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."
Or more realistically: you could have just listed the places where the movie and the books actually matched. Somehow the books and the movie tell approximately the same story, but I'll never know how since they had so little in common except some names and general plot developments.
I do not have a signature
Perfection?
The visuals were beautiful. MT was awe-inspiring. He blew so many aspects of the story, though, and didn't retain enough of the actual meaning inherent in JRRT's work. Like a sundae with nothing under the whipped cream.
Disappointing is all I can say. Maybe in a few years when CGI is cheaper someone can do a miniseries and do it justice.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
If I counted correctly, that's 257 deviations between all three parts.
Could this guy have, instead, spent the time starting his own software company or something? Certainly would be more productive than photoshopping The Ring on GW Bush's finger...
While I'm thinking about it, my car could use some detailing and all the mountain dew cans in my room could be taken back to the store. Think this guy will do it all for a copy of LotR:RotK extended DVD when it comes out?
:wq
I mean, c'mon, there is at least dozen other things to do instead of movie forensics. _IT IS_ movie after all. If somebody wants to read the book, so be it, but please don't ruin the magic for those who didn't read it. IMHO, Jackson was quite good at compresing the story and I'm shure he read the book at least twice, but that should not restrain him to add some extra and remove some, right?
Sinisa
So why did Jackson make the changes? Just to prove that he was the man in charge?
And by the way, I have a hard time imagining that any woman or child of Rohan would have run screaming helplessly from a band of invading Orcs. Cried, sure. While picking up the closest sword/wooodaxe/sycthe and charging toward the orcs.
sPh
One thing I've always wondered about, and wasn't mentioned in the nitpickers guide was Aragorn bearing a bow and using it expertly in FotR. Don't remember anything mentioned about Aragorn being skilled with the bow in the book. And we never see him with a bow again after FotR? Perhaps he left it in Emyn Muil so that the three hunters can travel light.
I'll give you four (all of which bothered me), and there are several others.
(1) Arwen -- very minor and peripheral character in the book with, as the article mentions, only one line in the entire saga (not that I mind seeing Liv Tyler, but I found that whole subplot extremely contrived).
(2) Aragorn -- he has been working toward his 'destiny' his entire life; there is no "Oh, I'm not good enough" angst in the books.
(3) Faramir -- was struck by a poisoned dart riding back toward the citadel, and was carried back by another warrior (and to begin with was never sent on a suicide mission by his father).
(4) Sam -- was never sent away by Frodo, who never trusted Gollum but knew he may be of use.
The omissions -- like the Scouring of the Shire -- were a little disappointing but necessary. All of the changes, however, were gratuitous Hollywood and detracted from the story IMHO.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
I don't speak for myself personally, but dissection is enjoyment for some people.
I have a friend who is a big movie enthusiast, who loves to predict exactly what will happen, 20, 40, and 60 minutes into the future of the film. Then he sits back, utterly unsurprised by the plot twists he saw coming a mile off, and crows about how he saw it all coming. This strikes me as really perverse, but it's how he enjoys movies.
Other people get off on finding flaws that people like me would never be able to spot in a hundred viewings. It's just the way some people are wired up.
After hearing back-and-forth about the numbers involving the million man march, finding out that there is currently no scientific method for crowd estimation, I told him he has no basis for judging how many humanoids were in any army, and his untrained eye is probably way off.
Can anyone shed light on this conversation?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Agreed. I might add one more thing: Sam turning around in Mordor in ROTK. Not only was this not in the book, but it is a complete reversal in the character developed so well in the movies themselves. I do not feel that it is true to Sam's character in the least. If you are going to have a rift between Frodo and Sam, at least have Sam wait for a bit and then follow from a distance.
Imagine this scene if you will. Frodo tells Sam to leave and continues up the stair. Sam sits down and cries. He finally gets up and starts to look down the stairs. He stiffens and mutters, "I made a promise." He then sets his shoulders and begins the climb up the stairs. You still have the rift, but at least Sam stays true to himself. While this is certainly not from the book, it would at least lend consistency within the movies.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Spoiler warnings apply:
1) The appendix gives enough of the plotline to support most of the films rendition (the "her fate is tied to the ring" b.s. from RotK is full of it, of course).
One of the issues (and I wrote about it here a year ago) is that in the book, much of Aragorn's growth from ranger to king happens before the hobbits ever meet him. he knows what he has to do, now its just a matter of finding the right time.
it actually makes for a relatively flat character on film, because film doesn't give enough room to build backstory without too many flashbacks, which isn't a good film device the way its a very expressive novel device. The alternative would require a "Lord of the Rings 1 1/2" (nee: The Lion King prequel coming out on video this month).
2) "working towards his destiny" -- again, there's much extending that in the appendices. Denathor had heard of him (though not as succinctly as the movie depicts) and developed an opinion of his perceived immaturity, a reputation that had to come from somewhere. Aragorn's angst at accepting his role is there, in backstory and in the appendix.
having aragorn grow to accept his destiny in "realtime" on screen makes for a much more interesting character on film.
The cliff crap in TTT I would rather have done without. There are better ways to show 1) that there was a 10000 orc army coming, and 2) that Eowyn has the hots for him.
3) most of the Faramir I could have lived without. Denethor on screen is much weaker than he should have been. Denethor in the book is a masterful politician. On screen he is a slothful wretch. In the book, we can build up a sympathy for the betrayal and pain he's faced; he's a complex character with conflict between his compassion for his people and the dread he's seen in the Palantir. In the film, we only feel anger at him for not trying harder to have some compassion at all.
He's a jerk on film. when he dies its, "finally, and good ridance", which is not the emotion Tolkien wanted us to feel.
4) i didn't mind the Sam changes as much; yes, Frodo comes out more affected by the ring than the books, but Sam himself isn't changed as such. He still had the decision of go back to Frodo or go forward with the ring himself; the additional option of going home alone doesn't really hurt the story.
I *DID* dislike that Gollum was "pushed" by Frodo into the lava instead of falling in by his own greed and carelessness. In the end, on film he wasn't the victim of his addiction as it should have been portrayed. Even the Rankin/Bass version got THAT part right.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Ahh, "The Princess Bride" was the essence of the book. Dead on. Of course the book has more scenes and depth, but it captures the essence of the book very well. I think that, except for Fellowship, Jackson missed the target.
You're not far wrong. "I made a promise," would have been a good line for Sam to use, but perhaps it would have been best while he was crying, after Frodo left. Then we would have felt even more strongly how beaten Sam was by Frodo's rejection of him, how rejected he felt.
Furthemore, it's not strictly out of character for Sam to place Frodo's judgement over his own, to feel doubt, to wonder if maybe Mr. Frodo is right and the ring is getting to Sam. So, to have Sam say "I made a promise" *before* heading downhill would have dramatized that self-conflict very effectively. Pity Jackson, et. al. didn't think of it.
And then the turn-around when he discovers the lembas Gollum threw over the cliff would have made more sense as a confirmation to Sam that he wasn't losing his marbles, which would provide further motivation to his decision to turn-around and follow Frodo.
The purpose of the edit is to make the movie follow more closely to the original books. "It's amazing the work the editor has done by selectively removing scenes and rearranging them - without messing up the sound synchronisation. Now there are no longer any elves in Helm's Deep, Faramir is a good guy again, and the ents aren't idiots anymore." (tangent3)
Major changes (out of about 30 changes totally):
Ents don't refuse to attack Isengard
Elves do not come to Helm's Deep
Gimli is no longer a dwarf clown
Faramir does not decide to take the Ring to Gondor as a "mighty gift"
Frodo does not attempt to give the Ring to Nazgul
Arwen stays in Middle-Earth
Aragorn doesn't fall from a cliff
e rs-The_ Purist_Edit.avi|729462784|ec0671172619e490d7b0ea6b 5278468c|/
E dit-Traile r.avi|14997504|965c013e991ee246d63d45ea71954c4d|/
Here's the ed2k link:
ed2k://|file|Lord_of_the_Rings-The_Two_Tow
Here is the trailer:
ed2k://|file|The_Two_Towers-The_Purist_
Alternatively, get the trailer from here.
More information in the ShareReactor forum.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I really disliked the "take Frodo to Osgiliath" bit, too. One of the things that I really liked about the book is that at one point or another each of the powerful and/or important characters is given the choice of supporting the quest to destroy the Ring or trying to take it. You get to see Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Smeagol, Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn, Boromir, and Faramir directly tempted by the ring, and several others (Sauron, Saruman, and Denethor at least) make their choices when the ring is not readily available. Their characters are revealed not just by which way they choose, but also by how the ring tempts them and the way they accept or reject the temptation.
I think that it was important that Faramir resist the temptation. He represents the noble, virtuous core of Gondor that managed to resist the lure of turning into the Dark Lord as a way of fighting him. Without Faramir doing the right thing, Aragorn is the only one of the humans who successfully resists the Ring, which is the wrong message.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I saw it twice, and I'm fairly certain that Gollum wasn't pushed. He was dancing about with glee at recovering "his precious" just as in the book.
I agree with you completely about Denethor. Its really the only grievance I have left about the movies. Every other complaint I had (and I was seriously unhappy with the Two Towers theatrical version) has been mollified by the extended versions. In the extended editions, deviations like Aragorn's fall, and Faramir's Osgiliath make much more sense and flow better. In nearly every case I found that, while the movies departed from the narrative of the book, the purpose was usually to reveal some facet of the characters that was true to the book, such as Aragorn's facility with animals, or Faramir's conflicted sense of duty.
I'm quite confident that Denethor's character will be much more developed in the Extended RotK.
In the Silmarilion there is some reference to Galadriel and her reasons for coming to Middle Earth, but it is easy to miss in the rest of what is happening. The story is elaborated in other bits of the Christopher Tolkein volumes, but as there are rather a lot of them I can't recall exactly where.
Not as much help as I'd like to have been I'm afraid.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
This guy must have a ring up his ass. I agree the major deviations in the TTR and RTK movies didn't add much (and in some cases sucked), but in general, looking through his list of complaints about Fellowship, I find myself disagreeing with him about almost -every- single change Jackson made, except these four, which could easily have been left in to strengthen the story:
;-)
17) Frodo doesn't try to stab the Nazgul at Weathertop
24) Bilbo's not at the Council
32) Saruman wants to join Mordor (is slave to Sauron, not trying to be independant)
70) Boromir's betrayal on Amon-Hen is portrayed as a fairly obvious and aggressive attack
Besides that, Jackson did *good*. But wait for my re-edit once I've got all the extended footage together heh-heh
One of the issues (and I wrote about it here a year ago) is that in the book, much of Aragorn's growth from ranger to king happens before the hobbits ever meet him. he knows what he has to do, now its just a matter of finding the right time.
I'm not gonna pull out a book, but if you go back you will see Aragorn's indecision and self doubt in a number of places. The first is after the fall of Gandalf while they rest in Lorien. The second is the death of Boromir and the breaking of the Fellowship. The third and final time is at Helm's Deep. He always knows that it is his time, but he doubts right up until he decides to take the Paths of the Dead. That is the pivotal moment in his transformation. I do think the film version was close enough for my tastes.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
What bothered me the most was that in the movies the elves are portrayed as being alien--a sort of unnatural creature of Middle-Earth. Even the cadence of their speech in the movies is unnatural.
By contrast in the book the elves are "supernatural" meaning that they are extremely natural. Their magic is one that is in concert with the earth, not alien to it. In the books the elves are characterized as more at home in Middle Earth than other races.
I have not read the books. I found myself reading your comments and saying "man, those are all of the parts that i either didn't like, or that felt out of place." I guess that's a testament to Tolkein's writing.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
A lot of regular movie goers, especially professional movie critics, have complained about those final scenes. Anyone who regularly goes to live theatre, however, instantly recognized those scenes for what they were.
All of the scenes after Frodo and Sam are picked up by the Eagles, are the final bows of the cast members on closing night. Every one of the major characters (except I can't remember a Boromir flashback at the end, but maybe that will be in the extended edition) gets one more scene at the end to "take thier final bows" and the major characters get several "bows". Even Andy Serkis shows up one final time in the Green Dragon Pub as a hobbit.
If you watch the movie, and think of the curtain closing while you see the Eagles flying off, and then look at the rest just as final bows and a chance for you as the audience to show your final appreciation of the performers, it makes a lot more sense, and brings much better closure.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
In the end, on film he wasn't the victim of his addiction as it should have been portrayed.
How did that not come across? He and Frodo struggled with each other for the ring, and that's how they fell off the cliff. All Jackson did was put Frodo in there too--so now BOTH of them were victims of their addiction.
You even see Gollum staring at the ring, oblivious to pain, as he sinks into the burning lava. Come on.
In other words, you're a book purist who doesn't like that the films weren't the books.
You do realize Tolkien himself was willing to cut things like Helm's Deep for film, don't you? He deemed it "unnecessary" and fit for removal.
Tolkien was less uptight than his own fans. I don't get people who don't enjoy these movies and even call them "disappointing." ROTK blew me away.