Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Harriet Is Much Better Than Gary at Keeping Her Brood in Line
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/29/2011 5:30:04 PM PDT by Immerito
The full, uncut video of filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson and Prime Minister John Key speaking at Hobbiton today
(Excerpt) Read more at 3news.co.nz ...
Liberties in terms of omitting details or minor characters, certainly.
Liberties in terms of changing major characters, their motivations, and changing the story itself are unnecessary.
Tolkien’s un-PC Aragorn would have been a more memorable character had he been permitted to be his brave, noble self rather than the uncertain, constantly doubting, uninspiring character he was during the movies.
Tolkien’s books celebrated strong, noble, capable men and women (of multiple races); the movies follow the philosophy that women can only be strong if men are weak—and that is a belief that Tolkien would never have shared.
Perhaps the best way to put it is that the book is like a steak whereas the movies are like a dollar menu hamburger-—both can be legitimately enjoyed and appreciated on their own merits, but they are not of equivalent quality.
To be honest, the book would probably fare better if translated as a TV series.
Immapurist, you should get out more.
Now, there I agree with you! If a fair adaptation of George R. R. Martin’s Game of Thrones can be made why not a TV adaptation of LOTR?
I’m personally surprised that it has not (to my knowledge) even been considered for production. There’s certainly a large enough fan base to promote such an enterprise.
I thought Jackson did pretty well, but there was some gratuitous silliness in some parts. One example:
"Lean forward!"
That was just one of the dumbest gratuitous special effects sequences in all of movie history. Why they needed "lean forward" in the middle of the Mines of Moria is beyond me. As if there wasn't enough drama in that chapter already. It was just asinine, and goes to show that sometimes the special effects budget is just too big.
There was a similarly gratuitous scene in "King King" where they engage in a seemingly endless brontosaurus/cgi stampede...
Other than one lame "dwarf-tossing" joke, and the regrettable elision of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, I think it came out reasonably faithful to the original. Certainly the cinematography and set design lived up to the elaborate pictures of Middle Earth my mind's eye had previously constructed from five or six readings of the series.
What didn't you like about it?
No. I should have been clearer. There is no adaptation of LOTR even being considered for a television audience (to my knowledge) at this time.
1) Too many of the major characters had their personalities or their motivations altered:
Faramir is too similar to Boromir, taking Frodo on a pointless side trip, intending to use the Ring against Mordor before he realizes his folly.
Particularly in the first movie, Merry and Pippin have nearly identical personalities.
Frodo sends Sam away from his side.
Theoden is too similar to Denethor; he is altered from a character who shakes off the influence of evil counsel and returns to his former nobility to a helpless victim of possession who can do nothing without Gandalf’s rescue.
Elven warriors show up at Helm’s Deep, only to be inexplicably slaughtered long before the mortals present.
Gimli, Merry and Pippin (and sometimes Sam) are often reduced to comic relief. We don’t much of a growth arc for Merry and Pippin (and this is perhaps in part due to the fact that Jackson did not include the scouring—there is no reason to show how greatly the hobbits have grown.)
Boromir gets ahold of the Ring and relinquishes it shortly thereafter. (Of course; anyone with a lust for the Ring would so willingly relinquish it in response to a minor rebuke!
Elrond has to give his future son in law a pep talk to get him to fight to become the king he was born to be. Book Elrond gives his future son in law an ultimatum, and lets Aragorn motivate himself.
Aragorn, only after receiving several pep talks, acts like he intends on becoming king of Gondor and Anor.
2) Portions of the story are altered, and an integral part of the story is omitted.
The Scouring of the Shire is omitted. Granted, omissions are to be expected in movies, but they are typically of minor characters and minor details. Tolkien built the entire story up to this final conflict. Omitting it is like omitting an entire act from a Shakespearean play—its omission is highly noticeable. It’s a big part of the heart of the story, if you will.
Narsil is not reforged until the third film, and the sword is brought to Aragorn, at which time, he receives a pep talk (and is finally ready to become king)
Shelob appears in the third movie (because Jackson argues there is “little for Frodo and Sam to do” in the 3rd book. Apparently destroying the Ring and saving the Shire is “little to do”_.)
I think that pretty well sums up the biggest changes, and the ones which, in my opinion, were not warranted by the translation from book to film.
it’s all those second and third breakfasts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.