LOTR movies

Poststructural Pub
1

I just reread LOTR and then decided to finally see the movies. I am no expert on the books at all, but some things in the movies bothered me an awful lot. I’m just wondering if maybe I misinterpreted some things in the book.

I had seen the first movie before and it seemed pretty good. Most of the changes didn’t bother me. But the one thing that did is that in the movie it seemed as though Sam was being ordered by Gandolf to go with Frodo against his will. I thought in the book that Sam, when he was caught eavesdropping, was of his own free will determined not to let Frodo go alone. I thought the movie was demeaning to Sam.

In the second movie, I was disappointed at how the elves were depicted. I know they aren’t a jolly carefree people, but Elrond seemed so severe that I was scared of him. I know he had a lot of problems, and he did make a little joke when Sam joined the council, but in the book I had felt that, though Elrond was a very serious and special person, I would have been able to be in his presence without cowering.

I also was very disappointed in the way Lothlorien was depicted. It was so beautiful in the book. In the movie it seemed like a dark and frightening place. Again, I know the elves aren’t jolly folk, but I had expected beautiful little singings from golden trees. I didn’t think that the experience of the fellowship was as amazing there as I was expecting. I didn’t feel any friendliness from the elves, except maybe Galadriel. She seemed okay. But everyone else seemed scary. In the book there was a get together I think, and a loving sendoff.

In the third movie I was very offended by the fact that the Ents were depicted as not deciding on their own to go to war. I know they had to discuss it and that they had not been involved in the world, but Merry didn’t make a special plea that turned things around in the book. I felt this was demeaning to the Ents. I thought the movie did not make the Ents seem like the really important and great creatures they were. The movie made them seem sort of goofy.

I thought the third movie gave a very unfair impression of Faramir. I know he interrogated the hobbits, etc. But, and maybe I am mistaken, I think he came to his conclusion about the ring on his own, he didn’t need the proof of its badness that the movie showed—I forget just what happened in the movie. But in the book it said something about Faramir being a very special person, having the wisdom of the higher ones—or something like that. I thought the movie portrayed him as being mean and only being turned around by Frodo.

Well, any comments would be appreciated. I have probably gotten the facts wrong here but I know I did feel quite bad at certain points.

2

I agree with most of your points, Cynth.

Watching the various backup materials with the extended DVDs, most of the decisions were made to speed the movies along, make it more “Hollywood” etc. e,g, in the books, Faramir really isn’t affected by the ring at all, unlike most humans. This wasn’t good enough for the writers, who felt every character should go through some sort of change as a result of their experiences in the film.

The Entmoot thing made me seethe. It atually took longer to do things the Jackson way, had the same end result, but as you say, weakened the Ents in the process. Bad deed, Jackson, bad deed.

I think Galdalf would have forced Sam to go, but he was all too keen to go anyway (and meet the Elves), so no coersion was necessary.

Elves are always difficult on film. I think the choice of actor for Elrond was a mistake, he was just too ugly. They also made him do a few things in the film that he would not have domne in the book.

3

I think, considering the amount of things that are in the books, that the movies were very well done. However…

I really hated the entire “return to the Shire / Saramun” episode being dropped from the movie. I really feel that was an important part of the books. Without it, you get the feeling that the hobbits just “returned to life as normal”, when that was far from what happened.
I was also disappointed in not having Tom Bombadil (sp?) in the movies.

I thought the entire treatment of the Ents - from what they looked like and moved like, to the things you spoke about - was really disappointing. To me, my reading of the Ents was of a noble race, and the movie made them seem too comical.

But - again - there was just SO much that could have been put in the movies, but would have made them each about 10 hours long. I think the Shire scenery was spectactular, and just what I would have imagined. The Ringwraths were great, as was the whole part of Aragon and the Valley of Death.

What I hope is that the movies cause more to read the books.

Missy

4

I am really glad to hear your opinions—probably because I agree with them. :laughing:

I did think the movies were quite good and I know the whole story couldn’t be told. But it did seem, as Martin said, that some episodes took as long but changed the meaning of things.

I think Elrond could look okay, but so often he had such scary looks on his face. There were a few times when his face softened and then I was happy with the choice. But there were things about Arwen in the movie—her sickness and Aragorn breaking things off, etc.—that I also found weird.

I also thought that some of the fighting was sort of over the top, even though I know that getting the courage to face horrible death to fight blackness was one of the main ideas. But some of that time could have gone to other things it seemed to me.

Missy, that Tom Bombadil thing is interesting. I read something somewhere about Tom Bobadil and how it was hard to figure out who and what he was and his purpose in the story. I enjoyed that episode alot, but when I think about him I just can’t say I can understand what that situation was. But maybe that was the story, that there were inexplicable (to us anyway) beings in the world. Maybe the movie makers felt they didn’t understand it either and wouldn’t be able to link it to the story as a whole. I know in the book Gandalf was going to visit him after the troubles were over and he was a very special person. But hard for me to relate to the whole tale I guess.

The return to the Shire in the movie was a real shock. That is something that maybe shortening some of the fighting could have left time for. It seems to me that there was a horrible irony that after all they had been through, and we thought finally everything is okay, that they should come home to find their haven devastated. The trees, especially.

5

Iitially the Faramir thing bothered me.

But. . . the key thing I try to remember is that the movies aren’t intended as a slavish copy of the books - Jackson et al have left their own stamp on the stories, which is how a lot of great literature is generated or passed down (e.g. arthuriana)

I want to see a live action Silmarillion, concentrating on Feanor. that would rock.

6

I agree with you all on some points.
I was a bit dissapointed at first at some things, but after watching the bonus DVD’s were you see how they did everything, I realised that they did the movie as best as they could, and I don’t believe anyone in the world could have done it better. We have to realise that a mavie is as different as it can get from a book, and you can’t aim to do a movie like a book, because it simply wouldn’t work. Some things from the books would not work in the movie, they explain most of that stuff on the bonus DVD’s and it was extremely interesting to hear. There are so many things you have to consider when you make a movie.

7

I might read them too. Sometime in the future. I’d never heard of them until I started to play whistle.

8

Those movies sucked, well, I don’t know if the third one sucked cause I boycotted it. I couldn’t picture myself sitting down watching that horrible movie for 3 or 4 hours when I could read the book in less time.

9

Tom was the nod to the next layer of the onion. The layer that sent the wizards & elves to middle earth in the first place.

10

A movie of The Silmarillion, wow. I read that once but it was hard to keep things straight in my head.

Henke, I think it would be interesting to see how they did things and why they made certain decisions. I know that there are a lot of constraints that a person wouldn’t be aware of unless one was trying to make the movie.

Oh MurphyStout, sigh. :laughing: I almost decided not to rent the third one because I was feeling upset about various things. But I did. And I don’t think they sucked. They just didn’t come up to what I would have hoped for in some ways. There were some very good scenes. I was worried that seeing them might spoil the book by taking away the pictures I made in my head. But except for certain characters that didn’t happen because the movie really was quite different. What made you feel like they were so terribly bad?

Denny—I think I know what you mean although I have forgotten the history part. Those earlier beings under twilight skies or something. Okay, that is something to think about and it makes some sense—his supreme power and his detachment. But why would he be in that forest?

11

If you’re going to watch the movies, make sure you are watching the director’s cut versions. The theatre releases had 40-50 minutes cut from each of them. The full length versions are so much more coherent. After reading some of the making-of books and seeing the full length versions, I think you will find Rivendell and Lothlorien were not only beautiful, but faithful, as well. I wasn’t happy with several of the casting selections, but none was worse than their choice for Sam.

You would have to read the Silmarillion to understand Tom Bombadil, and how central he was to Tolkien’s philosophy. I was especially disappointed that this did not get translated into the film. I always thought Rhys-Davies is Tom Bombadil, even before the film was conceived, and no extensive/excessive make-up job required.

The director’s cut versions also have lots of background and making-of stories. My favourite is from film 3, where they talked about staging the big cavalry charges. The horses quickly caught on to “lights, camera, action” and it got to the point where they would anticipate and explode into full speed charges before the direction “action” could be given. The crew had to constantly invent new code-words for “action” just to keep the horses from running riot over the field. Great stuff! :laughing:

djm

12

Oh, I didn’t know about those versions. I might give them a try. I looked at a few little videos at the LOTR website about how some things were done and it was interesting.

I wasn’t bothered by the casting choice for Sam. Some other ones did bother me but I seem to have gotten used to most of them. Isn’t it odd how we all have these certain very strong pictures and ideas of characters and they are all different!

I am not much of a movie person. But I think these books in particular were so visually creative and also visually difficult at times, that I felt a real desire to see the books moving in front of me. I did have an atlas that helped me alot.

Yes, I think I will have to reread The Silmarillion. Maybe I could make charts as I go to keep things straight.

13

on casting:
I was a little disappointed in Frodo - I dunno, he just didn’t seem “Hobbit-ish” enough to me. The rest were fine, especially Bilbo (anyone know if Jackson does do the “Hobbit” is he planning on having the same person do Bilbo?)
I loved the choice for Gimli! And Gandalf. Christopher Lee I have a little trouble with - but that’s because of being an old “B” horror movie fan (I find him better suited for his Star Wars role).
And I like Orlando Bloom as a blonde! :smiley:
Aragon was good casting. I was somewhat off-put by Elrond, too - but since the Elvish groups were coming to their final days, it wasn’t too bothersome to me to have him a somewhat stern character.

Missy

14

It’s extremely interesting to watch how they created the movies. There is such a huge amount of work put into them, probably one of the bigest in the history movies. All those tiny details that you never think about when you watch them, but makes them better anyway. I have all 3 movies in 4 disc DVD editions, the extended movies on 2 discs and 2 discs of bonus material in each set. I can warmly recommend them. They are a must have if you enjoy the movies.
By the way, I am an old fan of the books as well. I read the trilogy first time around four years before the first movie was released, and although I’m a little bit dissapointed at some things, I am very happy with the movies in general. I didn’t expect them to be half as good as the books, because movies never are, but I can’t see how anyone could have made them better. They exceeded my expectations in many areas, I never expected them to be that good, that’s probably why I wasn’t dissapointed.

Now can somebody please make a few movies based on David Eddings or Robert Jordan novells?

15

I read The Hobbit in college and could barely get through it. It was very popular then as now. So I didn’t read LOTR until about 35 years later! I reread The Hobbit and just loved it and went on to the others about the time everyone was talking about the movies. I just now reread them all. I really do like the books alot and the movies could never replace them in my mind.

Missy, I was taken aback by the casting of Frodo as well and for the same reasons. It is hard now when reading the book because I can’t get a picture of Frodo in my head----my mind rejects the movie Frodo but not enough for me to get another picture in mind.

Henke, are these big DVD sets something you have to buy or would video stores rent them out? I could just check for myself, except I guess I would have seen them if they had them. Maybe the library would have them.

16

Who has enough time for a Jordan film version? ooph. . . no thanks. I got hooked on the first two books, but after that is turned slowly into a massive snoozefest.

Eddings’ stories are compact enough that they could maybe work, as could "“Sword of Shannara.” Although that movie has already been made; it’s called LOTR.

I’d like to see a gritty, earthy version of George Martin’s books.

17

I have just started to read Jordan. Haven’t made it trough the first book yet. It’s true, there are a few books in that story, maybe it wouldn’t be too practical to make a movie of it. Eddings on the other hand would make great movies.

Cynth, I don’t know about the assortment at your video rental stores. There would probably be a biger chance to find them at the library though.

18

When we meet, Jack, I’ll provide a copy of the book and a stopwatch. If you can read it in 3-4 hours you’ll get a prize.

Adapting a book to film is a horrendous undertaking, especially a dense text like LotR with such a devoted following. You’ll never be able to fit it all into a reasonable length film no matter the budget. So you’ll either have to leave stuff out or change it to make it all fit without too many seams or raised eyebrows.

I thought Peter Jackson and all of his crew did a fantastic job but there were some changes that didn’t sit well with me. I thought inserting Arwen into the Flight to Ford was fine but having Frodo be unconscious while Arwen warded off the Riders robbed a lot of strength from Frodo. Elves fighting at Helm’s Deep and Aragorn going over the cliff were unnecessary too.

But the good things about the films were so good that they overpowered the bad things. Gollum was fantastic. He was really the best part of the movies. He was the most interesting character, the best performance by an actor, and the best technical achievement. The rest of the visuals and effects were great and the art design really captured a lot of how I imagined Middle Earth.

Some, including myself, felt that a mini-series would be the best for capturing as much of the book as possible but there’s no way that they could have got an adequate budget.

But I could go on and on about this subject.

Cheers,
Aaron

19

I did not see the reason for having Aragorn go over the cliff and it seemed like such a major event that I thought at first it had really happened in the book and I had forgotten it. It brought Arwen back into the story, I suppose, when he was underwater and she called him back, or whatever happened there. I think they had to give the actress who played Arwen a role of a certain size or something. So they just had to come up with places to stick her in. Nothing against the actress.

I think the way Gollum was portrayed, and especially the showing of his youth and how he got the ring actually made me think more about him and the fact that he actually was from a branch of hobbits. And then to see what happened to him. That was really effective. I actually have to think more about him because I don’t think I paid enough attention to him when I was reading the book. I find him a hard character to deal with because he is so revolting and so pitiable at the same time.

20

Tolkien’s books were definitely “boys’ club”. Building out the female roles was just one of those personal touches of Peter Jackson’s team. Same for turning the Ents into clowns, or over-developing Gollum beyond his original weight in the books.

I don’t know of any book-turned-to-movie where the screenwriters and director don’t retell the story to their own tastes and interests, so rather than carp about short-comings too much, I would go along with what Aaron said and just take from it what you like. After all, the books are still there to be enjoyed.

djm