Thread: WHAT TOLKIEN MIGHT HAVE CHANGED IN LIGHT OF THE MOVIE
<<   
By the way, whaddya think about my point regarding the Hobbits preferred Shire as likely being in the region of DorsetSHIRE ? (I mentioned it on the last page).
Btw what did you guys mean about me popping up, you should have known I was ignoring your stupidity , I'm very serious at heart, life's too short for nonsense and tomfoolery .
I wish the Dark Fantasy format was back, prosilver's a bit on the boring side .
(I am of course not including Tinuviel in the broad sleight on Americans, above, for we all know her wisdon shines forth like a very shiny carbuncle. She is, indeed, an American without peer - though I may be more enamoured by her perfectly shaped nose than what's good for me. And let's not forget Eldo, either, who is also peerless - and I don't mean he's blind).
Please remember, no matter how silly GB gets, we still all adore him and have little truck with people mentioning any of his perfectly true and applicable shortcomings. As to his tomfoolery - I'm not sure he's even heard the word. And as to his nonsense, well I actually find it quirkily quaintly amusing. And risking a Zennian point-of-view - if such a thing exists - his nonsense may in fact turn out to be a pure form of wisdom (however unlikely that may be), so let's keep an open mind, shall we.
I have always found you a polite chap, Joseph, and I sincerely hope in taking on your newfound name you have not also taken on something of a sinister aspect?
Btw is DorsetSHIRE really so similar to YorkSHIRE?
My second objection is a film based one. Whilst its no doubt another rabble-rousing adaptation from PJ (I've heard in America it was common for audiences to cheer upon the elves arrival) it does seem odd (and suspicious) that as Legolas can take down a Mumakil single handled and surf downstairs on a shield whilst firing arrows, out of an entire elven host, not a single one survives the battle whilst quite a lot of untrained Rohirrim do.
And on the subject of Helms Deep PJ chickens out in my view- he shows young boys being armed for the fight but not one of them in the actual battle- this is a missed opportunity to demonstrate and confront in a moving way one of the true horrors of war. But as always PJ decided he'd rather make people cheer than contemplate.
And, yes, you brought up an interesting point, old Tyrant, one that had piqued my interest. Those elves disappeared even more mysteriously than they arrived, and their demise (I suspect, like you, that's what happened) goes sadly unlamented - save for Hadir who has his little poignant moment.
NB Hey you might be confusing YorkSHIRE for Australia - "God's Continent" - don't you think?[/quote:3vrd32v2]
saurons country? thats a bit harsh Odo. mind you i did work down the pit (coal mine) and thats a bit mordorish down there.
now i'v been living in australia for 30 years wouldnt want to live anywhere else. New zealand looks nice, would love to do the
lord of the rings tour. Have you done the tour Odo? your only a rowing boat away there from sydney.
ps. yes i do think.
I wouldn't necessarily think Tolkien would change his book to match the film (in fact, I have stated more than once on this thread that I doubt Tolkien would change anything in particular because of the films , though some things are more plausible [i:3um4bvnc]possibilities[/i:3um4bvnc] than others). But I do think it's a change that Tolkien would have appreciated in order to show something on film that otherwise would have never made the cut.
As to ALL the Elves being killed at Helm's Deep in the film, I believe you are quite incorrect. I'll double-check my copy of the EE tomorrow, but I am quite certain a number of survivors are shown.
Although having said that, I do think, even if Pettytyrant's changed my mind about Tolkien and the book, that the film benefits from having the elves there. I think they totally add to that hope they'll succeed (without out totally reassuring you they won't fail) and to the suspense and it reminds you that they're not alone (although when Gandalf comes a bit later it makes you feel this too) in the fight against Saruman and evil.
Btw sorry Odo I'll make sure I'm a bit more on the discreet side when I'm talking about GB's rantings and ravings in the future and as well I wonder where that Cat, Lester has been, haven't seen him in a while
Still think PJ did a fantastic job. If it wasnt for him we would av been waiting many
a year for someone else to make the films. The whole book would have been squeezed
into a 2 or 3 hour film. Imagin that. What bits would have been left out. its hard to imagin isnt it.
Good talking point though. What would a 3 hour film be like? What would you cut out? What would
stay in. Remember it was originally going to be a 2 part film. Interesting.
I happen to concur with the idea that many Purists put forth, that the only way to produce a word for word visual representation would be a Television multi-part series with an unlimited budget. However, such a strictly faithful version wouldn't necessarily lead to a better experience. Sometimes they work. But as often as not, slavish adaptations suffer from artistic rigidity. For example, the Dune television miniseries was more faithful to the books, but it was a boring lifeless slog. The film, for all its flaws, was much more fun.
Indeed, those "long pointless battle scenes" were very entertaining.
My point of the radio play was merely to point out that more can be done, truer to the original in the same amount of time PJ had at his disposal, obviously there are massive differences in adapting for different mediums so perhaps a better demonstration would be to say that Ralph Bakeshi's film, compared to PJ's up to same ending point -Helms Deep- but in half the time, remains truer to Tokien in spirit and use of source material than PJs does. And thats shocking.
Likewise Petty, Bakshi's version of LotR is an old favourite of mine. And yet that is because it is true to the Spirit--as you say (don't let Eldorion hear you use that word )--not the Letter. Frankly, Bakshi is as "guilty" as Jackson for following his own artistic interpretation of the text (Lordy, I've had to defend that version from "Purists" time and again too ) and his film is the better for it.
Again, I'm not saying an utterly faithful version can't be well done, but it has to be done by someone doing it for the right reasons, not simply for the sake of slavishly follow original.
Perhaps Tolkien, given the opportunity, he might have removed Crickhollow, The Old Forest, Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-wights. This would have saved me reading the book completely. (I'd still have had The Hobbit - and that would have been enough!)
Eeew, Bakshi. Frankly I don't like his film on any level; as an adaptation or as a piece of cinema. He didn't finish rotoscoping the film, so much of it is just vomit-tinted live actors. When the visuals of a film are that painful to my eyes I have a hard time appreciating the movie at all. Film is after all a [i:2gbtsr58]visual[/i:2gbtsr58] medium. (BTW, this complaint of mine is not limited to Bakshi; the sixth Harry Potter movie would have been light-years better if more than 10% of the scenes hadn't been full of shadow and darkness.)
Even looking at this from the "spirit" persepctive , I have a hard time finding much good in Bakshi. PJ, though he sometimes has irregularities in time and space, as with the Elves at Helm's Deep, tried hard and I think largely succeeded at making the films feel "real" and [i:2gbtsr58]historical[/i:2gbtsr58]. Bakshi's film was full of goofy stuff like Saruman's light shows and "magic missile" attack on Helm's Deep. It didn't feel anything like the book to me.
[quote:2gbtsr58]Again, I'm not saying an utterly faithful version can't be well done, but it has to be done by someone doing it for the right reasons, not simply for the sake of slavishly follow original. [/quote:2gbtsr58]
Actually, I agree with you, GB. Mechanically rehashing each chapter of the book into a few scenes of the movie is [b:2gbtsr58]not[/b:2gbtsr58] the right way to go. There are places where, yes, the screenwriters need to pluck the essential components and rework it somehow rework them. I think this should be limited, though. In any event, while I'm a purist, I'm not a literalist by any stretch of the imagination.
I always thought Merry's line was one of Jackson's insinuations of ambiguity regarding what kind of "pipeweed" they were smoking (the laugh it got from the audience seemed to indicate a lot of other people thought so too). Pippin always seemed a wee bit stoned .
My thoughts on Merry's admonition to Pippin are just what I always assumed, but in retrospect I can definitely see it as an "anti"-smoking message (again, more to blunt criticism than anything).
Loved the other references , very blatant indeed (and Jackson cagily never specifies what they are smoking). And in keeping with our discussion to Castaneda, I always loved the line "Look Merry, Mushrooms..." (to paraphrase).
Frankly I've never understood hobbit drug comments except as jokes. The films don't suggest it was anything but ordinary pipe tobacco (to me at least, unless you're actively looking for implications), and the book is even clearer.
If PJ was suggesting a [i:20wk04df]certain [/i:20wk04df]kind of pipeweed, well, it was a cheap joke, I'm afraid, and for me, just not necessary. The scene was funnier in the book, for it did not rely on sub-cultural university humor. Tolkien's version was [i:20wk04df]democratically[/i:20wk04df] funny. It [i:20wk04df]included [/i:20wk04df]everyone, the [i:20wk04df]whole[/i:20wk04df] family indeed - and not just a [i:20wk04df]chosen [/i:20wk04df]few. Hey! I like a good druggy-joke as much as the next man (or woman!) but why have one when it's not needed?
The fact is LotR exploded in popularity in the 60's when the "counter-culture" discovered Tolkien. Sure, we all know the truth, that Tolkien was referring to tobacco. But since the 60's LotR has been strongly associated with many of the counter-cultural spin-offs, from the Heavy Metal and Prog Rock crowd, to Neo-Pagans, to Environmental Activists, to the nerds that invented Computers and Fantasy Role Playing Games. For better or worse, the preferred vices of the succeeding generations were different from those that came before.
Jackson came of age in the late 70's like I did and grew up as part of the new youth culture (not unlike most of us on this forum ). He was apparently captivated by Bakshi's psychedelic animated take on LotR . So in my estimation, Jackson's ambiguous references were more than just throwaway jokes. They were nothing less than a "shout out", a wink and a nod to the generations that helped make Tolkien's books an iconic global phenomenon.
I agree that this is comparatively minor, though.
'[i:2oea3bc6]Aragorn searched the dead and found the severed corpse of an Orc he'd never seen the likes of before, he must have stood at least 7 foot in height and his shoulders were broad unlike the Orcs from Mordor of which he was used to seeing.[/i:2oea3bc6]'
Btw Pettytyrant I totally agree that had Tolkien written the book today, or been alive to make changes, his work would have suffered greatly, marauding political correctness (which I know to be great for everyone now btw) would have spoilt a lot of what's in the book now. Sadly changes like that are sometimes made not even for political correctness but just to make more money expanding an audience of potential buyers, adapting in business world, not necessarily to make others just happy with what’s in the text.
What's LotR without Pipe-weed ?