A Serious Literary Discussion (464 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.3 on 30 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by frankthebear (View user info) at 2008-03-27 01:23:18 EDT
Ok gang, we all fancy ourselves (mostly) serious writers, so in that context, I have something I want to get off my chest that's been bothering me for quite some time. I am referring to, of course, the Lord of the Rings franchise.
Now it's no secret that I'm a HUGE LotR junkie, and I've lost count of how many times I've read the book, so I feel it's safe to describe myself a Tolkien purist. Now as a Tolkien purist, I have a beef with Peter Jackson and his cinematic depiction of the story I love so very much. Let me explain.
I was first introduced to LotR when I was only a child and we had Ralph Bakshi's "Lord Of The Rings" animated feature on laser disk (yes, we had a laser disk player, and it sucked malignant monkey balls). We also had "The Hobbit," and "The Return Of The King" animated movies produced by Rankin & Bass (the sadists responsible for all those corny Christmas shows like Frosty and Rudolph). I loved these movies and I watched them all the time, so much so that, when we finally got our first VCR, my mother copied all three movies onto one tape, which was fine except for all the skips from the laser disk player.
So I had this tape literally all my life, and I would watch it from time to time, loving every minute of it, but for all that, I never picked up one of the books until I was 12. But I wasn't really into reading as much then as I am now, so I only got as far as half-way through "Two Towers." I just wasn't ready for it yet. I never read the whole story through until I was 21, in the summer of 2000, when I heard there was going to be a live action adaptation to be released the next year.
And so there I was, waiting in line to see the culmination of my life-long love affair with Rings. And I won't lie, I was blown away by the special effects, the music, the casting (Viggo Mortinson was THE perfect Aragorn) but when I left the theater three hours later, something was bothering me.
For someone who claims to love and respect Rings as Peter Jackson claims he does, ol' Pete seems to have no notion of the importance of the character development, or the sub-plots in Tolkien's opus. All the major events from the book did indeed take place in the movie, but all the details leading up to those events had been skewed or completely changed. Again, let me explain.
In the book, Frodo is a fighter, pure and simple. When Frodo is stabbed on Weathertop by the Witch King, Frodo bears the sliver of the knife in his shoulder for fourteen days, and until the very end, Frodo is fighting the influence of the slivers poison and the darkness that was trying to take him over. In the movie, Frodo just goes all to pieces, there's no other way to describe it. All he does is wheeze, whine, and flop around like a wet rag.
In the book, Aragorn is eager to go on the quest so he can help destroy the Ring and restore the grace of Numenor by undoing the mistake his ancestor, Isildur, made by keeping the Ring. Aragorn is also eager to become king because, when he was younger, Elrond told him flat out that he would never give the hand of his daughter, Arwen, to anyone who was not king. But in the movie, for some unexplained reason, Aragorn is reluctant to go on the quest or to take up his destiny as king.
But the most unforgivable sin on Peter Jackson's part is how he handles Sam. In the book, Sam is the un-official hero of the whole story, and Frodo never goes anywhere without Sam by his side looking after him and helping him along in any way he could. In the movie, Sam is down-played to the point that he's a only a secondary character, even to the extreme that Frodo sends him away for a while.
In all the major scenes where Sam is supposed to be present and involved, he's off somewhere doing something else, usually sleeping! Like when Frodo is looking into the mirror of Galadriel, Sam was supposed to be there, because he was supposed to see a vision of Frodo apparently dead, which was foreshadowing their fight with Shelob later on. Or when Faramir takes Frodo to see Gollum swimming in the falls of Henneth Annun, Sam was supposed to be there, but once again, he was asleep at the switch.
And that's not to mention all the other things that were glossed over or just plain dropped from the story to make room for all the crap Jackson and the other writers made up. Tolkien would have been pissed to see how badly his work was bastardized by these nimrods. Of course being a LotR fan, I do have the special extended cut DVD set, but I rarely watch them because I just get so caught up in the screw-ups. "That never happened!" or "That's not how that was supposed to happen!" are only a few of the things I usually yell at my tv.
Now if I had my way, and the money and resources, I'd produce a literal adaptation of the book in a series of short films that covered the entire book chapter by chapter. We have the tools, we have the technology, we have the know-how that discouraged so many other film makers in the past from attempting to turn the story into a movie.
So what do you think? Am I just nit-picking, or am I not alone in thinking a whole new set of movies should be made? Do you have any gripes of your own to add? Let's open the floor here and let it all out.
User Reviews
Submitted by kuroneko_sama (user info) at 2008-04-01 22:22:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i was happy with them, i took it for what it was, expected some creative liberty
... didnt expect the broken sword to travel in such a way
i love dave barry's abridged version of the movies
....and now i cant wait for smaug at imax
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2008-03-27 13:20:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jackson's cuts were for the most part necessary You can't condense over a thousand pages easily into 9 hours of movie...this rant is misguided.
I was mostly disappointed with the second movie and how it wildly diverged from the plots of the books. That, and the army of the dead being used as a literal deus-ex-machina army that swallowed up Elephants at the end of the 3rd movie. Other than that, I thought everything was spot on.
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2008-03-27 12:28:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
jesus christ almighty im a fan of the books as well but no one wants to go to a 50 hour movie. Compression of the story has to happen.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2008-03-27 12:25:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
frank, you're a giant dork.
sorry, but that's just the way it is.
either way, you just keep being you, fella
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2008-03-27 12:02:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It wasn't untill my twenties that I realised I was terrified of everything, before then I just thought I was lazy and anti-social. Every night I pray to Jesus and thank Him for making me terrible at running.
Submitted by dithered (user info) at 2008-03-27 10:35:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is nothing serious nor literary about LOTR.
Submitted by DudeThatsBOSH (user info) at 2008-03-27 10:32:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the books are always better.. lotr is just one example of countless others.
Submitted by Yozz (user info) at 2008-03-27 10:08:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"I've seen that movie too" -Elton John
Submitted by Tarka (user info) at 2008-03-27 08:54:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is a stupid rant.
My reason being that there should never be a movie that is an adaptation of a book. They always turn out sucking the donkeys balls. For good reason.
Damnit I hate these movie-from-book bad sayers.
Why the hell do you want a movie of the book? Is it because you fell out a tree?
Sit in the corner!
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2008-03-27 07:32:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Aragorn is also reluctant in the books to become the King - there are numerous references, oblique or otherwise, by Gandalf, Elrond etc, where they discuss whether Aragorn will take up the challenge to claim his birthright. He fears the inherent weakness of men, as displayed by his ancestors, and wrestles his thoughts regarding which path he should take - that of a ranger/wanderer, or that of a king.
Did you even read the books, or just LARP around?
It's entirely possible that the below reviewer was somewhat correct regarding the provision of sexual services to goats.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2008-03-27 07:02:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by F.J.Bell (user info) at 2008-03-27 06:37:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, the guys are work are going to have a field day with this.
-- Homer Simpson
The Call of the Simpsons
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-03-27 06:30:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nerd Boy,
I do not understand your crazy talk and it all sounds a bit gay but I like your passion.
Love You.
Submitted by frankthebear (user info) at 2008-03-27 05:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh what a surprise, woolfe has to take the time to write something nasty about someone
let's see you post something, cock
Submitted by woolfe (user info) at 2008-03-27 05:37:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I believe this post is clear evidence of what can happen when you blow one goat too many...
Submitted by frankthebear (user info) at 2008-03-27 03:46:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I'm a geek, we've been over this before dammit!
Submitted by Registered_S_O (user info) at 2008-03-27 03:32:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nerds, the whole lot of you.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2008-03-27 03:06:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well, the issue with faramir was that despite appearances, he was actually the 'stronger' brother of the two. boromir, the feted and much-loved heroic older brother falters and fails, whereas faramir, the great disappointment to his father is actually the hero of the two, and makes the right decision in helping frodo, rather than succumbing to temptation when frodo actually offers him the ring freely.
Submitted by frankthebear (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:58:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:32:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the only thing i personally would have done differently was the weakness portrayed in the faramir character. i think that was done poorly, and to do it in a way that was closer to the actual story would have - i think - produced a negligible difference in the film production.
----------------------------------------------------
An excellent point. The whole point of Faramir's character was that in him was the blood of Numenor, so he was of a higher type than most normal men. In the book the Ring had absolutely no effect on him whatsoever, that's why the dream (that Boromir spoke of in the council) came to Faramir several times first, then to Boromir once.
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:36:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by frankthebear (user info) at 2008-03-26 23:20:52 PDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:05:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Frodo was never a fighter, even in the books. I'm not sure where you came up with that from. He thought it was all a grand time until the Ringwraiths showed up at the 2nd house he had purchased to go along with his hidden identity.
-----------------------------------------------------
On the contrary. In the book, Frodo actually uses his sword for mora than scratching his ass. When the Fellowship are attacked by orcs in Balin's tomb, Frodo does his part in the fight, in the movie, he runs away and gets fucked up by the troll.
As for the trip to Rivendell, Frodo does his best to put on a brave face and not worry his friends. There's more than one type of fighting. Frodo had a fighters WILL, which he used to keep the sliver from overpowering him. That's what I really meant.
==========================
Alright, I can agree with you on that.
Incidentally, I'm looking forward to seeing what they do for the Hobbit as far as depicting Smaug.
very detailed nitpicker's guide to the movies http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr/
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:32:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
tolkien had around 1200 pages (in the awesome hardcover version my mother gave me when i was 9) to work with to develop character, plot etc.
try reading that in 9 hours.
you cant have all that in there, and the selections were in place for very good reasons - even the beefing up of arwen as some sort of ultimate badass: because little girls need role-models too, which is a perfectly good reason to alter what is otherwise largely (as far as that particular text is concerned) an entirely extraneous character.
the only thing i personally would have done differently was the weakness portrayed in the faramir character. i think that was done poorly, and to do it in a way that was closer to the actual story would have - i think - produced a negligible difference in the film production.
Submitted by frankthebear (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:20:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:05:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Frodo was never a fighter, even in the books. I'm not sure where you came up with that from. He thought it was all a grand time until the Ringwraiths showed up at the 2nd house he had purchased to go along with his hidden identity.
-----------------------------------------------------
On the contrary. In the book, Frodo actually uses his sword for mora than scratching his ass. When the Fellowship are attacked by orcs in Balin's tomb, Frodo does his part in the fight, in the movie, he runs away and gets fucked up by the troll.
As for the trip to Rivendell, Frodo does his best to put on a brave face and not worry his friends. There's more than one type of fighting. Frodo had a fighters WILL, which he used to keep the sliver from overpowering him. That's what I really meant.
Submitted by DonovanMD (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:06:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-03-27 01:34:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bombadil
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2008-03-27 02:05:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
while Peter Jackson cut out quite a bit of material, his choices on what to take out were well thought out. Those old animated films were a part of my childhood, but were a massacre of the books in ways that Peter Jackson's adaptation couldn't even begin to match.
Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Wights, etc. These things were interesting and were shadows of other tales told in The Silmarillion. (I have a 1st edition hardback of that, 1976) They could be left out without harming the flow of the overall movie.
I agree they downplayed Sam some. They made Merry and Pippin into more clowns than the books had them as. They were the more serious ones, living closer to the borders and the old forest. Frodo was never a fighter, even in the books. I'm not sure where you came up with that from. He thought it was all a grand time until the Ringwraiths showed up at the 2nd house he had purchased to go along with his hidden identity.
I think the worst thing they do is play up the romance angle with Arwen. They had her inserted all over the fucking movies and playing bit parts just to be able to show Liv Tyler's tits off.
Submitted by Registered_S_O (user info) at 2008-03-27 01:56:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You are a big mother fucking nerd. A gigantic one. But so am I, considering I am writing my own series of books on fantasy.
Anyways, I don't know enough about the LOTR to concur or not. I'll take your word for it. But Sam Gamgee in the movies seemed to me exactly as he was in the books. Granted, I only read the books twice, the last being a couple years before the first movie came out, but still, he seems close to what Tolkien created.
Maybe if they bastardize Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series coming out in miniseries format this fall (which is much better then playing it on film) can I contribute to a discussion such as this.
My apologies to anyone who read my review and want their 45 seconds of life back. Fuckers.
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2008-03-27 01:44:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I never read the books, but the movies were great. Did you ever see Peter Jackson's earlier work, "Dead Alive?" That movie is funny as hell. Peter Jackson kicks ass.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-03-27 01:37:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.woot.com
woot off.
Submitted by Falafel (user info) at 2008-03-27 01:34:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I found out my university's English Dept is making a course on Tolkien next year. I shit building supplies.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-03-27 01:34:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bombadil
And what's with all these good posts all of a sudden?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-27 01:32:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Books are books, movies are movies.
There are some things the imagination will do far better than any film will ever come close to creating - and some films will create images and inspire emotions you never thought possible.
I thought the books were great - I thought the movies kicked ass.
Wanna read a good fantasy series - pick up the Belgariad by David Eddings. The rest of his books are just recreations of the theme, but those first 5 books are pure fucking gold.
ya nerd.