Last night I watched Part Two of The Lord of the Rings. The movie had awesome scenery, but it was mostly what my sister calls "a groaner", meaning that I groaned through most of it.
How could anyone get so much wrong? To make matters worse, I read in World Magazine today: "Mr. Jackson took on the enormous task of translating J. R. R. Tolkien's beloved "Lord of the Rings" novels to the screen, and succeeded in large part due to an almost fanatical dedication to his source material." Fanatical dedication? To his source material? Gimme a break, guys! He doesn't appear to have even read the books! Or wait, I take that back--no one could have differed from the book in so many points without having read it. The apocryphal scene with Legolas surfing down the stone steps loosing arrows with the rapidity of a machine-gun topped even the one where he uses two swords like some plagiary of Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace.
If it wasn't such a painful travesty, I'd laugh.
The question now is whether my interest in finishing the movie will outweigh my frustration at seeing it blatantly ignore the book, because no detail, however little, is beneath Mr. Jackson's attention. He cheerfully ruins them all. Maybe the real question is, am I a glutton for punishment? *scowl*
How could anyone get so much wrong? To make matters worse, I read in World Magazine today: "Mr. Jackson took on the enormous task of translating J. R. R. Tolkien's beloved "Lord of the Rings" novels to the screen, and succeeded in large part due to an almost fanatical dedication to his source material." Fanatical dedication? To his source material? Gimme a break, guys! He doesn't appear to have even read the books! Or wait, I take that back--no one could have differed from the book in so many points without having read it. The apocryphal scene with Legolas surfing down the stone steps loosing arrows with the rapidity of a machine-gun topped even the one where he uses two swords like some plagiary of Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace.
If it wasn't such a painful travesty, I'd laugh.
The question now is whether my interest in finishing the movie will outweigh my frustration at seeing it blatantly ignore the book, because no detail, however little, is beneath Mr. Jackson's attention. He cheerfully ruins them all. Maybe the real question is, am I a glutton for punishment? *scowl*
13 Comments:
I totally agree. One thing I really hate is how much Arwen shows up in the movies. Arwen hardly showed up at all in the book's! I guess they needed more romance to make the movie marketable.
Muffin Mix #2
Yes, that also--and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they leave out most of the romance between Eowyn and Faramir? A poor choice. Well, the more fools them.
Hear hear!
I agree, though I think that the worst movie is the "Return of the King". I am just not able to watch that movie over again. Yeah, 99.9% of movies are worse than the books they were taken from, including these. Nobody is able to do as good a job on the movies, it's a fact of life! Well, except for the "Princess Bride".
I can hardly wait for the "Hobbit". *Grimace*
Grace
I think you just have to accept the differences in the movie/book storylines. Yes, for a lot of scenes I would have preferred it if they'd stuck closer to the book, but as a general rule they DID stick very closely to the book. They just added garnishes here and there for necessary theatrical effect, and yes, some of those garnishes (most notably the Legolas surfing scene and the Legolas taking down the Oliphant scene) were over-the-top, but they were endurable because so much other stuff was so *right*.
They captured the relationship between Frodo and Sam perfectly, they portrayed Gandalf very well, they showed the relationship between Aragorn and Eowyn quite well, etc, etc. The few isolated examples of things they shouldn't have done (or should have done differently) aren't enough, IMO, to ruin the movie as a whole. I do think they leave room for a remake by some other director further down the road, but the LOTR movies were really quiete well done.
Re: Princess Bride...while I love the movie and the book, if that's your idea of an accurate book-to-screen translation then you should reread the book, Grace. Both are *wonderful* stories, but the differences between the movie and book version are undeniably more pronounced than than between the movie/book LOTR versions.
I guess my comment boils down to...
You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. You're expecting perfection and showing dissatisfaction when all you get is a job very well done.
Yes I agree that they did portray the characters very well (i.e. Sam and Frodo and Gandalf) there are some things I think they could have done better, but then I'm not a director so I suppose I shouldn't criticize the movies. The special effects were very cool, though they don't make a movie.
I have read the Princess bride several times and I still like the book better than the movie; I meant that the adapted to the screen very well, I understand that they cannot take it word for word, that just wouldn't work.
Yes I suppose I was a little over the top in what I said. I cannot excpect perfection all the time ; ) And I think that Peter Jackson did an excellent job on the movies, probably the best that he could.
Grace (a.k.a Anna)
Hey, hold on there a minute, Pieter! They did NOT do most of it "very well". I don't demand perfection--not at all. I demand a reasonable degree of faithfulness to the same characters in the book, and to major plot lines.
They were not true to many of the characters in the book--Frodo is a good example--the movie makes him very unsure, very YOUNG in his outlook. The real Frodo had a maturer outlook, and was more grim, frankly--he was nobler. The movie Frodo is more like a good kid...not a faithful representation at ALL. They do a reasonably good job on Sam and Gandalf, yes.
But what about all those plot points they mess up? Those are "very well done"? What about the battle at Helm's Deep--no Huorns, but elves--who aren't supposed to help out there, but at Minas Tirith! What about the meeting of the hobbits with Treebeard--what about their "tricking him" to take them to Isengard so he'll see his dead trees? What about Faramir taking them and the ring to Gondor?!?! There was NO call for changes like those. What about Frodo LYING to Faramir about Gollum, denying any knowledge of him?
We already agreed about Legolas--very stupid additions there. What about the apocryphal scenes with Arwen--she didn't almost go to the Gray Havens, and Aragorn didn't tell her it "couldn't work out". That wasn't as bad as what they did with the Theoden scene though--where does that come in, pray? Making Theoden indwelt by Sarumen??? THAT was uncalled for too. It confused the issue, nothing else. And what about the scene where Aragorn goes over the cliff and they think he's dead? That was "well done"? What about Theoden refusing to follow Gandalf's counsel until almost too late?
And now, another pet peeve--the character development as shown through the dialogue (which is how most character development HAPPENS)--the use of different dialogue from the book might have been okay if it served the same purpose, but most times it didn't.
The movie added a lot of the typical Hollywood wise-crack dialogue between Legolas and Gimli--unnecessary in my book, because Tolkien already PUT that kind of repartee in. THAT isn't a big issue. But even when they stayed reasonably close to the actual dialogue, they left out important parts! For instance, when the three trackers meet the Rohirrim party for the first time, and Eomer threatens to cut Gimli's head off. That was completely unlike his character, because all Gimli asked was for his NAME. No point to it. In the BOOK, as we know, Eomer got angry because he said something about Galadrial, and Gimli basically told him not to be a fool. THAT gives a reason for Eomer's attitude. The movie makes it appear that Eomer is simply unreasonable and takes offence too quickly.
And there were a myriad more things like that...Eomer being banished, instead of simply held prisoner until Gandalf arrived...the movie's neglect to add Aragorn's warning about toughing his sword, Anduril (which goes to show something of what his character is, and sets him up as a grander figure than the movie does)...Pippin merely THROWING his leaf broach on the ground instead of being free and leaving his footprints along with it (I mean, that was the whole POINT, and it was what proved to Aragorn that they were alive and unbound).
Yes, little things, but when you look at the big picture, you see that it's made UP of mostly little things, that go a long way towards destroying the integrity of the movies.
*touching* Aragorn's sword, sorry...not toughing
Yes, Jamie, in the book there was more between Eowyn and Faramir. The most that ever happens between them in the movie is that Faramir holds Eowyn's hand. I agree that they portrayed the relationships between, most, characters really well. I was wondering how Sam finds his way through Shelob's den after Frodo has just gone through all these twists and turns.
Muffin Mix #2
Pieter, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Discussing the faults of the movies does not qualify as totally not likeing them. I do like the movies but I was kind of miffed at some things that are important to the story being left out. Such as the scourging of the Shire, Peter Jackson left that out because he never liked that part in the books. One major change was the way Saruman dies. In the books he dies in the Shire stabbed by Grima yet in the movie he is killed on the top of Isengard by Grima. He also dies to soon into the movie. In the book he dies near the end. I also missed Tom Bombadil, one of my favorite characters from the book.
In Two Towers and Return of the King I think they focus to much on the fighting and not enough on the storyline. I have not been able to watch either of them all the way through again.
Muffin Mix #2
Alas, the movies never end up being better than the books. But maybe that is for the best. We can form the characters in our mind's eye much better than any camera can. The stories run much deeper and are more memorable in books.
I see I ended up anonymous somehow. Oh well. I left the prior comment. Alas, the movies never end up being better than the books. But maybe that is for the best. We can form the characters in our mind's eye much better than any camera can. The stories run much deeper and are more memorable in books. Gina
Huh. They changed the commenting format thingy.
Well...I'd have to agree with Gina. And now that you mention your *ahem* giant list of differences, I guess there ARE a lot of things they changed in the movies. I haven't read the books in about 5 years, so I don't remember the details well enough to identify any but the REALLY major things they changed. I think in the end the reason I still like the films is because they're closish to the books, they seem (to me) to for the most part maintain the same spirit as the books, and I'm just more willing to live with the movies being somewhat different from the books. Ah, well. I have to say, though, I *do* wish such a good friend liked such good movies. *scowl*
Post a Comment
<< Home