Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scoops Novel]

I'll admit to seeing few episodes, but it annoys me, though arguably justifiably, at the age of the youth. If they make Sam 20 i'll be at the end of my tether. I'd rather they'd at least keep them to the point where the audience is vaguely uncomfortable, and leave out the sex scenes.

[Bauglir]

- a couple of maidens (there is plenty of room for "adapting" the plot by inserting sex scenes)

If they did that, this plot point would no longer be true.

[WillowLuman]

Ninja'd x4

Still, I'd actually trust him more for an adaptation (despite his flaws) since he's not actually a Hollywood producer. He's based in NZ with his own studio, while the other studios are based directly in Hollywood (and the focus-grouping execs.)

I'm aware he's not technically Hollywood, but a lot of his decisions still seem firmly rooted in mass audience appeal.  Slightly different feel from the special effects and cinematography than a Hollywood film, but the script writing amounts to the same types of stuff either way.

Nah, Jackson's problem is on the other end of the spectrum. He makes films for himself, and people let him keep doing it because they make money. He does what he thinks is cool, and is probably a very devoted fan of Tolkien, but he's directing to his tastes alone with not much consideration for other people's (sometimes better) interpretations of the lore. In his adaptations, what he thinks would be cool often takes precedence over accuracy.

So, many cringe-worthy embellishments (river of skulls, shield surfing) or unnecessary changes (Aragorn going over cliff), but also obsessively devoted enough to have 10,000 hand-crafted belt buckles made for the Uruk-Hai.

[WillowLuman]

EDIT: CRAP! double post

Personally, I believe that if the Silmarillion were adapted, it would be best done as a miniseries, possibly by someone at the BBC or other Britain-based studios. As a film series, I believe it could be done in no less than 6 or 7 long movies.

HBO.
They'd love the Narn i Chîn Húrin part

It's not the right kind of story. Oh, they might get the details right, perhaps, but HBO would not have the right tone or mood. They like gritty, and while Tolkien stories, like any large complex world, have some grittiness, it certainly isn't the foreground.

[TheKaspa]

@Hugo: you are right
Oh, well, they should do The DeathGate instead.

[Zrk2]

I think Jackson has done a good job for the most part, it's just that LOTR is inherently not built for the movie format because of the way Tolkien wrote them.

[Bauglir]

I think Jackson has done a good job for the most part, it's just that LOTR is inherently not built for the movie format because of the way Tolkien wrote them.

Basically, this. I feel that adaptation was necessary, and while I do have a few areas where I think a change was a bad idea or wasn't the change that best captures the spirit of the original, overall the movies were good movies in themselves, and didn't mutilate the source material. When there were problems, they felt less like disrespect and more like overenthusiastic embellishment.

I feel much the same about the Hobbit, except that there were fewer* such problems (possibly because the source material is better-suited) and they were able to bring new techniques and ideas to the material in a way that helped it grow and express itself in ways the book couldn't (at the cost of methods that are only practical in a novel). That's something I feel like LotR didn't manage - the movies were fine examples of cinema, but they didn't really bring anything new to the table and lost a bit of the quality of the original. This felt like a much more polished adaptation, and I think it's a great example of the way culture is supposed to grow and blend classic ideas with newer formats and themes, something that doesn't happen nearly enough these days, <copyright rant omitted>.

*I want to emphasize that "fewer" is not "no".

[SalmonGod]

Meh... I don't feel like the adaptation argument applies nearly so often as it's made out to be.  Altering the nature of characters so that they do completely different things or behave in completely different ways has nothing to do with adaptation requirements.  Changing core plot events in ways unrelated to time management has nothing to do with adaptation requirements.  Adding stuff that has nothing to do with the original story and takes up extra time actually works completely against the adaptation argument.  All those things point solidly to either "I think it should have been written this way" or "I think this would appeal better to mass audience."

[Bauglir]

I never said any of them were perfect, I said they were good. There were things that I don't think were necessary - Arwen, for instance, having an action scene didn't contribute a lot and made the rest of her appearances kind of jarring compared to the woman we'd been introduced to. Gimli and Legolas lost a fair bit of character to become iconic stereotypes with too much comedy, though at least they got the growing friendship part right. The Army of the Dead was silly. Saruman's fate was either really corny or just completely not addressed depending on which edition you watch. Aragorn falling off a cliff was a pointless addition that I'm pretty sure was only there to give Liv Tyler a role and keep the audience from forgetting about Arwen in between film releases. There's probably quite a few more, if I cared to dig them up.

Out of ten-ish hours of movie, these don't add up to a dealbreaker. If the result resembled the Fellowship of the Ring SNES game, that would have been an affront to all things good. And I don't think they say, "I think it should have been written this way" so much as they do, "I think it could have been written this way, and it would still be good, and I think this would make a better film." Changing things to appeal to your audience is a fairly major part of adapting a work, so I'm not sure I see the problem here.

Could it have been done better? Yes, it could've. But I still think it was done fairly well.

Of course, I listed all my little gripes about the Hobbit here, if that's what you were talking about, but much the same conclusion applies. The major difference is that I would consider the Hobbit adaptation to be vastly superior, and that they actually achieve some degree of cultural evolution. LotR was just the source material run through the Jackson Filter with little of value added, resulting in a product that's still excellent largely because of its original qualities and the excellent visuals that come out of that filter.

[SalmonGod]

There were certain changes that amounted to significant character alterations, such as Aragorn being protrayed as the ultimate badass, even more powerful than Gandalf.  I also didn't like how they made him out to be a reluctant hero.  The Nazgul were consistently pussified.  Frodo looked like a deer in headlights in every single scene.  Etc.  That type of stuff changes the nature of the entire work, so in my opinion there's more to it than X minutes out of 10 hours being wrong.  Certain events were major deal-breakers for me too, especially in Return of the King.  The deal with Faramir was waaaaay out there and dedicated a ton of time to something that completely changed many relative aspects of the story.  And Gollum's death was the fucking worst, subverting the ultimate core theme of Tolkien's entire body of work.

This is starting to turn into a hate rant, and I'm not trying to do that.  I know I don't need to re-iterate my opinions.  I'm mentioning these things, because I don't understand how they relate to adaptation.

Unless alteration for the sake of appealing to a broader audience is seen as a legitimate form of adaptation, in which case I guess my biggest problem is I have very little tolerance for that.  To do so is counter to everything I believe about the nature of art, and it results in watered down, meaningless culture.  Constant appeal to common pop culture media tropes represents nothing but stagnation to me.

[WillowLuman]

Though, once more I must say Jackson wasn't thinking of Focus Groups or Marketing. He was making a movie for himself, and got away with it because it made money. Might be seen as equally bad, but from the other end.

[Vattic]

And Gollum's death was the fucking worst, subverting the ultimate core theme of Tolkien's entire body of work.

What was different? Must have missed something.

[SalmonGod]

And Gollum's death was the fucking worst, subverting the ultimate core theme of Tolkien's entire body of work.

What was different? Must have missed something.

Movie:  Gollum gets thrown over the edge in a tussle with Samwise.  Good triumphs over evil.

Book:  Gollum loses himself so thoroughly in ecstasy after getting the ring back, that he dances into the crack of doom.  Evil destroys itself.  Most consistent theme throughout all of Tolkien's works.  Good wins battles, but always loses the bigger picture, barely persevering until evil's own nature implodes on itself.

[Darvi]

'twas Frodo who shoved him, if memory serves. Which kinda looks less heroic and more like "that's my ring you're holding there, motherfucker!"

[SalmonGod]

'twas Frodo who shoved him, if memory serves. Which kinda looks less heroic and more like "that's my ring you're holding there, motherfucker!"

You're right.  It was Frodo, and I suppose it could be seen as somewhat ambiguous whether he was acting heroically or greedily.