Slashdot Mirror
Updated LOTR Nitpicker's Guide
The LOTR Nitpicker writes "A 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. updated to include deviations from the recently released extended edition DVD of The Return of the King. This story originally appeared on Slashdot back in January."
The inaccuracies are obvious when you read some books (especially books written with decades between them , read in a week or so). For example, I did pickup on the color differences of the lasers in the Dune series written by the son of Brian Herbert... (ie purple to orange) or the Bastardization of Holtzmann as a person (read Dune encyclopedia).
Slow news day, eh ?.Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
1) I see Saruman throwing fireballs. Now I believe Peter Jackson didn't want to make *that* kind of movie with wizards casting fireballs when I see the original theatrical releases, but now this? Come on. If they wanted awesome effects they could have gone with something that's actually *in* the books, like Gandalf casting lightning from his staff (Gandalf vs. 9 ringwraiths, on Weathertop).
2) This isn't The Return Of The King, it's "Half Of The Two Towers And The Return Of The King". They could have cut out most of the extraneous scenes from the TTT (like the Arwen ones) and kept stuff from TTT in TTT. Then they could use the Extended Release of ROTK to include the Scouring of the Shire. I realize the reason for not including it in the theatrical release (audience would get tired of a second battle etc.), but come on, the DVD release doesn't have those problems (after all, it's the fans who are gobbling up these Extended Editions).
That said, I welcome the new scenes. I always wanted to see the part where Aragorn calls up Sauron with the Palantir, and gives him the finger.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Agreed. Whereas some movie adaptations of great novels do suck (Lynch's Dune), some are good enough to make us forgive the changes required by the new medium (Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). Jackson's Lord of the Rings is simply a perfect interpretation of the books, keeping all the mood, atmosphere and imagination from the original material. Having watched ROTK:EE yesterday, and as a big cinema addict, I can say that few movies have moved me as this trilogy. It transpires the passion of its makers and the soul of Tolkien is omnipresent, in the images, the elvish language, the characters, the epic atmosphere of the whole story.
Nitpicking about adaptation changes is pointless (though the author does somehow acknowledge it is). I cannot imagine anyone making (a) better "Lord of the Rings movie(s)".
Peter Jackson did it, along with an extraordinary film crew, so let's all praise them for it and enjoy these fantastic movies.
theefer
FTFA:
I enjoyed the movies. I enjoyed reading this list. There's no need to start telling people to "get a life".
Because, frankly, I don't care that you (or the six billion plus you speak for) don't care. I liked it.
You don't get it. The Nitpicker's Guides are fun to read in and of themselves. You don't have to be an anal-retentive nerd to enjoy one; in fact, it's postmodern surrealist anti-humor in that the joke is that anyone would notice and catalog such an array of minute flaws. They're something to marvel at, but are also incidentally filled with interesting trivia - like a Guinness Book of Records for dweebs. Lighten up.
I give. And I am not alone...
The deviations are not tiny nor pointless. I indeed agree there are a lot of worse cases around, but for true and purist Tolkien fans the differences between the book and the movie are important issues.
If you don't like just stop trolling and flaming around... stay quiet.
Think about how the Scouring of the Shire would play out on film. Like ass. Peter Jackson's little "moment" in the Inn replaces it nicely. And shows one of the strenghts of the medium of film over that of a book. All the lessons manifest in the Scouring of the Shire in the book, are appearent in the body language of the actors in the film. Now factoring in the rest of the film, it's an epilogue too many to boot.
Dare I say if you want the book, true to every letter, there are two choices. Having someone read it to you while sitting in a solo spotlight. Or a crappy mini-series with ass special effects, stiff acting, lame looking props, plain cinematography, and horribly stilted dialogue that has to fill for a viewer, what a reader does for themself.
Arwen's role was critically important and was rightly amplified in the films. Without his relationship with Arwen I find Aragorn a pretty flat character taken as a whole. Placing that relationship in an appendix was hardly a stroke of genius on Tolkien's part. Sorry, but failing to grasp this fundamental point is to fail to understand a primary motive for most human beings: the protection of our loved ones.
BTW, the books are hardly perfect. I personally find them poorly written (see above) and quite hard to get through. And no, it's not that I can't handle my literature (I have a degree in English) it's more that I well understand and know all of Tolkien's primary sources. Given the wealth of world mythology, of which Tolkien's work is part redaction and part recreation, I'll take the mythology myself.
"Das Rheingold" anyone?
Frankly, given the enormous amount of fantasy material out there before and after Tolkien, I am quite surprised that Tolkien is revered as highy as he is today. To me, it's pretty much all "ho hum." I find his use of lengthy appendices and created languages fatuous and self-congratulatory.
Tell your fucking story, Tolkien - don't make us hunt around for it.
Thank you. That's all I'm saying. We all waste time in our own special ways. I did this. I had fun doing it. And, yes, it's not an attack; it's just food for thought.
characterisations, plot development and pacing, and dialogue to a large extent are typical hollywood fare
OMG you can't POSSIBLY be complaining that they didn't keep the "realistically as slow as walking from one country to another on short hobbit legs" pacing of the books!
I think about 40% of the books were dedicated to describing how long it takes to walk from the Shire to Mordor!
Something happens, followed by 20 pages of description of walking, then they see Gollum a bit, 12 pages of walking, etc.
All the subtley of the novels were not translated to screen.
That isn't specific to LOTR, no movie has EVER translated all the subtleties of a book! How could it? They have only 2 (or 3) hours to sum up hundreds of pages of text!
Never expect an adaptation to keep the subtleties: It is impossible. The best they can do is stay faithfull to the spirit.
You can't take the sky from me...
Ah, having lots to say about it is always enough justification to take plenty of liberty with whatever subject-matter. I guess that's why history books tend to be so long. It's all about the word count, don't worry if it's rubbish. :)
Even when stories are passed by word of mouth they get changed a little.
The problem with Jackson's LotR is that, yes, while there are numerous occasions where some minor detail gets changed for dramatic purposes, there are several points where a character does the exact opposite of what they did in the books. Examples: Faramir trying to take Frodo and the Ring back to Gondor (in the movie) versus immediately realizing that the ring is unvarnished evil that must be destroyed (in the book). Treebeard and the other Ents understanding that they must take action against Saruman now, because eventually the destruction will reach them as well (in the book) versus saying the concerns of men are not their concerns (in the movie). Even Aragorn allowing the Mouth of Sauron to pass back through the gates because the rules of honor demand that an emissary be left unharmed (in the book) versus the completely unnecessary, dishonorable, and out-of-character beheading (in the movie).
What's amazing is that Jackson (though I have a sneaking suspicion that Walsh and Boyens are at least as much to blame as Jackson, if not more) spends so much time trying to develop certain characters, but by doing so changes them to be the polar opposite of what they're supposed to be!