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.
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
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.
They don't diviate from the books - at all, except skipping entire chapters, and leaving out lots of Quiditch (+/- spelling). VERY boring. At the premiere of the first movie, I was reciting lines for the characters, before they did themselves - it's that bad. If you want something that sticks that close to the books - READ THE DAMN BOOKS!!!
So LotR doesn't follow the books like canon. They take liberties. They interpret. Good! Books are NOT the same media as films, just as radio is not the same media as books. Look at the H2G2 discussion for what I mean. "Waa waa waa, they won't follow the books to the letter, waa waa waa." Get a grip - the books didn't even follow the radio show that closely, as Douglas Adams, creator of both, knew that they are entirely different media.
Sometimes I wonder if the universe wouldn't be better off, if the Vogons actually destroyed earth.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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.
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.