the background "Aragorn....Elessar...."  Aragorn takes a few steps forward, like he's going to walk into the Black Gates, perhaps Sauron is trying to break his will?  The men in the Armies look afraid, probably thinking Aragorn is going to betray them.  Then he stops, turns around, says his thing, and the armies charge.

Perhaps that was Aragorn successfully resisting the will of Sauron right there?  If so, it's almost more dramatic than the palantir because he's looking directly into the Eye with no barrier between them...

Just some random thoughts.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jan 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> ...That is, it's not crucial to the PLOT. The plot is NOT what characters think or feel. It is only the line of the action of the story. The plot of the Lord of the Rings is the effort to destroy the One Ring...I'm just pointing out that the plot from novel to movie is not DRAMATICALLY changed.




You know, this comment finally cleared up for me why we seem to disagree on the importance of the changes. To me, the attraction of the novels is not the plot: it's the history, the grand sweep, and most of all, the characters. That's the true magic of the novels.

You're absolutely right. Boiled down to its most basic elements, PJ changed virtually nothing important in the plot. The Ring is in the hands of a hobbit. Said hobbit takes the Ring into Morder, which results in the destruction of the Ring and the fall of Sauron. Exactly the same in both versions of the story.

But for those (for example, me) who are more focused on the characters and the grand story of Middle-Earth (not just the Ring), the changes in the movies are sometimes jarring. Many of the changes I find completely incomprehensible because (IMO) they detract from so many of those very characters I fell in love with while reading the novels. 

Worse yet, many of the changes actually took up more time in the movies than the novels (for instance, in the novels, Aragorn never seems to die before the battle of Helm's Deep, only to miraculously appear just before the battle). I can more easily understand and excuse that changes were made because the movies could only be so long, but making changes which *add* time to the movies, leaving less time for Tolkien's version? These are some of the changes I most disagree with.

To summarize, I agree that PJ only changed the narrative, if by narrative we mean characters, specific scenes and motivations, and certain visual elements. But for me those very changes touch on some of the most compelling aspects of the novels, hence my vague disatisfaction with the movies, even while I enjoyed the many parts PJ did so well.

-----------------------------

PS - I won't bother using specific quotes, but to all posters who feel the need to use such terms as "fanboy", "purist", "extreme", etc., please desist. Such name-calling, besides being inaccurate, can be rude and inappropriate. I've gained some insight from reading the views of others in this thread who fundamentally disagree with me, and I hope a few have gained some from my own meanderings. But whether or no, showing respect for others' opinions - most especially those we disagree with - should not be optional.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jan 11, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.




I can understand powered armor not being included due to budget constraints, etc, but to say that _Starship Troopers _ the movie was true to the themes of Heinlein's original book...?  You clearly did not read the book at all.  One of the main themes in Heinlein's novel was that people were important, that the Mobile Infantry simply *could not* afford to lose troopers.  The Mobile Infantry lived by the 'never leave anyone behind' rule, and yet, in the movie the troopers do not hesitate to kill their own, and even *expect* other troopers to kill them!  Michael Ironsides' character practically demands that he be killed when his legs are bitten off at the end of the film, despite the fact that they are being airlifted out that very moment and that he *already* has cybernetic replacements for missing limbs!  The movie's theme that in the Mobile Infantry life is cheap runs diectly counter to Heinlein's novel.  This was my main problem with the film.  Buzzard was correct when he stated that the filmmakers were clearly not fans of the original novel.

Other elements I felt were poorly done in _Starship Troopers _ the movie:

1.)  Why is there an argument over whether the bugs are intelligent or not?  They are capable of calculating interstellar trajectories and launching asteroids at planets as weapons--OF COURSE they are intelligent!

2.)  Bad tactics.  The military in the movie makes bad tactical decisions at every single level.  Their primary attack is infantry, they don't support the infantry with artillery ever, and the infantry advance on an enemy in a circle while firing automatic weapons--the troopers would cut each other to ribbons in a heartbeat!

That said, I did purchase the DVD and I do occasionally pop it in simply for Phil Tippett's extraordinary creature work.  The movie has some of the best giant bugs ever commited to screen (which are also *extremely* different from the book's bugs--in the books they used their own weird alien tech and had their own spacecraft.)


----------



## KenM (Jan 11, 2004)

One of the main themes of ST was the way the human goverment was sturctured, how only people that served in the miliatary were allowed to vote, ect. That is what I meant. I have to pick up the DVD to watch the scene where ironsides character gets shot by his own men. I do agree with what you said about them debating the bugs' intellegence.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jan 11, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> One of the main themes of ST was the way the human goverment was sturctured, how only people that served in the miliatary were allowed to vote, ect. That is what I meant. I have to pick up the DVD to watch the scene where ironsides character gets shot by his own men. I do agree with what you said about them debating the bugs' intellegence.




The ideas and themes on gov't that Heinlein presented in his book are parodied and completely ridiculed in the movie.  

As far as the 'life is cheap' scenes that run contrary to the book go, watch for the bit when one trooper is being mauled by a flying bug.  Ironsides' character has a clear shot at either the bug , or the trooper, and he purposefully chooses to shoot the trooper dead.  He then turns to his platoon and says, "I would expect any one of you to do the same for me!"  

Folks who liked the book are completely justified in loathing the movie.  If it weren't for Phil Tippett's stellar work I certainly would.


----------



## Pants (Jan 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> All I've heard bad about the film boils down to "it wasn't like the book" "it's bad" "teens" "t&A" "bad performances".
> Not too many solidly objective responses there, guys.



 
Oh this is just funny...
If a movie has 'bad performances,' crappy dialogue, and an overall cheesy feeling to it, how can it NOT be objectionally bad? How much more objective can you get?  If a movie has some message or theme that is being delivered to me and wooden characters with poor acting spouting poor dialogue is how that theme is being delivered, then who cares about the theme.

Mind you, I haven't read the book.  Hell, I didn't know that there was book until a year or two ago, all I knew was that it was some crappy Sci-Fi movie.


----------



## D+1 (Jan 11, 2004)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> Valinor, or staying and fading into legend. Only someone who had read the novels could have understood the depths of their loss while watching the movies.



Which is why the movies simply omit the connection between the destruction of the ring and their fading from Middle Earth, thus not needing to get viewers to understand it.







> *The strength and endurance of the people of Gondor, as poignantly shown in the novels, was given very little attention in the movies - Denethor despaired because he fought Sauron for so long, not because he was just some raving madman.



In the books Denethor despaired because he was duped by Sauron, who controlled what he saw when using the palantir, into believing that there truly was no choice but to find a good way to die.  In the _movie_ Denethor despairs because he's fought Sauron for so long and believes there's no longer any way to win, it's just that the palantir isn't the instrument that brings him to believe it.







> What of Beregond, who faced the terrible choice of fighting his kinsmen to save Faramir from Denethor's madness?



A minor character who in the larger scheme of the story was unnecessary.







> *The hobbits also sacrificed, as we read in the Scouring of the Shire, yet that was completely cut from the movies. The whole sense that Frodo was permanently scarred by his ordeal was barely touched upon in the movies.



Did we see the same movies?  Did you miss the ENDLESS repetition of Frodos pained face, his looks at the ring, clutching it under his shirt, his outbursts at Sam, etc.?


> The movies did a credible job of showing Aragorn confronting the oathbreakers in the Paths of the Dead, but otherwise he didn't really come into his own until the confrontation before the Black Gate.



And thus largely a matter of timing only, and the timing and pacing of a movie is not the same as a book.







> The movies showed the fall of Boromir well, they completely messed up Faramir's character.



I wouldn't say "messed up", although they DID assign Faramir a different role in the story.  It's just that he then reinforces the corruptive power of the ring instead of highlighting the differences between himself and Boromir and Denethor.  Faramirs charge is then added to serve the purpose of demonstrating the gulf between he and Denethor.







> *Gandalf telling Aragorn to go with Theoden to Helm's Deep, because the King was "leading his people into a trap" and Aragorn must "save them". Aragorn, Gimli, and the elves from Lorien end up "saving" the Rohirrim.



This wasn't to show that nobody outside the Fellowship could do anything right, but to bring down the lofty, Awful Lawful Good, tone of the characters to something more flawed.  Essentially, making the character more believeable and palatable to a wider audience.







> *The hobbits "tricked" Treebeard into getting involved in the War. Huh? They started the ents thinking about Saruman's depradations, but only through their presence with Treebeard. The old ent was too wise to have fallen for anything so idiotic as what the movie showed.



Apples and oranges.  The book had the luxury of presenting Treebeard as a very patient, wise creature.  The movie does not have the luxury of being free with the time being spent in the seat.  While I agree that the decision could have, and should have, been made in the same way as the book your criticism here takes an aspect of Treebeards character that isn't ESTABLISHED in the movie and criticizes the film for being contrary to that aspect of character.







> *Pippin starting the fires to summon the Rohirrim to Gondor's aid. Why? Why couldn't PJ and company have left it the way it was in the novels, with Denethor ordering the fires lit? I suppose because they had made such a travesty of his character, it wouldn't have made sense. More likely, it seems part of the theme that only the Fellowship could do anything right.



No, just the first part.  On this one I agree with you that they could have and should have played it the same way as in the book, and it's a change largely necessitated by the shorter shrift that's given to Denethors character.







> I do agree that if one reduces the story to its most basic elements (weak little people take powerful artifact to volcano to destroy great evil), then the movies' changes were only cosmetic. If one, however, views the trilogy as more than just the story of the Fellowship, then a great deal was lost.



Good thing the movies don't attempt to present it that way then.  If they had then that criticism would have merit.  It IS presented essentially as just the story of the Fellowship, with most of the larger, subtler overtones of the book dealt with only superficially.







> This depth was lost in the movies.



Not "lost".  That implies that they tried to put it in there.  They didn't.  They largely just omitted it.







> No doubt, some of the changes were necessary due to the different medium (film vs. book), but many cannot be explained by this. While I don't claim to read minds, I can only conclude that PJ et. al. simply couldn't resist making changes they felt would improve the story told by the movies. And in doing so, a great deal of Tolkien's original story was lost.



You almost had it there.  It IS explained almost entirely by the differences in medium.   They changed the story BECAUSE a mass-market series of films has different requirements than a book and some of Tolkiens original story was OMITTED as unnecessary and even problematic.  Had Tolkien done the screenplay adaptation himself he would undoubtedly have taken many of the same axe blows to his own work.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 12, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

> I think that plot is more than just the line of the action taken in a story. I believe that what characters think and feel is very important for character development. Which in my opinion can be down right central to a book or movie's plot.



Well, you are using a definition of the word "plot" that is at odds with how that term is generally understood in literary criticism.



> *Plot* -- in narrative or dramatic works the sequence of events or episodes that link up to provide a sense of unified action.




You are combining a number of story elements, including the plot, and calling it all "the plot".

And that's fine with me. We can use whatever terms you like. Allow me to transform my argument so as to use your terminology.

It has been suggested that Peter Jackson made changes in his film adaptation of _The Lord of the Rings_ that represented a dramatic departure from the line of action taken in the story. I disagree and so far nobody has managed to come up with any examples to demonstrate such a dramatic change in the line of action.

The line of action in the story, and the general theme that arises from it, is in all important respects unchanged from the novel to the movie.

That there are changes that any of us may consider more or less significant, or that may interfere with our enjoyment of the picture, I consider self-evident and, being a subjective matter, not at all susceptible to objective assessment.

But the line of action taken in the story is not dramatically altered.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 12, 2004)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> But for those (for example, me) who are more focused on the characters and the grand story of Middle-Earth (not just the Ring), the changes in the movies are sometimes jarring. Many of the changes I find completely incomprehensible because (IMO) they detract from so many of those very characters I fell in love with while reading the novels.



Can anyone say, "Eowyn versus the Witch-King"?

Count me among those who found some of the changes jarring and unwelcome. Again, I'm not arguing that there weren't serious changes, nor that there weren't bad changes -- I'm just saying it's incorrect to say that the PLOT was changed.


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> I can more easily understand and excuse that changes were made because the movies could only be so long, but making changes which *add* time to the movies, leaving less time for Tolkien's version? These are some of the changes I most disagree with.



I'll only say, as a defense to film-makers, that changes are necessitated by more than just time constraints. A novel does not have the same need for ongoing and apparent tension that a film or a play has.

An audience that would happily read a sequence in which characters are not in immediate peril will not sit through a similar sequence on screen or stage. Defining "peril" fairly loosely but specifically as "threat to the successful resolution of needed goal". But the rules of story change from one medium to the next.

That doesn't justify bad choices, but it must be considered when assessing all choices.

And in conclusion I'll just say that every time the films got closer to the books, they got better. The best dialogue in the films is that which Tolkien wrote himself, and among the great disappointments of the films -- the absence of "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" and "Here is the Sword that Was Broken and if forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!" are perhaps the two most painful.


			
				Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> PS - I won't bother using specific quotes, but to all posters who feel the need to use such terms as "fanboy", "purist", "extreme", etc., please desist. (snip) But whether or no, showing respect for others' opinions - most especially those we disagree with - should not be optional.



*bows to Sir Whiskers*

To quote Will Shetterly:


			
				Will Shetterly said:
			
		

> It is always necessary to be honest. It is never necessary to be cruel.


----------



## Camarath (Jan 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Well, you are using a definition of the word "plot" that is at odds with how that term is generally understood in literary criticism.



 I do not believe I am doing so. You provided a definition of the word plot that said.


> Plot -- in narrative or dramatic works the sequence of events or episodes that link up to provide a sense of unified action.



 As I see it in a narrative or dramatic work the thoughts and feelings of the characters are  events and can link up to provide a sense of unified action albeit interal action. I see nothing in this definition of a plot (or others that I have seen) that limits the plot to external events.


----------



## Camarath (Jan 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> That there are changes that any of us may consider more or less significant, or that may interfere with our enjoyment of the picture, I consider self-evident and, being a subjective matter, not at all susceptible to objective assessment.
> 
> But the line of action taken in the story is not dramatically altered.



 I agree the basic line of action is the same in the books and the movies (i.e. nearly the same people do roughly the same things). But I think there is more to a work than the stripped down line of action. Two works can have almost the same line of action and end up very different even objectively. 

Also in my opinion the subjective experance that a work provokes is the most important quality of a work. I know this is a variable quality that is hard to analyze except on an individual basis. But this is the area in which I personally found the biggest differance between the books and the movies.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 12, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

> I agree the basic line of action is the same in the books and the movies (i.e. nearly the same people do roughly the same things). But I think there is more to a work than the stripped down line of action.



I never said there wasn't. But I'm glad we agree.


----------



## Orius (Jan 12, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> 4) Merry & Pippin are lawless bullies.




I think you have them confused with the ruffians.

Besides, the Tooks and Brandybucks are about the closest thing to  a nobility the Hobbits had.  After all the fighting they did to save the world, they're not going to take crap from a bunch of low-lifes who are getting their jollies by kicking around Hobbits.
  And besides, as Pippin says, as a knight of Gondor, he is more or less a representative of the king.  They're more like Federal marshals coming into a Wild West town to clean out bandits or something.  



> I do think they made a point of Frodo's morgul blade injury, but don't recall seeing anything that wuld be Shelob's bite. (though, not sure why that should leave a yearly pain)




Because there's a supernatural element to it, thing of Shelob as sort of a half-fiend huge monstrous spider or something.


----------



## Orius (Jan 12, 2004)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I mean, what else are we gonna watch?  Conan The Barbarian for the 239th time?




I know I've passed that mark.  And quite a while ago too.


----------



## Orius (Jan 12, 2004)

Endur said:
			
		

> The Scouring is an "odd ending" and including it changes the whole tone of the story.  I understand his choice to not include it.




Not to mention it would totally screw up the pace.  When I went to see it, there were a lot of people who seemed to be getting up to leave after the Ring was destroyed before the Grey Havens, they thought that's where it would end at some of the scenes in between.  Movies typically end right after the climax.  But the book takes *six whole chapters* to reach the end after the climax.  There was a lot of stuff cut out from those six chapters, and it was still a long resolution for a movie.  The Scouring was a reflection of Tolkien's feeling on how industrialization had crept up on the countryside where he was raised.  Some purists would compain that PJ left out something that was obviously near and dear to Tolkein's heart, but it just wouldn't work in a movie, the ending would take an hour to wrap things up.


----------



## Orius (Jan 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Can anyone say, "Eowyn versus the Witch-King"?
> 
> Count me among those who found some of the changes jarring and unwelcome. Again, I'm not arguing that there weren't serious changes, nor that there weren't bad changes -- I'm just saying it's incorrect to say that the PLOT was changed.




Exactly.  The story itself was more or less recognizable, most of the changes are minor details.  Some of those details are jarring, because I don't see how the change improved the story.  Other changes, I can accept because of the _intent_ behind it -- the Elves at Helm's Deep is a prime example of this.  A major theme unlying LotR is that the Enemy seeks to sow division among the races.  Having the Elves at Helms Deep in the movie show the importance of unity.  Yes, I know Lorien was too busy fighting its own battle in the book, but the moral behind that change I think is more important than keeping the original plot.



> And in conclusion I'll just say that every time the films got closer to the books, they got better. The best dialogue in the films is that which Tolkien wrote himself, and among the great disappointments of the films -- the absence of "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" and "Here is the Sword that Was Broken and if forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!" are perhaps the two most painful.




I agree, the dialogue is great when taking directly or almost directly from the books.  Even dialogue that isn't in the book, but has the same style Tolkien used works.  But stuff that PJ, Fran, or Phillipa clearly put in that doesn't mesh sticks out like a sore thumb.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 12, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.




Umm, what? Did you ever read ST? Because the movie may have done many things, but it most certainly didn't capture the theme or spirit of the book.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 12, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> Yeah, but in the film, Frodo _pushes_ Gollum in and nearly falls in himself.  That's not how it happened in the book.  The book may have been less dramatic, but the reality was that Frodo failed, and the Ring was destroyed only because Gollum was careless.




Frodo failed in the movie as well, since he was struggling to keep the Ring for himself rather than destroy it. Whether Gollum slipped in due to his dancing, or due to struggling with Frodo is of minor importance. Gollum was still instrumental to the destruction of the Ring, and Frodo still failed.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 12, 2004)

i watched Ronin last night and missed GI Jane, but i realized just what sorry actors they recruited for the LotR.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 12, 2004)

barsoomcore,

I feel our disagreement basically boils down to you not feeling I'm using the word "plot" correctly. I think I am, but I appreciate this sort of disagreement is very difficult to resolve in this sort of forum. What I mean by the plot is the scheme or plan behind a book/play/film. I think that includes internal causality; how earlier events cause later events and the links between them. I think you feel plot is limited to which events happen and it what order. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turned out that the word had been used to cover both senses in different places.

My shortened plot summary wasn't intended as an listing of differences between the movies and books. It was meant to illustrate how the drama around the possession of the Ring drives the books, but is lost in the films.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 12, 2004)

Thank you PANTS!!


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 12, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I feel our disagreement basically boils down to you not feeling I'm using the word "plot" correctly.



Fair enough. I'm more interested in the ideas rather than demanding everyone use my terminology. Let us drop the word, since we seem to have come up with more specific (is somewhat more ponderous) terms to explain what we mean.

We can agree to disagree on usage of the word "plot", I think.  


			
				nikolai said:
			
		

> What I mean by the plot is the scheme or plan behind a book/play/film. I think that includes internal causality; how earlier events cause later events and the links between them. (snip) My shortened plot summary (snip) was meant to illustrate how the drama around the possession of the Ring drives the books, but is lost in the films.



I agree that the chain of causality is changed from the novels to the movie. I am not convinced that the "drama around the possession of the Ring" does not drive the films, however. Your examples so far only show that said drama unfolds in a slightly different manner, but the story I saw is still most definitely driven by the drama around the possession of the Ring.


----------



## Pants (Jan 12, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Thank you PANTS!!



No problemo


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 12, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> No problemo



Yeah well it is still appreciated.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 13, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> I think you have them confused with the ruffians.
> 
> Besides, the Tooks and Brandybucks are about the closest thing to  a nobility the Hobbits had.  After all the fighting they did to save the world, they're not going to take crap from a bunch of low-lifes who are getting their jollies by kicking around Hobbits.
> And besides, as Pippin says, as a knight of Gondor, he is more or less a representative of the king.  They're more like Federal marshals coming into a Wild West town to clean out bandits or something.



What I was refering to was at the start, they find the gate locked at night, and are told it's the new law or whatever. They then enter anyway, and scare off the other hobbits. They completely walk over the hobbit sherifs with an air of superiority, as now Hobbit Law means nothing to them.





> Because there's a supernatural element to it, thing of Shelob as sort of a half-fiend huge monstrous spider or something.



I can see it, but I think the morgul blade and the whole "Frodo of the Nine Fingers" stuff was enough.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 13, 2004)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I think the morgul blade and the whole "Frodo of the Nine Fingers" stuff was enough.



Presumably, so did Frodo.


----------



## Camarath (Jan 13, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's like Harold Bloom says about _Hamlet_: interpretations of the work do not in any way limit the work. They merely reveal the limitations of the interpreter.



 I hope you don't mind me pulling this quote from the A Critique of the LotR BOOKS thread. I thought it was a very good quote and might perhapse help me better illustrate the what is in my opinion the difference between the books and the movies. I have seen quite a few versions of Hamlet some of which I thought were good and some I thought were bad. What makes a particular versions of Hamlet either good or bad usally has little to do with how the version changed the story but much to do with how the story is presented. I feel that the presentation of the story was very different in the books and in the movies. I personally would have preferred that the movies had strayed farther from the story of the book if they had stayed closer to the presentation and feel of the books.


----------

