Movie better than the Book

[alguien]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353722' date='May 13 2008, 15.35']Tolkien wrote in a ... mythic style that involved flat, boring characters. That shit doesn't work on screen. Or even in books really.[/quote]

And yet LOTR is consistently the amongst the most read books ever, usually at the top of most national polls. It is responsible for creating the fantasy genre. A Song of Ice and Fire would most probably not exist without it.

So I think its fair to say he did something right. :)

The reason it works for him was because he was an Oxford professor who studied ancient languages and old epics. He made a hobby of etymology and linguistics as a teenager.

The reason it doesn't work for 98% of other fantasy out there is that the author's have no grasp of what they're doing beyond creating a dimestore romance novel equivalent.

Say what you will about it not being to one's taste, but I really disagree with those who see no literary merit in those books.

I agree with you and others that say the movie had to change aspects of the book so that it would be filmable. That makes perfect sense to me.

ETA: and the majority of dialogue and narration in the movie is almost all cribbed from Tolkien, just with different lines given to different characters. ie: Eowyn's description of her dream about a great wave is actually Faramir, or Treebeard saying Bombadil's lines.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Nadie' post='1353799' date='May 13 2008, 16.07']And yet LOTR is consistently the amongst the most read books ever, usually at the top of most national polls. It is responsible for creating the fantasy genre. A Song of Ice and Fire would most probably not exist without it.

So I think its fair to say he did something right. :)

The reason it works for him was because he was an Oxford professor who studied ancient languages and old epics. He made a hobby of etymology and linguistics as a teenager.

The reason it doesn't work for 98% of other fantasy out there is that the author's have no grasp of what they're doing beyond creating a dimestore romance novel equivalent.

Say what you will about it not being to one's taste, but I really disagree with those who see no literary merit in those books.

I agree with you and others that say the movie had to change aspects of the book so that it would be filmable. That makes perfect sense to me.[/quote]

LOTR have definite artistic merit. There's no question of that.

LOTR may have caused a thousand bastard genres to bloom in it's wake, but that was long after it had actually been published. Most of the fantasy we read these days descends from much later works. Even if the authors read and loved and even drew some inspiration from Tolkien, none of them bare his style.

ASOIAF has far more in common with WOT then it does with LOTR.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

[quote name='BrainFireBob' post='1353696' date='May 13 2008, 21.19']The first Conan film was fun pulp. James Earl Jones, c'mon! The Robert Howard books were . . .worse, in my estimation.[/quote]
Bah. Howard's stories are true classics; easily some of the best action/adventure stories ever written. The movie is only watchable for its camp value.

[alguien]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353840' date='May 13 2008, 15.18']LOTR may have caused a thousand bastard genres to bloom in it's wake, but that was long after it had actually been published. Most of the fantasy we read these days descends from much later works.[/quote]

I don't quite agree. Almost all of it traces back to LOTR. As GRRM himself says in his Introduction essay in the book Meditations on Middle Earth, a fantastic collection of essays by fantasy authors:

“It is sometimes called Epic fantasy, sometimes High fantasy, but it ought to be called Tolkienesque fantasy.”

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353840' date='May 13 2008, 15.18']Even if the authors read and loved and even drew some inspiration from Tolkien, none of them bare his style. ASOIAF has far more in common with WOT then it does with LOTR.[/quote]

I agree that Martin is grittier than LOTR and in that way is more similar to WOT. The characters from ASOIAF are far more relatable to our 20th century mindset than those from Middle Earth. (I won't say the same about Jordan's though--his characters are just as unbelievable)

The one similarity that I find between them all stylistically is the ability to write rhythmic prose. Jordan can go overboard here, IMO, and Martin's has more of a 20th century sensibility, but all of them have a certain poetry and timing. Ursula LeGuin talks about Tolkien's timing in her essay in Meditations on Middle Earth. Fairly interesting, especially if you're a writer.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1353892' date='May 13 2008, 16.45']There are a few things I'm rock solid on.

No Bombadil - Advantage film.

Aragorn falling scene - Advantage book.

Literal eye scouring everything - Advantage book.

Unnecessary love story with Arwen - Advantage book.

Scouring of the Shire - worked well in book [i]and[/i] was properly left out of film. Advantage both[/quote]

I thought the eye worked really well. It was the best way to show Sauron as he was at the time, given that film is a visual medium.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Nadie' post='1353898' date='May 13 2008, 16.49']I don't quite agree. Almost all of it traces back to LOTR. As GRRM himself says in his Introduction essay in the book Meditations on Middle Earth, a fantastic collection of essays by fantasy authors:

“It is sometimes called Epic fantasy, sometimes High fantasy, but it ought to be called Tolkienesque fantasy.”[/quote]

Fantasy wasn't much of a genre even after LOTR. It didn't explode until the 80s-90s.

[quote]I agree that Martin is grittier than LOTR and in that way is more similar to WOT. The characters from ASOIAF are far more relatable to our 20th century mindset than those from Middle Earth. (I won't say the same about Jordan's though--his characters are just as unbelievable)

The one similarity that I find between them all stylistically is the ability to write rhythmic prose. Jordan can go overboard here, IMO, and Martin's has more of a 20th century sensibility, but all of them have a certain poetry and timing. Ursula LeGuin talks about Tolkien's timing in her essay in Meditations on Middle Earth. Fairly interesting, especially if you're a writer.[/quote]

We're not talking about prose though. Tolkien's "mythic style" is simply NOT used by the majority of fantasy authors of the past like 30 years or more.

[alguien]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353906' date='May 13 2008, 15.52']Fantasy wasn't much of a genre even after LOTR. It didn't explode until the 80s-90s.[/quote]

Yeah, the Dragonlance and Drizzt TSR books did a lot for that boom. Which were inspired by Dungeon's and Dragons. Which was created as a result of.....LOTR.

Just because it didn't happen right away doesn't mean that it wasn't the reason for all those books.

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353906' date='May 13 2008, 15.52']We're not talking about prose though. Tolkien's "mythic style" is simply NOT used by the majority of fantasy authors of the past like 30 years or more.[/quote]

When I talk about his "mythic style" I am talking about "epic"-sounding prose, which carries an internal phonetic rhythm. And I would argue that Jordan and Martin display the same sense of rhythm from time to time.

Say rather, many authors have tried to imitate his mythic style, and have failed, and you'll be correct.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Nadie' post='1353912' date='May 13 2008, 17.00']Yeah, the Dragonlance and Drizzt TSR books did a lot for that boom. Which were inspired by Dungeon's and Dragons. Which was created as a result of.....LOTR.

Just because it didn't happen right away doesn't mean that it wasn't the reason for all those books.[/quote]

They may have stolen some of his ideas on setting and world-building and such, but they took little else.

That's why Dwarves are all the same across most generic fantasy, but no book sounds, reads or feels like Tolkien.

[quote]When I talk about his "mythic style" I am talking about "epic"-sounding prose, which carries an internal phonetic rhythm. And I would argue that Jordan and Martin display the same sense of rhythm from time to time.

Say rather, many authors have tried to imitate his mythic style, and have failed, and you'll be correct.[/quote]

It's not his prose, it's his characterization, his way of telling a story and stuff like that that I'm talking about. Almost no one has copied that style of writing.

Most fantasy has a MUCH more modern take on characterization and writing then Tolkien.

[alguien]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353899' date='May 13 2008, 15.50']I thought the eye worked really well. It was the best way to show Sauron as he was at the time, given that film is a visual medium.[/quote]

Meh. I didn't like it when it was used as a spot light. I kept expecting someone to say, "Quick Gandalf, someone's using the Sauron Signal! To the Hobbitmobile!" I did like the design of the eye though. Just not continually on top of the tower. Terry Pratchett actually had a pretty funny joke about the eye in his book Going Postal.

I really would have liked to see the hooded shadow that reached a clawed hand out toward them, then was swept away by the wind after the ring had been destroyed as described in the book.

[alguien]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353918' date='May 13 2008, 16.04']It's not his prose, it's his characterization, his way of telling a story and stuff like that that I'm talking about.

Most fantasy has a MUCH more modern take on characterization and writing then Tolkien.[/quote]

I see what you mean.

I guess I understand people's frustration with his characterization, but I think its misguided. Its like criticizing Michaelangelo's David for not being a realistic depiction of the human form. I also believe that without LOTR the market for fantasy wouldn't have been created so you'd have nothing to compare it to.

I do think there is more of a trend nowadays to inject instrospection and moral ambiguity into fantasy. To try and get it to "grow up." It works when the dealing with crossover-type fantasies such as the Dark Tower, which take place in a "real" world and a fantastic one. It doesn't work as well when the authors try to make their own world up, because they fail to understand that in medieval times, people simply weren't as complex usually, because they didn't have that luxury.

This is where I think Martin excels and why some people have trouble with certain passages containing murder, rape, or sexual scenes involving underage characters. But in a realistic setting back then, most of these things were viewed with much less outrage.

[Ashamanic]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353918' date='May 13 2008, 16.04']They may have stolen some of his ideas on setting and world-building and such, but they took little else.

That's why Dwarves are all the same across most generic fantasy, but no book sounds, reads or feels like Tolkien.



It's not his prose, it's his characterization, his way of telling a story and stuff like that that I'm talking about. Almost no one has copied that style of writing.

Most fantasy has a MUCH more modern take on characterization and writing then Tolkien.[/quote]
I've said the same thing. I just don't see much Tolkien influence in a lot of fantasy. He might have inspired many to go and write, but for most, what they write has little resemblance to the way Tolkien wrote, and many of the common plot elements derrive from older myths, or are just easy ways of telling a story to an audience.

[BrainFireBob]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1353722' date='May 13 2008, 11.35']Why the emphasis on "OMG SWORDS!!!". It display a rather insulting characterization of those who don't like LOTR.

The most prominent example of cutting useless shit was Tom Bombadil. There's many others.

All that background would drag down the movie. The movies convey the amount of information necessary to make the story work. And then slightly alter some characters to make them fit the "Drama" motif of the vast majority of fiction written in the past like 100 years.

Tolkien wrote in a ... mythic style that involved flat, boring characters. That shit doesn't work on screen. Or even in books really.

Changing characters like Boromir and Faramir and Aragorn around makes them work better, as they feel like actual people.[/quote]

A) Because you cannot accept the existence of people like that? There are some.

B) "ZOMG Swords" was my rephrasing of:

"...those sections are boring without action . . ."

" . .there's no action in them, they're boring . . ."

Did you find the opening of Fellowship boring? Because again, that is the tale told by Elrond to the Council. I see Sauron differently, but the scale and style was similar to what I saw in my head when the character spoke of those days. I in fact dislike stories where the author goes out of his way to fill in all the details for you. Kills the imagination. Yet the sections labeled as boring tend only to be "boring because they lack action" if you fail to visualize the action they describe.

Bombadil . . is interesting, but doesn't really add to the story inherently, except to show that despite how grim the shadow of Mordor, there are powers older yet that still walk Middle-Earth. Bombadil is a nature spirit, and nature will survive and go on. Good to think on, no matter how earth-shattering the times.

[Exa Inova]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1353892' date='May 13 2008, 22.45']There are a few things I'm rock solid on.

No Bombadil - Advantage film.

Aragorn falling scene - Advantage book.

Literal eye scouring everything - Advantage book.

Unnecessary love story with Arwen - Advantage book.

Scouring of the Shire - worked well in book [i]and[/i] was properly left out of film. Advantage both[/quote]
God. Are we still not done on LOTR?

No Bombadil - [b]Advantage film[/b].

Aragorn falling scene - [b]Even[/b]. Since the whole scene was totally different from the book. In the book Theoden didnt move his people to Helms Deep

Literal eye scouring everything - [b]Advantage film[/b]. In the book you can use your own imagination on Sauron. In the movie you need something visual. Just think about it. How do you figure book Sauron looked during RotK?

Unnecessary love story with Arwen - [b]Even[/b]. No need for the love story in the book and film.

No cleansing of the Shire - Advantage film

No falling in love between Faramir and Eowin - Advantage film. The whole period in the book after the battle of Pelenor fields and before marching on the black gate was rightfully skipped.

No princes of Gondor - Advantage film

And so on, and so on.

Point is, the medium movie makes some major failing of the book visible. People dont act like they act in the book and without back story (where are the dwarves? Why no elves?) Staying true to the book would result in a messy movie.
This is not a Tolkien bashing, its just the truth.

[EHK for Darwin]

Boring:

First, I think its a bit insulting to the other people here to demean their point of view by characterizing it as nothing more than some twitchy, ADD addled 13 year old's urge for more swordplay. Noone here has responded in kind to attacks on the films or defenses of the books. There's no need for this shit.

The boring is less because there is no action, though it is quite annoying when potential dramatic and action high points occur off screen and are retold with lazy exposition. The problem is that there is no urgency. With anything. 16 years pass between intro and leaving the Shire. Months pass before Frodo's notification that he must get out and actually leaving. Days pass before starting the Council even though all have arrived. And more months pass before the Fellowship leaves even though they know well their task, its urgency, and of the building shadow along the paths of Saruman and others.

It is also evident in the dialog. Though the fate of the world ends in the balance and the groups assembled have traveled long distances seeking answers and are amongst others that they're likely to have little patience with, each person tells their own individual long, drawn out stories. No real summaries. No relaying the necessary information leaving it at that. No real getting to the point. And worse? Its said quite clearly that this is just a summary of Frodo's (or whoevers) recollections....aka, he's just including the important parts. This is a summary and it was quite near 40 pages of nothing but straight dialog. All storytelling. Most of it unnecessary. And probably better than half of it not conveying anything useful or interesting at all. I will say for the thousandth time that real people do not talk like this. And I will also say that if real people who have traveled long and hard seeking aid and answers had to endure this pointless meandering, they would go postal and for good reason.

Lesser regarded works are criticized (and rightfully so) for their excessive info dumping from time to time. Most of the Council is nothing but one big info dump. I don't look upon it with quite the same trepidation as '54 page speech by John Galt' but its not too far off. There was no need for it. The information could have been conveyed in a more concise manner within the dialog, which would have been more realistic, effective, and readable. And since we're still on the boring, add in the needless fluff that should have been sliced at editing, but we've covered those already pretty well.


[quote]If it's not a weapon that can work, it's not the one weapon that can save you. Apparently, you missed that part.[/quote]

I don't expect all people in desperate times to take those warnings at face value and in fact some didn't. I don't forget it. But I think its more than reasonable that some characters would be willing to disregard it. The ring makes itself desirable to those around it. As the books say, great and Wise men may use it to do good and may accomplish such. But over time it would corrupt them and create another dark lord. But they have still used it for good and I suspect that is part of the temptation the ring plays upon. If you desire wealth, women, and power, the ring may let it be known that it can provide you that. If you desire only to defend your kingdom and people, the ring may convince you that it is the only means by which you can do so. I may be reading into the ring a bit much, but I don't think it too much a stretch to believe that it plays on the temptations that those individuals around it would be most susceptible to. So whether Elrond or Gandalf says that it cannot be used becomes less convincing over time with regular exposure to the ring.

[quote]Boromir also is spouting off the fears of his people- it is meant to show, by contrast with Aragorn, how far the mighty Gondor has fallen, that one of its mightiest men and leaders of men fears the Elves of Lothlorien, when he should embrace them as allies. Aragorn, by contrast, is a throwback to the old Numenoreans- he displays what Men were once, as the charge of the singing Rohirrim at Pelennor shows the vitality of the fathers of men, of whom they are the last representatives.[/quote]

Eh? Isn't that the same tactic you criticized earlier? Building up one character by diminishing the other? (Might have been Cal that said that) Thinned blood or not, Boromir was is the heir of Gondor, fought hordes of charging orcs, traveled apparently thousands of miles through the lands northword (the reverse of the journey that would claim half of the fellowship. Sure he took a different route before danger spread everywhere, but it was hardly a pleasure cruise) on his own...and he spends most of the book as a whiny coward. All for what? To make Aragorn look special? The Boromir character was diminished beyond the point of believability. Did not react on numerous occasions as one would expect someone in his position to. The film portrayal was simply much more effective.


[b]Nadie:[/b]

I don't think anyone doubts the popularity or influence of LotR. It spawned most of the modern fantasy genre. Although Gygax claims it wasn't a big influence in D&D (he mentions a few other fantasy works that he drew from more directly), alot of it is fairly clear to see. But I think alot of the current reverence it receives is because of that status. Even if someone of the talent of Tolkien who put the same work into the myth and world-building wrote something in the same style as Tolkien today I don't think it'd appeal to modern readers. And not just because the Tolkien story has been rehashed a thousand times over.

Stylistically it would fall flat. People wouldn't sit still for the pages of dialog of people talking like high-falutin pompous asses with their magical swords surgically attached to their penises. People would wonder when the meandering diatribes would get to the point. When they'd actually respond to the urgency of the situation in their speech and actions or whether they'd continue to pretend that they're telling a stories around a campfire to transfixed little children. People would wonder why Eomer with an entire cavalry regiment at his back didn't laugh and cut Aragorn down rather than cower in awe as Aragorn drew his shiny sword and recited his lineage, making demands when he was in no position to do so. What do you think would have been a more likely response to such an arrogant and pompous display? Fawning servility or "You've got a shiny sword, I've got an army, go fuck yourself"?

He writes characters who don't ring true as real people. Who do not speak in any plausibly realistic manner. Who don't react to situations as you might expect one in their positions to do so. They talk at eachother more than talk to. If people talked like that in a real scenario, they'd be laughed at. If people read that crap in anything that wasn't LotR, they'd cringe and throw the book down. Most of the film depictions simply ring truer and work more effectively. The exceptions to this have already been noted. And yeah, alot of the film dialog is taken from the books. But its trimmed of fluff, for the most part keeping the strongest and most pressing turns of phrase, and come at more effective moments in the story. (don't have a problem with the attributing to different characters either. None of the choices seemed clearly wrong or out of character)

[Calibandar]

One of the things that also struck me when watching the films is the sheer stupidity of the decisions taken by the director, not just in general, but specifically when adapting already existing sequences.

Example: [b]The Bridge of Khazad-Dum[/b], scene of Gandalf the Grey's death. Check this youtube clip if you don't remember anymore how exactly Jackson portrays this scene, start watching at 5.20.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-CE0vHViWA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-CE0vHViWA[/url]

Now, what happens in the book?

Gandalf guards the bridge, the rest of the Fellowship cross it. The Balrog emerges, Gandalf breaks the Bridge and the Balrog falls. However during it's fall it coils it's fiery whip around Gandalf, and drags him down with it down the very depths. The scene is deeply haunting and readers are schocked; Tolkien is actually having the great leader of the expedition be killed.

What happens in the film?

Now remember, a sequence was already written by JRRT and need only be adapted to the screen. What does PJ do?

It all looks great, I certainly agree. A majestic looking Balrog, a dishevelled and desperate Gandalf the Grey, great soundtrack at that point. This is going to be an awesome scene.

Gandalf breaks the bridge. The Balrog falls. It coils it's fiery whip around Ganfalf's ankles. Gandalf falls. But does not. He manages to hang on the ledge. The Balrog let's go of Gandalf by uncoiling it's whip. Gandalf's friends see Gandalf struggle at the ledge. He needs help. Boromir and Aragorn contain the Halfllings so that they do not help and endanger themselves. In the end, Gandalf falls.

I just don't see why they have to weaken the sequence thus. The way PJ shows it, inevitable questions arise that never arise in Tolkien's scenario, questions of logic.

a) why does the Balrog, who weighs thousands of tons, uncoil it's whip from Gandalf so he can grab hold of the ledge? This makes no sense, the Balrog should simply drag him down. Why does it release him?

b) Why don't the Fellowship do all they do to help him? He is their leader, the quest depends on his guidance and knowledge of the terrain. Why does no one make a move? Are they not a Fellowship, with deep bonds of friendship? Apparantly in this Fellowship, contrary to the one Tolkien wrote about in which one gladly gave one's life for another if need be, here self-preservation reigns.

C) I've seen it argued by some that Gandalf chooses to fall here, because he cannot get up to the ledge by himself and receives no aid, and thus plunges to his death willingly because he does not wish to endanger the rest of the Fellowship. So apparantly that is an interpretation that the film allows people to have, which is kind of silly since the Balrog is not coming back up and poses no further threat.

All of these questions of logic are avoided by Tolkien, who simply has Gandalf fall unwillingly and inevitably. I think it's a question of intelligence really, but also one of stubbornly wanting to do your own thing even when you're clearly not coming up with something better. But of course, at that point a thousand lame Gimli jokes, Galadriel the Evil Psychiatrist, an Arwen-is-dying-because-she-is-tied-to-the-one-ring subplot, and shield surfing and oliphaunt trunk surfing were yet to come.

However, I will say in PJ's defense to question B, at least he is consistent when it comes his Fellowship's mentality. Not much later, the second leader of the Quest, Aragorn, informs Frodo that he will him abandon him at Amon Hen. So this sense of leaving each other to one's own devices is prevalent. Of course, later on PJ has Frodo angrily send Sam off as well, breaking the final strong bond of friendship and trust that Tolkien established as unbreakable.

[EHK for Darwin]

Yeah I can see those problems Cal. And they could have been fixed with a bit of restructuring and better attention to detail. But I suspect it was done that way to get that desperate moment of the Gandalf clinging to the remnants of the bridge, the hobbits shouting 'Noooo!' as he urges them 'Fly you fools!'. Lets be honest. That was a powerful moment whether it completely makes sense or not. And all told, that was an awesome scene. Perhaps the highlight of the film trilogy. The book version was quite good, but that simply blows it away. I think when you read that much into it you're cheating yourself out of the enjoyment. Its not like the brain has to turn completely off...as far as willing suspension of disbelief goes, that's fairly minor.

Just as I suspect it was filmed that way for the great money-shot, I suspect cliff-diving Aragorn happened for the same reasons. Because his triumphant slow-motion return through the doors at Helm's Deep worked fairly well. Wow, Aragorn is here when he was thought lost! We have hope and stuff now! Not quite as good and certainly not necessary, but that particular scene was effective...and I don't know how they could have done it without Aragorn being thought killed. Though...once more, unnecessary, perhaps excessive, and the absence of the 'triumphant return' scene certainly wouldn't have hurt the film any.




And if you're gonna criticize the film version of the Bridge scene, I think we should equally highlight the book version of its aftermath. The film version exceptional. One of my favorite scenes. The hobbits collapsing on rocks, grief and despair etched on all of their faces. Aragorn looking on, pausing before reluctantly giving the order that he has to, maintaining steadiness and resolution in his tone that his face shows he doesn't share. Legolas in stunned silence, his disbelief causing him to respond with dumbfounded silence to Aragorn's "Get them up" order. Boromir championing their collective grief with his passionate plea, "Give them a moment for pity's sake!" The score, the scenery, all captured the moment perfectly. The tone and expressions, the sadness and pacing. It was poignant, powerful, perfect. They had lost their friend, guide, mentor and leader. Their reaction was everything it should have been.

The book version...a fucking abomination comparatively. Aragorn essentially saying 'Wow, that was sad. Didn't I tell ya Moria sucked? Come, I'll lead you now. Weep no more!' I've rarely read a more incompetent grasp of the human psyche. I understand these are supposed to be mythic forces and they're on the run from hordes of orcs, but their version of grieving was both too abrupt and callous. If the film-bridge scene was a minor lapse of logic, it still stood out as an exceptional scene...even if the book version made a bit more sense. The aftermath? No contest. The film version wrought every ounce of emotion from the situation that it could...and it all worked, none of it felt heavy-handed or excessive. The book version failed on almost every conceivable level. And became a much larger comparative liability than the film-bridge scene ever could be.

Now that we've had this discussion, I think I'm gonna rewatch Fellowship when I get home tonight.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GS,

[quote name='Gold Storm' post='1339037' date='May 2 2008, 09.07'][u]The Lord of the Rings[/u]: I know this will be sacrilege to some, tried several times to read the series, but I did not like the writing style a lot of singing and the battle scenes were not that good, but the movies were great Jackson made the books come a live for me.[/quote]

:o

Particularly the attack of the green scrubing bubbles in RotK. That was the highlight of the movie trilogy for me.

Bellis,

[quote]Children of Men.[/quote]

I read [u]Children of Men[/u] before I saw the movie. The movie did nothing for me. In fact I thought it completely ignored the point of the book. Humanity was dieing a long slow death. There appeared to be no escape, there was nothing left to fight for because, in the end we were all swirling in the toliet waiting for the last flush.

The entire last third of the film with all the rebel v. government fighting lost the sense of despair that pervaded the book. People who are dispairing aren't ralling against government abuses. They are sitting quietly at home trying to get up the motivation to go on. Additionally, that these men and women, who were so awestruck when they saw the first human baby in 18 years, would, seconds after that baby passed by them, start shooting again (risking the life of this precious infant) was full on stupid.

I did not like "Children of Men."

[Calibandar]

Hey EHK :)

My general feeling about the trilogy can be summed by saying that PJ clearly wanted to do a big Fantasy trilogy, but couldn't have gotten that budget with an unknown story, and very likely could never have come up with such a great story anyway. So what we get is Tolkien's classic, "adapted" by Jackson, but also the Lord of the Rings, " [i]as I would have liked to have seen it written[/i]", according to Jackson.

So you do get the LoTR on film, and then you don't. I would honestly have preferred him to either make far more changes so there is no resemblance to the LoTR whatsoever and you can put that story out of your head; or, be more faithful, and by that I mean, make the necessary changes so that it works well on screen, but try at least a little bit to keep a lid on your sensationalist teen-focused, b-horror movie approach. But his own background plus his "wanna change" mentality prevent it from becoming an adaptational success.

Now, specifically, Boromir, I disliked him in the book as well as the film. Obviously the film medium has clear advantages over the book. It's easier to watch a film then to read a book. It's easier to show something as very grand and impressive. For instance I find Boromir's death scene in the books haunting, but seeing it come alive on-screen was more powerful. But as a whole, the character portrayed in book and film was similar. Also, the Balrog scene, more impressive on-screen than in my imagination because my imagination was too limited. However it is jarring that PJ ruins it somewhat by making me ask questions of logic during the film that I did not have during the book read, because Tolkien handles it more skillfully.

Bridge aftermath. I cannot recall reading that in the book and having any problems with it. I do know they had no time to grieve at that point and that Aragorn was urging everyone on. Which I can understand. Maybe I am emotionally distant.

Generally though, I don't think I could say that the movie did much of anything better than in the book. Certainly not the portrayal of the characters, which is my prime objection to Jackson's adaptation. I will say however that the Eagles looked magnificent, and that the LoTR film trilogy is beautiful to look at. The Gandalf-Moth scene was a nice invention. His physical duel with Saruman is much better than the offhanded way Tolkien handles Saruman improsoning him.

[EHK for Darwin]

Eh...I think the characters thing could go either way. The film massacred a few. Made some choices on how to approach a character that I disagreed with. (and also a few that I thought were improvements) But overall, the film [b]characters acted, reacted, behave and spoke to eachother like real people.[/b] I very rarely got that sense from anyone in the books but the hobbits. So 'Saruman should've had his own ambitions' and 'Aragorn should've avoided the 90's reluctant hero archetype' may be true, but in the grand scheme of things comes off as minor nit-picking that misses the forest for the few out of place trees. Comparatively speaking anyway.

To me with the films we're looking at isolated flaws or questionable choices, some pretty damned glaring and some less so, that could and should have been corrected, coupled with some notable improvements placed in what are overall quite competently made, enjoyable and effective films. With the books we're looking at a consistent pattern of fundamental flaws that plague nearly every character interaction, half the characters themselves, a number of the scenes and most of the reactions.

Since I'm characterizing half the books as one big flaw, I think its fairly clearly a style preference on my part. Tolkien's very rarely works for me. As such I don't see the changing of tone or character to be that much of a problem in itself if the film version happens to work better. If I'm reading in eye-rolling disbelief at some of the character reactions and the film alters them a bit and it proves more realistic and effective...film version wins whether it defied Tolkien's intentions or not. His characterizations are not sacrosanct simply because they're Tolkien...because quite frankly, alot of them are fairly weak.

[alguien]

[quote name='EnlightenmentHK' post='1354559' date='May 14 2008, 05.18'][b]Nadie:[/b]

I don't think anyone doubts the popularity or influence of LotR. It spawned most of the modern fantasy genre. Although Gygax claims it wasn't a big influence in D&D (he mentions a few other fantasy works that he drew from more directly), alot of it is fairly clear to see. But I think alot of the current reverence it receives is because of that status. Even if someone of the talent of Tolkien who put the same work into the myth and world-building wrote something in the same style as Tolkien today I don't think it'd appeal to modern readers. And not just because the Tolkien story has been rehashed a thousand times over.

Stylistically it would fall flat. People wouldn't sit still for the pages of dialog of people talking like high-falutin pompous asses with their magical swords surgically attached to their penises. People would wonder when the meandering diatribes would get to the point. When they'd actually respond to the urgency of the situation in their speech and actions or whether they'd continue to pretend that they're telling a stories around a campfire to transfixed little children. People would wonder why Eomer with an entire cavalry regiment at his back didn't laugh and cut Aragorn down rather than cower in awe as Aragorn drew his shiny sword and recited his lineage, making demands when he was in no position to do so. What do you think would have been a more likely response to such an arrogant and pompous display? Fawning servility or "You've got a shiny sword, I've got an army, go fuck yourself"?

He writes characters who don't ring true as real people. Who do not speak in any plausibly realistic manner. Who don't react to situations as you might expect one in their positions to do so. They talk at eachother more than talk to. If people talked like that in a real scenario, they'd be laughed at. If people read that crap in anything that wasn't LotR, they'd cringe and throw the book down. Most of the film depictions simply ring truer and work more effectively. The exceptions to this have already been noted. And yeah, alot of the film dialog is taken from the books. But its trimmed of fluff, for the most part keeping the strongest and most pressing turns of phrase, and come at more effective moments in the story. (don't have a problem with the attributing to different characters either. None of the choices seemed clearly wrong or out of character)[/quote]

I do think the films were as good of an adaptation as you could possibly make of the books. Would I have made a few different choices? Possibly? I think Elijah Wood portrayed Frodo as too much of a crying wuss at times. But in all the divergent elements that I disagreed with, I could see the reason behind them, so I can't fault Peter Jackson and co. for that. It was clearly a labor of love on their part, and they did their best to bring the book to the screen. In the special edition DVD on Return of the King, tolkien author Shippey says it best when states "You now have Lord of the Rings by Tolkien, and Lord of the Rings as interpreted by Peter Jackson."

While I see where your coming from with your criticisms of his characters, I disagree for the most part. For one thing, Eomer and the Rohirrim, if they are basically Celtic warriors on horseback, as they were intended to be, I don't think they would reacted in the manner you say. I think they would have been impressed with Aragorn's boldness, machismo, and lineage.

But I see where you're coming from. Many people say that the characters are too good to be true. (or apparently have swords attached to their penises :dunno: ) I'd like to think that in simpler times, faced with a situation so desperate and dire, perhaps people would face that in such a selfless and noble fashion. But hey, I'm the weird mixture of hopeless romantic optimism combined with a fatal realism. I think the clinical term is called "irish".

As for whether the books would work if tried today...again, the question is almost self-defeating. Without LOTR, there would be no fantasy genre market, so if it came out today, it would still be groundbreaking. Now if another linguistics scholar and literature professor spent 15 years (and a lifetime) creating a mythology for people along with a story...well in a different culture it might work. Its been done here for the Western culture. And then the derivative works have killed it. I believe there are too many elements that come into play to be reproduced in such a manner, so much so that it makes LOTR a unique phenomena: Tolkien's experience having literally all his friends die in WWI with him as the sole survivor, his love for his wife, the death of his father at age 4, mother at 12, raised by a priest, his Catholic beliefs, early love of Romantic sagas....too much that is unique to him. You're right that it wouldn't work for anyone else because his style (an interesting combination of British sounding phrases and epic stanzas) is too unique to recreate. I don't think anyone else could do it.

As to your substantive criticisms of the books themselves, well it goes without saying that I disagree. But everyone has their own likes and dislikes and I think its futile to try to change opinions like that with forceful arguments. I can't stand Great Expectations but apparently its considered the world's greatest novel by some.

ETA: I just read the latest blog entry from Neil Gaiman and he posted an old speech of his about art and imitation that I think rings very true with some fantasy today and the reason those who try to emulate Tolkien but little else fail:

"We all swipe when we start. We trace, we copy, we emulate. But the most important thing is to get to the place where you’re telling your own stories, painting your own pictures, doing the stuff that one-one else could have done, but you."