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."
That dude missed a few glaring deviations.
Fellowship of the Ring
75. In the book, Gandalf isn't the one saying "You shall not pass!", It's the Black Knight. King Arthur subsequently hacks off all of the Knight's arms and legs leaving a limbless knight protesting on the ground.
The Two Towers
107. In the book it isn't an army of Orcs that decimate the army of the good guys, it's a bunny with "a vicious streak a mile wide". Also, the magical fellow warning them in the book is an Enchanter named Tim, not a Wizard named Gandalf.
The Return of the King
77. In the movie, Gollum falls into the lava of Mt. Doom and dies. The book clearly states that John Cleese carries him to a cart while Gollum protests "I'm not dead!" Eric Idle then crushes his skull with a club then runs off to the Robinsons' as "they've lost nine today."
damn slacker..
Trolling is a art,
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.
Here is another site which lists out the differences:
Linky
Links are at the bottom for differences in each of the three movies.
I suppose this was bound to happen but frankly, the movies are long enough already, if they added in all this other crap you'd need a damned diaper to make it thru 1 movie.
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!
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
and other science facts (la la la),
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax"
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.
This story has an amazingly low number of posts, given its topic and age. Then I realized: These geeks are actually reading it!
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
for a pretty funny political photoshop ;-)
(if the page is slashdotted, it is president bush wearing the ring of doom)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Who would have thought? The book had to be adapted so it can be shot as a movie! I'm speechless.
Tom Bombadil is the one who suggests the Hobbits make for Bree. Jackson has Gandalf make this suggestion though, having left Bombadil out of the film entirely, this is somewhat understandable.
Erm, yes of course. Because a character has been completely removed from a theatrical adaptation of the book, then his absense in making a small suggestion elsewhere in the book is only somewhat understandable...
By the sounds of these, I feel they were on a mission to reach point number 1000 or somewhere near that. Pedants! Bah!
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
..the books don't start with the words: "based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien"
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
All that and he didn't mention the ommission of my favorate minor character: Radagast the Brown.
I swear, the first one who calls him simple or a fool or a bird-tamer is getting a punch in the mouth. : )
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
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
I would swear that #69 for the Return of the King is incorrect and that in the movie Frodo DID tell Bilbo that he had lost the ring after Bilbo inquired about it, and Bilbo says something like "I really would have liked to touch it one more time". Can someone please correct me if I am wrong.
A Bugg
Here is another list of changes. We have had this one up for a couple years now. Some of it has not been updated in a while, but, it is rather complete.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
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
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
They started this whole thing by setting the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey around Jupiter when it should have been Saturn as described in the book!
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.
1) inviting a girl to the book is usually a bad idea
2) the text version is recommended if you plan on wearing nothing but your boxers all day
3) if you've been at the bar all night, keep in mind that the books are significantly less enjoyable for illiterate people (temporary or not)
These also include the Extended Edition DVDs, and are in handy table format.
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
Return of the King
I just think it's fantastic that people like Tolkien are finally writing books based on movies these days. It really helps out people who leave a movie wanting more.
-Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
You mean LoTR was based on a book or something?
I knew there was something that bugged me about these movies. Now I know!
"76. Bilbo rides to the Grey Havens on a pony (ROTK p.381). Jackson has Bilbo ride to the Grey Havens in a covered wagon."
Thanks Nit-Picker!!!
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
1. Why was Sauron visible when he wore the ring in the opening sequence of the Fellowship of the Rings?
2. What is so great about the ring? Sauron wore the ring, and his hand was cut off. I think Sauron should have gotten a refund.
3. Bilbo loved the ring, and had a good time with it. It scared the beejezus out of Frodo when he wore it. Why the difference?
4. If anyone deserved the ring, it was Boromir: "By the blood of our people are your lands kept free." Naw, give it to the cute little hobbits. No way.
STeve
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
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.
The White council drives Sauron from Dol Guldur at the epilogue of The Hobbit. That would have been before Frodo was born.
After the women left he was sulking in a corner and said something cruel and sexist about them. When I finally lost my patience and told him he reminded me of Denethor he stopped talking to me! Blessing in disguise, really.
"Be rest assured I was on the internet within minutes registering my displeasure."
77. In the movie, Gollum falls into the lava of Mt. Doom and dies. The book clearly states that John Cleese carries him to a cart while Gollum protests "I'm not dead!" Eric Idle then crushes his skull with a club then runs off to the Robinsons' as "they've lost nine today."
78. Theoden's last words were, "Tan my hide when I'm dead, Fred, tan my hide when I'm dead." And Merry later states, "So we tanned his hide when he died, Clyde, and that's it hangin' up on the shed."
Unbelievable omission...really ruined the movie for me.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and the glory of the part assigned to himself."
"He now wove the new thoughts into his music, and straightway discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew dispondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had first."
-- J.R.R Tolkien, The Silmarillion
I honestly do not undestand the apolegtic attitude for Peter Jackson expressed here on Slashdot. Especially I do not understand the claim that all the changes Jackson made were neccessary for the film to be succesful. In fact I say that most of the changes were not needed: Peter Jackson just had to make the story "more American" and "more dramatic" by changing the delicate web of characters, events and themes created by J.R.R. Tolkien. It appears that Jackson thought that he could create a better LotR than Tolkien by introducing exaggerated battle scenes and gut-wrenching folk psychology -- the problem is Jackson's overgrown ego, not the structure of the book.
It is obvious that the book needed to be edited into a script, and that is OK to me. That editing, however, should have taken place by cutting away some scenes and spoken lines from the book. To corrupt the basic ideas and themes of an original work can not be forgiven. Peter Jackson made (especially in TTT) compeletely inexplicable choices, and for instance perverted Theoden's character from a great warrior king to a mindless follower of others.
Tolkien himself commented an early non-filmed script (1958) by Zimmerman in his letter to Forrest J. Ackerman. Some of his comments are very thought-provoking, and seem to be directed straight to Peter Jackson. I urge everyone to read the letter and see what Tolkien really thought about movies based on his books.
- Ismo
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
but funny. Don't remember where I grabbed this list, but here's 12 Things Not To Say Watching ROTK in the theatre:
1. Stand up halfway through the movie and yell loudly, "Wait...where the hell is Harry Potter?"
2. Block the entrance to the theater while screaming, "YOU.....SHALL....NOT..... PASS!" - After the movie, say "Lucas could have done it better."
3. Play a drinking game where you have to take a sip every time someone says, "the Ring."
4. Point and laugh whenever someone dies.
5. Ask everyone around you if they think Gandalf went to Hogwarts.
6. Finish off every one of Elrond's lines with "Mis..ter Ander-sonnn."
7. When Aragorn is crowned king, stand up and at the top of your lungs sing, "And I did it.... MY way...!"
8. Talk like Gollum all through the movie. At the end, bite off someone's finger and fall down the stairs.
9. Dress up as old ladies and reenact "The Battle of Helms Deep," Monty Python style.
10. When Denethor lights the fire, shout "Barbecue!"
11. In TTT when the Ents decide to march to war, stand up and shout, "RUN FOREST, RUN!"
12. Every time someone kills an Orc, yell: "That's what I'm Tolkien about!" See how long it takes before you get kicked out of the theatre.
13. During a wide shot of a battle, inquire, "Where's Waldo?"
14. Talk loudly about how you heard that there is a single frame of a nude Elf hidden somewhere in the movie.
15. Start an Orc sing-a-long.
16. Come to the premiere dressed as Frankenfurter and wander around looking terribly confused.
17 When they go in the paths of the dead, wait for a tense moment and shout, "I see dead people!"
18. Imitate what you think a conversation between Gollum, Dobby and Yoda would be like.
19. Release a jar of daddy-long-legs into the theater during the Shelob scene.
20. Wonder out loud if Aragorn is going to run for governor of California.
21. When Shelob comes on, exclaim, "Man!Charlotte's really let herself go!"
In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is a magic xylophone, or something? Ha ha, boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
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 have no idea what sort of tune to put to them when singing them in my head, if Jackson had left them in and translated the books to a Musical rather than a fantasy/actioner I wouldn't have this problem.
Look, they even took liberties with the story when they made "The Ten Commandments" and no one complained about that. If you can get away with not following the Bible exactly, I think we can forgive a few liberties with LOTR.
Of course, Christians and Jews aren't nearly as fanatical as some of Tolkien's fans.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
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)
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 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.
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.
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.
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
The next time my wife dares to tell me "You have too much free time on your hands," I will show her this guy's site.
She will never be able to use that line again, for it will have lost all meaning.
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."
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
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.
From the article: 69. Saruman enjoys the pipeweed of the Halflings (ROTK p.324). Jackson has Saruman tell Gandalf that his wits have been dulled by Halfling leaf as if he doesn't smoke it himself and, it might be added, even though there is pipeweed amongst the flotsam and jetsam of Isengard.
If I'm not mistaken, this line was actually lifted from Unfinished Tales, the rambling colletion of bits and pieces that Tokien never hammered into stories worthy of publication. I recall this line being spoken by Saruman to Gandalf in the presence of the other members of the Council of the Wise when they were meeting to discuss the matter of the Rings of Power.
From The Encyclopedia of Arda: When the Council debated the Rings of Power, Saruman claimed that his researches showed that the One Ring had been lost forever. It was later shown that he did not believe this, however, and was searching for it himself, having secretly rebelled against the Council.
Saruman was attempting to discredit Gandalf (they were in disagreement on this matter) by exposing his affinity for hobbits. The quotation was something like: "Your wits have been dulled by your love of the halflings' leaf."
I might be wrong about the timing, but I'm pretty sure I had read the line before I heard it delivered in FOTR. In the end, it ended up being one of my favourite lines :)
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
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,