Slashdot Mirror
Nit-Pickers Guide to Deviations in Jackson's LotR
bcolflesh submits "A lengthy list of deviations to be found when comparing the text of The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien and the translation of those texts to film as undertaken by Peter Jackson, et.al."
This is great work, but you could make this article much shorter in one easy step:
1) Peter Jackson's work is a movie, not a book.
Done.
I can't think of a perfect translation from book to movie or video game to movie etc. Give Jackson some credit, he came pretty damn close to perfection.
Worst translations ever is still mortal kombat2 and double dragon the movie. LOTR could have ended up that bad, thank god it didn't.
The films were excellent. They were the best I've ever seen combine live action, 2D compositing, 3D rendering and absolutely fantastic special effects. And the army scenes. Wow!
:-)
In fact I think the LotR trilogy adhered more to the books on which they're based than any other film I can care to mention, but not for a moment in the cinema did I think to myself "ah, they've left a bit out there". I was too caught up in the story, and that's what I go to the cinema for. I'm not a professional critic... (Grin: I'm just very critical
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Who cares? Name me a movie that really does follow a text adaptation tried and true? It's nearly impossible because most great books are rarely good screenplays automatically.
Gandalf first grabs Sam by the shoulders outside the window of Bag End and scolds him, then he carefully lifts him through the window (FOTR p.97-98). Jackson has Gandalf pull Sam quickly through the window and onto a table. Unnecessary and poorly handled. Why did Gandalf need to treat poor Sam so violently? It was also an obvious stuffed dummy prop.
I think because this is a movie, and we need to quickly show that this is a very serious matter that Gandalf is talking about. Plus it gives more punch to the '...and something about the end of the world.' line.
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
Lets face it the LOTR troligoy is possibly the best ever book to movie rendition. The differences are minimal and forgivable (with the exception of not having the hobbits fight for the shire when they return at the end of the book). I doubt anyone can suggest a book turned into movie that was successful and followed so closely to the book.
I have to agree with the author of the article in wishing that Jackson has spent as much time and attention to detail on the story as he did on the visuals. Yes, yes, I know there had to be omissions and none of those bothered me -- it was the changes to the story that I found disappointing and completely unnecessary
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Is a dissection always necessary? The films aren't verbatim renditions of the books and I don't think there are too many people that would have wanted them so. I for one am glad that some things were dropped (eg, Tom Bombadil) and that other things were added.
Quite frankly, the LOTR trilogy is perhaps the best fantasy/sci-fi book to film adaptation of all time. I mean, you only have to look at how Hollywood managed to screw up Dune to see how bad it can get: nobody who hasn't already read the book has a chance of following what's going on and why because the film leaves out vital chunks of the storyline. (Yes, I know about the history behind the making of that film. Let's not go into that here please.)
In contrast, Peter Jackson's adaptation left out few things that anyone but a die-hard fan would call vital. Where he did cull the story was where it was needed if the story was to translate onto the silver screen successfully. And when he did cull, he culled gently.
Remember, the Extended Editions contain a lot of extra scenes and footage and flesh out the story further, but even then they aren't everything Tolkien wrote; if they had been then the films would have lasted five to six hours minimum, at which point they become more tour de force and less entertainment.
As I said, Jackson's trilogy is fantastic. Personally, I'd like to thank him for giving a literary classic the respectful treatment it deserves.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Why bother?
1 - As has been posted, there are books, and there are movies. They aren't the same.
2 - You really don't want a faithful movie version of the book you love. I've read through The Hobbit and LotR books many times. Re-read them every couple of years, love them, think of them as old friends. Peter Jackson's movies were something new and something I, and many fans, enjoyed.
I'll contrast those movies with the Harry Potter movies, which are about as faithful an adaptation as could be made. And they are as boring and stiff as could be. 'Oh look...it's everything I've read in the book up on a big screen...just as I read it...yawn.'
I'd compare it to making a radio play or audio book version. You can be faithful to the original to the extreme, and end up with a recording of someone reading the book. Or you can do some adapting and interpreting for a new format an up with something that isn't 100% of the original, but brings something new, and hopefully entertaining, to the table.
Yeah, but they'd probably use it as an excuse to show another round of trailers (which i dont mind so much, but definitly not in the middle) and ads. I really hate paying $9 for the movie and then having to sit through 5 minutes of tv comercials on the big screen.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
There is no room to remake it.
Jackson's adaptation was brilliant. A literal book as script version would go over like anthrax. Yes, I understand he was a linguist, and that he wanted to return some of the gaelic mythos that was lost due to forced civilization by the romans, and conquest by the normen. But the OOooh the singing, the descriptions of many of the battles, and the I'm tired of writing about this I don't know how exactly I'm getting out of it, so we'll just abrubtly move on, and the other quirks....
FRODO: Wow that the most exciting thing ever. But it's night time, I must have my rest.
He sleeps, immediatly snoring obnoxiously.
Thematically The Lord of the Rings is beyond brilliant. The subtleness of the role of Providence.... The plot. So many things. And even his aims and his ability to meet them.
But it does have it's failings. It's not for everyone as is. Sorry, it's just not. But Peter Jackson's version, very true to the original even in form but especially in spirit. JRRT got his wish. That tradition and mythos he wanted to get back, to popularize for his people just came back and stomped every other story in one of the best years in storytelling in my memory. Contrary to what his knownothing, donothing son might think, I fail to see how he could be anything by pleased at his work's latest incarnation.
The longer the movie the fewer times you can play it per movie screen, the less money you can make per movie screen. Neither the movie theaters or the studios wants to see a 4 hour movies with an intermission because they could show 2 average length movies in the same period of time and make twice as much money.
You do realize it's all about the money don't you ?
But in the case of long films like the LOTR trilogy that are definately going to be shown at pretty much every theater, does 10 extra minutes make them lose that much? I don't think so, infact I think a carefully placed intermission might make the theaters more money when showing these epics because of the extra throughput of refreshment buyers. I hate finishing my popcorn just as the 2 hours of trailers/adverts are finishing but once that film is showing I am not going to be leaving my seat at all. If a short break presented itself, then hey, I might just fancy popping out for a large IceBlast (that stuff is heroin in ice cold, fizzy form). They would need to show 20 ROTK's to lose out on one ROTK screening. If the screen is full capacity, expect 40-50 people leaving at intermission to spend 5-10 bucks on refreshments. It soon adds up.
Oh yeah and I can finally take a piss! *uncrosses legs*
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
For me, I was only bothered in the first movie by what I would term 64.1: the scene when Frodo offers the Ring to Galadriel.
In the book, Galadriel remains in full control of herself and deliberately shows herself to Frodo as a terrible and powerful queen to illustrate what the Ring would make her into. In the movie, by contrast, it seems as if she is half-swept away by the temptation of the Ring, as she turns into some kind of bogey-monster.
The movie just made her seem a touch too out of control, and it violated her character, for me, as being one of the wisest and fairest of elves.
Other than that, I absolutely loved the first movie and think it the best of the three.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I R some more of TFA
"Jackson, in my opinion, commits another Major Mistake in his handling of the Faramir storyline."
So the article writer's big three complaints are too much Arwen, no scouring of the Shire, and the Faramir storyline. In all I'd say Jackson did pretty well if that's the worst anyone can come up with.
The whole point of having the Faramir/Boromir combo in the book was to contrast them - one brother who tries to steal the ring (and pays for it), and the other who has an opportunity to take the ring and purposely does not.
The way Jackson did it, this contrast is completely lost. Boromir tries to steal the ring, and Faramir probably would have if it wasn't drawing Nazgul to him. As it is in the movie, there is little difference between Boromir and Faramir except that Daddy doesn't like one of them (and even that only came out in the extended edition, I believe).
It's easy to dismiss this list of changes as entirely justifiable for the switch of medium from book to film.
And that'd be wrong.
It's equally easy to say the films couldn't have been any better because there haven't been better translations from book to film, and therefore the films are great and above criticism.
And that'd be wrong too. Other translations have little to do with it, other than to show that the problems of translating a book to film have been frequently shown before and anyone attempting it really should take the lessons into account. When you have a hugely popular book, it's usually popular for a reason - so sure, you have to make changes to adapt to the movie format (and make it less than 20 hours long) but you keep the impact of those changes to a minimum, especially when it comes to changing the characters.
The films could have been better. Ignore the books for the moment - consider just the films. There was plenty of it that was contrived, hugely cliched, or just plain didn't make any sense. Characters behaved inconsistently. It breaks the suspension of belief and draws you out of the film. That's a bad thing. It wasn't well done, and could easily have been done better.
Especially when you do take the book into account and realise that the vast majority of those failings were on account of pointless changes - changes that appear to be nothing to do with the switch of medium, adding nothing as they do, but far more to do with changes for changes sake. Possibly changes in a 'Hey, look at me, I'm a creative scriptwriter, not just an adaptor of books, I am soooo smart' sort of way.
To summarise: Peter Jackson et al., are not great scriptwriters. J.R.R. Tolkien was a great author. Put them together and you'd expect a quite good but nowhere near great script. And that's exactly what we got.
I mentioned this over here. There are at least two versions of RotK running in theatres.
It's not that particular change that bothers me, it's the idea that there could be other variations as well, and that we're missing out on good stuff. :-) I assume the variations are to try and track where the pirated versions come from.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I had the good fortune to attend a lecture at Local University by Professor Tom Shippey, author of The Road to Middle Earth and Tolkien: Author of the Century. He currently sits in St. Louis, but in times past he held the same chair as Tolkien did academically. The topic of the lecture was exclusively directed at what Tolkien might have thought of Jackson's work. Shippey served an advisory role during the making of the RotK film.
Shippey's treatment was incisive, particular, thoughtful, and thoroughly illuminating. He mentioned a couple of specific points that Tolkien, in his estimation, would have focussed on to judge the quality.
First, Tolkien would have disliked habitual carelessness. Mispellings in the script, etc. Not a big deal in the movie, but there you have it.
Second, Tolkien would have been most concerned with what Shippey called "failing to adhere to the narrative core of the original." He noted that there was a great expansion of Aragorn et al's adventures after the Fellowship split up, but that on the whole the story remained faithful to the core of Frodo, Sam and Gollum's journey.
Third, it was noted that Tolkien had no objection to abridgement, as he understood to some extent the limitations of the different medium of film. Some things work on film, some don't -- internal monologue is one example I can think of. In a book, you can have a lot of it. In a film, you have to do it right, or drop it completely and express the core another way.
In relation #3, Tolkien objected to *compression* -- crushing thousands of years of history into a single chunk, whipping through it for only the sake of mentioning it, and moving on without it having impact. In this case, Shippey thought (and reflecting on it, I agree) that having the ring's history explained at the very start was a really smart move for the films.
This is not to say that Shippey wasn't confused at some of Jackson's inclusions. Legolas skateboarding and the multiple dwarf-tossing jokes were eyebrow raisers for a lot of people, I think. The weird death/ressurrection of Aragorn in TTT was described as a "narrative zag" in that it had no effect on the plot or character. You make a good point on theme, but depending on what you consider to be the vital them of the trilogy... well. Shippey said that one theme that didn't make it was the role of providence. I'd like to go more into that, but this is getting long and I need to wrap it up.
Shippey mentioned Tolkien's observations on the scripts for the animated films. I didn't know he had lived long enough to see them, so that's a new one on me. Something to keep in mind though is that even the medium of film has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. It's hard to take the critique of three-generations-back and apply it to what Jackson did. The scales are just too disperate.
In the end, I think Shippey's opinion was favorable overall.
Finally -- I appreciate the Silmarillion quote. But you should remember yourself that no artist creates in a vaccuum. Tolkien claimed, twisted, adjusted, and applied numerous myths and themes from stories past in order to create LotR. I find LotR to be a more engaging read than, say, Beowulf or the Viking Sagas, so I guess you can count me as one of those detracting voices in the song. I guess it depends on which song you sing first.
But I understand why Jackson gave Arwen such an expanded role, and I think it was justified. I adore Tolkein as much as the next nerd, but he really had a blind spot for female characters. You could count the number of significant female characters in The Hobbit and The Rings combined on the fingers of one hand. As the article writer himself points out, Arwen only had one line in the books. And the women weren't exactly well-rounded I-can-identify-with-her characters. They were mostly just archetypes. (Yeah, a lot of the men were too, but the key (male) protagonists had some depth to them.)
I'll grant you that getting to see Orlando and Viggo strut about gives the films some female appeal. (They were certainly a treat to these guy-loving eyes.) But having another substantial woman character acting among the men makes it seem less like Middle Earth is a world where not only the dwarves' women look like men, but the other races' as well.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The biggest plot deviation, and disappointment of ROTK to my mind is the treatment of Denethor. In the book he is a noble lord of ancient linage, who knows full well the history of the ring, and in his pride thinks he is equal to the task of matching wills with the dark lord. And it is his inability to put aside his pride (like Farimir and Borimir is the end) that dooms him.
In the movie he just seems like a mean old fool. And what where the city guard doing when Gandalf conked Denethor on the head? All looking the other way? Obviously their opinion of their lord wasn't that much higher than Jackson's.
I forgave the many changes of the first two movies (made particularly better by the extended editions), some where necessary to adapt the book to a movie, a few even enhanced the story to some degree (as far as a movie going audience was concerned). But the third movie just really bugged me every time I watched it. I am hoping it can be redeemed by the extended edition, but I expect it wont.
I can understand that this fanboy is upset about how the movie is different from the book, but for the love of god, grow up!
Anyone who critiques a movie based on a book this way clearly has such limited experience with reading that it's plainly obvious they're either not yet out of high school, or the genre* they read is so obscure that noone cares enough to bother writing movies in it.
So what if Tom Bombadill isn't in the movie? So what if some of the lines aren't quite the same? This movie actually took lines directly from the book. He should be glad that it's this accurate! Most of the time when you have a movie adaptation, there should be a line in the credits that says "loosely based on the book". Very loosely. As in, "There's a character we took from the book and a couple plot elements."
LotR is a movie made by fans, for fans. The credits even give kudos to every member of the fan club for god's sake.
* intentionally not plural.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
This the main thing wrong with these movies. True, for the most part the events that take place in the films are the same as in the books, but in the books there were long periods where things slowed down. This made the more dramatic events seem important and interesting when they happened. In the movie, all of those pauses are cut; it's just one action scene after another. None of the more fantastic events seem quite as exciting as they did in the books.
This is somewhat forgivable, as I can't see how it could have been done otherwise. But I think it gives all the more reason why extra actions scenes like Aragorn's lame assed fake-death in the second movie were a bad idea. As has been pointed out by others, yet another fake death just made everybody groan; there were enough in the book as it was, but at least you had time to forget about the last one before a new one happened.
Also far too much choir music and over-emotional slow motion. Fantasy has enough trouble being taken seriously without this cheese.
For them, Beowulf, Arthur and Cuchulain didn't match up to the fables of Odin and Thor and all the rest.
If you look at his work in this light, it is perfectly acceptible for someone else to take the underlying themes and tell them in their own way. Just look at the proliferation of works on Gawain, The Green Knight, Arthur, Merlin and so on that have proliferated over the years. Especially from the 10th to 12th century, where the underlying stories were moulded into new myths about the Knights Templar.
If his works *are* to be seen as myth (albeit invented) it is only to be expected that others will reinterpret these stories in a different way.
All that said, I found the Jackson films to be a marvellous telling of the themes in the books, though (understandibly, for length) you need the extended editions to get his full version of the telling.
As many other have repeatedly said, books and film are two very different media. Whilst I haven't heard it, I'm told the BBC radio version of LOTR is also brilliant. I for one am joyous to know that there are many different types of media that tell the same myths in such a brilliant way.
S
I personally always run out and read the most popular books, no matter how droll and half-witted they are. Why just last week I read The Life and Times of a Cheese Tort: An Unauthorized Biography of Martha Stewart.
As for accuracy of movies vs. novels, Gorky Park was probably THE most accurately transported novel, and it sucked rather badly when compared with the novel. You just have to keep in mind that movies are a whole different medium and require different artistic values.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
The silly thing about a list like this is that it's just pointing out the inevitable. When a story goes from one medium to another, from words to action, you have to abbreviate things and get certain points across about characters in a different way. In the book, it's clear that Gandalf is powerful and not to be triffled with and we know this because Tolkien has page after page to get that point across. In the film, where action is key not words, it must be demonstrated and in a way that doesn't seem too pedantic. So, Gandalf reaching through the window and pulling Sam through violently demonstrates that he's far more powerful than he looks. In a sense, doing it that way remains more faithful to what Tolkien wrote than slavishly adhering to each and every detail.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I honestly do not undestand the apolegtic attitude for Peter Jackson expressed here on Slashdot.
I honestly do not understand why some people have to revere Tolkien's works as being sacred. Hey, I like the books. It may be my favorite fantasy series (though Song of Ice and Fire is making a damn good run). And I still though the movies were brilliant. Heck, I think there were some things in the movies that were better than the books. (gasp)
To corrupt the basic ideas and themes of an original work can not be forgiven.
"Corrupt" once again implies that the story was perfect to start with. It wasn't.
I'm glad to see that you don't let whimsical, comical writing stand in the way of your enjoyment of books. I have to wonder just how funny a Martha Stewart biography could be, but if you insist...
Calling The Lord of the Rings half-witted, or implying that it's droll, shows a complete ignorance of the subject matter. The Hobbit was a droll book IMHO, but there was very little whimsical or amusing about LOTR. If you consider how far J.R.R. Tolkien deviated from professional writing style, and you consider such writing half-witted, then I suppose that it would indeed be half-witted. But I would have to wonder about the emotional health of anyone who defined "half-witted" in such a way. :-D
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
There are, of course, levels of discontent. I'm at a lowish level. On the whole, I liked the movies. I also felt that they had several almost-fatal flaws, all involving unnecessary changes and additions.
Top of my list is changing Faramir from a truly noble character into a jerk (which, to be fair, was partly fixed in TTT extended).
So why do I care? Because I have been waiting for these movies all of my life. I don't read LOTR every other year just to be geeky; I read it because it I love it, much as Sam loves the Shire. When I saw FOTR, I rejoiced because Jackson visually captured Middle Earth in a richer way than I had ever imagined it.
When he modified Faramir's character, and Denethor's, and added extra material which did not significantly contribute to the story, it made me sad. I felt that in many ways, Jackson missed the warmth and nobility of Tolkein's work. That warmth and nobility are, to me, a core element of LOTR; without it, the movie is incomplete.
Anyway, the point of some of us ranters is that when you mess with something beloved, you need to be really really careful. It has nothing to do with pedantry and everything to do with loving our dreams. Jackson gets, IMO, a B+ for care. But I agree that the changes he made were partly in the sprit of "I can do a better job." And I think some humility there might have avoided some problems.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
"It was when I was waiting for a bus in Birmingham, on the street where Tolkien lived as a child, that I realised what LotR was all about. Just looking around at a suburb of Britain's second largest city and making a mental comparison to what it looked like before the first world war, it was obvious what the man was thinking about."
I keep reading similar theories in each LOTR story on
"As for inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical"
"The prime motive was the desire of the tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them"
You are close to right when you say:
"The Scouring of the Shire is the destruction of your own favourite place"
for he says:
"It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten"
But I think that go wrong when you say "by the madness of industrialisation". He says "the economic situation was entirely different" where he would have used a much more telling expression if he was so much against it and used the scouring of the shire as an allegory.
It really bother me to keep seeing these Tolkien-was-a-luddite posts (which is what they are close to be) without anything to back it up but an interpretation of the author's intention that he clearly denied.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,