I just found another Peter Jackson's blunder

[Ricardo]

There is scene in the 2 towers when the people of Rohan are going to Helm's deep. Gimli is talking to Eowyn and she asks how they differentiate female dwarves from males.

Aragorn tries to be funny telling her without Gimli noticing that it's the beard.

The thing is, it is not. Tolkien explicitly said that female dwarves have beards and people of other races can hardly differentiate them.

Not huge but just one more item to show how little PJ cared about the works of Tolkien.

 

[Deimos]

There is scene in the 2 towers when the people of Rohan are going to Helm's deep. Gimli is talking to Eowyn and she asks how they differentiate female dwarves from males.

Aragorn tries to be funny telling her without Gimli noticing that it's the beard.

The thing is, it is not. Tolkien explicitly said that female dwarves have beards and people of other races can hardly differentiate them.

Not huge but just one more item to show how little PJ cared about the works of Tolkien.

Another PJ blunder? Oh, my. How very. . . prosaic. 🙄😄

 

[Elthir]

Does Miranda-Éowyn ask that? I can't hear what she says, and with the words on, they (the words) start with John Rhys-Davies-Gimli saying:

"It's true you don't see many dwarf women. And in fact, we are so alike in voice and appearance that they're often mistaken for dwarf men."

Then Viggo-gorn says: "It's the beards"

Hmm. Could not Viggo-gorn be suggesting that Dwarf women have beards, thus, they (the beards) are part of the confusion? And not necessarily saying that one can differentiate male from female Dwarves by the beards, I mean.

Even if so, in my opinion, to say that Dwarf-women are "often" mistaken for Dwarf-men, might imply that sometimes they are not mistaken -- by others -- but that would seemingly have to be in the circumstance noted by the * and small print below. In any case, the information from the real deal Gimli (Appendix A) explains that other folk cannot tell Dwarf-women apart from Dwarf-men.*

*with the suggestion that Dwarf-women wear different garb when not on a journey, including that they seldom walk abroad as well, except at great need

Moreover, in Jackson's fourth film, he has a "Dwarf" confuse a "he-elf" for a "she-elf".

Thirdly, Jackson's female Dwarves (the depictions that I recall anyway) are hardly sporting what I would imagine a Tolkienian Dwarf-beard to be. . . although of course Jackson doesn't give Kili, for example, what I would imagine a Tolkienian Dwarf-beard to be.

And since most or all of Jackson's film audience are probably not Naugrim, then I think the audience should not be able to tell male dwarf from female dwarf by appearance or voice -- except (arguably) for garb -- if the female Dwarves on film are indeed not on a journey, that is.

Anyway.

 

[Eljorahir]

 

[Elthir]

It didn't look deliberate.

Anywho, I still don't hear (or read) M-Éowyn (Meowyn) asking how Dwarves or anyone can differentiate female Dwarves from male Dwarves.

 

[Ent]

Ent believes the epitaph on some people's headstones is going to read:
"This life was spent seeking, pointing out, complaining about, and decrying, PJ's "mistakes." May it FINALLY find some peace."

The real amusement of it all is, the feeling is they really are "mistakes." Blunders some call them. Even I at times call one or two amiss from Tolkien's words an error.

Our own blunder is, we seem to really believe there was an INTENT to make the movies like Tolkien's works.
Hint - no such thing ever existed, or was intended - other than in the mind and hope of (some of) the beholders.
Neither the doer, the deciders, or even the Tolkien Foundation ever held such an intention.

Any argument anyone has, one way or another about any thing done, is really an 'internal argument' with the person themselves. That's the only place any 'standard' for the work, 'desire' for the work, or 'expectation of' the work, ever existed, or will exist.

We are far better off saying "Hey - I just found another (potential)* difference between Tolkien's work(s) and the movies."
Now THIS would put us on a solid foundation.
(I did a whole website once, on the differences between the Wiz of Oz movie, and the books... there only scratching the surface a bit. It was quite fun. Also landed me some editing gigs for an author's books - at my usual price, of course.)

Finding differences is fun. Assigning VALUES to those differences is purely personal. There are as many values as there are people - multiplied by a significant number, as how a person feels or sees things can be affected by a bad bit of beef (said Scrooge) at any given time.

*p.s. - why do I say "potential" difference? Because @Elthir may not yet have spoken, providing an expanded field from which to ponder all things worthy of pondering. (or at least some of them.)

 

[Ricardo]

Ent believes the epitaph on some people's headstones is going to read:
"This life was spent seeking, pointing out, complaining about, and decrying, PJ's "mistakes." May it FINALLY find some peace."

The real amusement of it all is, the feeling is they really are "mistakes." Blunders some call them. Even I at times call one or two amiss from Tolkien's words an error.

Our own blunder is, we seem to really believe there was an INTENT to make the movies like Tolkien's works.
Hint - no such thing ever existed, or was intended - other than in the mind and hope of (some of) the beholders.
Neither the doer, the deciders, or even the Tolkien Foundation ever held such an intention.

Any argument anyone has, one way or another about any thing done, is really an 'internal argument' with the person themselves. That's the only place any 'standard' for the work, 'desire' for the work, or 'expectation of' the work, ever existed, or will exist.

We are far better off saying "Hey - I just found another (potential)* difference between Tolkien's work(s) and the movies."
Now THIS would put us on a solid foundation.
(I did a whole website once, on the differences between the Wiz of Oz movie, and the books... there only scratching the surface a bit. It was quite fun. Also landed me some editing gigs for an author's books - at my usual price, of course.)

Finding differences is fun. Assigning VALUES to those differences is purely personal. There are as many values as there are people - multiplied by a significant number, as how a person feels or sees things can be affected by a bad bit of beef (said Scrooge) at any given time.

*p.s. - why do I say "potential" difference? Because @Elthir may not yet have spoken, providing an expanded field from which to ponder all things worthy of pondering. (or at least some of them.)

Nicely put, but I don't agree.

The films were clearly marketed as an adaptation of LOTR (and the Hobbit later).

I don't believe the Tolkien estate expected the films to be like that. I know that CT was not pleased at all and that's the reason why no Silmarillion for PJ.

Clearly, a movie (or set of movies) cannot follow the book word by word. Some parts that are too long, or not suitable for viewing instead of reading need to be cut. You might need to add some elements to make it more interesting, yes, I get all of it.

But when your changes are only motivated for commercial purposes and you show no interest whatsoever in telling the story (however imperfect a movie is for that purpose) then that's another matter.

When you cut important pieces and then add non-sense, then I have a problem.

When you have unsolvable plot problems because you changed things the wrong way then I have a problem.

When you realize that if you didn't read the books, the movie plot makes no sense then I have a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I think LOTR was done beautifully (from a cinematic perspective), it was the script that was a mess. I can't say the same about the Hobbit that was just bad, and where just caring to sell tickets was blatantly obvious.

I've seen movie adaptations with a lot of changes compared to the books, but where the escense of the story is preserved and the plot makes sense. The Harry Potter movies are a good example and I believe it's so because JK Rowlins supervised every aspect of them.

Game of Thrones had many differences with the books but it was good until around season five, then it was a mess. The reason was that George RR Martin wasn't longer involved and the script writers didn't know what to do.

Of course PJ couldn't ask JRRT for help, but there were several Tolkien scholars, including Christopher Tolkien that could have help.

I did enjoy the LOTR movies even when rolling my eyes at all the "blunders", I can't say the same about the Hobbit, it wasn't even well done. And when I saw Legolas and Tauriel I could just visualize the dollar signs on PJ's eyes.

 

[Ent]

an adaptation of LOTR (and the Hobbit later).

We can agree to disagree. That's fine.
They were marketed as "an adaptation" - and "an adaptation" they are. Oh yes, I know many will disagree with this as well, because guess what... we all also have different definitions of what "an adaptation" is.

Now, let's break down The Tolkien Foundation. I agree they keep a very tight hold on Tolkien's works. But the movies are not Tolkien's works. They are (agreed to be) adaptations.
That said, another prime (and possibly THE prime) effort of The Tolkien Foundation is to insure an ongoing income for the members of the Tolkien family to rely upon going forward.

Trust me, 'follow the money' applies in everything they do. (This is NOT to say they don't keep reins on certain things - they do. Even the music being done by Paul Corfield Godfrey putting Tolkien's works to opera required careful defining. Yet there are significant divergences there, as well.)

No, no... we cannot attribute the Tolkien Foundation's involvement with "too much" intention to be strict about adherence.

when your changes are only motivated for commercial purposes and you show no interest whatsoever in telling the stor

1. The movies WERE intended "for commercial purposes" AND the movies DID "tell the story" albeit differently.
2. The Tolkien Foundation profited from it, as did everyone else involved.

It fully achieved its purposes, as intended by all.

Had the Tolkien Foundation found it askew of the contract they made and wrote and signed, trust me fully... they would have sued. (Another great source of income..!!).

The movies also provided the other thing they were hoping for - they brought more people to purchasing the books, an upsurge visible with each release.

There is no angle from which this whole thing can be looked at, from which diverging "opinions" and "perspectives" cannot be taken.

But if we review the fundamentals of it all, we find profit being made, no lawsuits going on, and everyone involved happy with the intake the whole affair provided.

Who is the better judge? The ones making the contract, without retribution, or the ones on the outside looking in, making personal judgments about what was done?

I defer to the Tolkien Foundation, PJ, and others' respective responses to the end result.
They have all profited to an extent leaving them silent on the matter.

So let it be written... so let it be done... so it will always be, the masses' desires, expectations, and preferences to the contrary.

We argue idealism here, not reality. The two do not even exist in the same realm, I fear.
Idealism has its place. The creation of a movie is not a hill to take a stand on and die for.
I find the arguments on both sides of the coin - pro and con - both expected, and amusing.
I simply prefer the middle ground, as in eternity, the whole thing is both irrelevant, and pointless.

Since others like to share their views, so I am well known for sharing mine. (Ad nauseam, I might add.)

I find great joy in the differences, as much as I find joy in the similarities, and the exactitudes.

 

[Ent]

p.s. - if you've not read of it yet @Ricardo, I'll be happy to share with you the ONE thing I find PJ did, I find most egregious - and have the most difficulty accepting - because it goes so contrary to Tolkien's intent at that spot in his work. If you've read of it, I shall refrain.

Yet I have come to find great joy even in that, because it provides SUCH a wonderful talking point to bring up when people discuss "things Tolkien and Middle-earth" and "movie."

 

[Ricardo]

Of course the Tolkien Estate profited from the movies and of course they cared about the money.

But they also have the purpose to preserve JRRT's legacy.

I don't think they could realistically sue the studio over differences in the script vs. the books.

Are they happy with selling more books + the profits from the movies? certainly.

Yet, if profit were their only motivation, why no Silmarillion? It potentially could generate even more revenue. There is enough material for 5 movies and they could be blockbusters.

When Christopher Tolkien died, there were people that thought that a Silmarillion movie(s) were possible because he was the one angriest with PJ, yet, no Silmarillion and the Tolkien Estate clearly says in the website that there are no plans for one.

They care about money, but not the point of completely disregard their ancestor's work. I think the Hobbit trilogy was the breakpoint, it was just too much.

And on the topic of adaptations, well, I agree that the audience targets are not only those who read the books but also a lot of people who didn't and won't.

But a good adaptation has to strike a balance between profits and story telling.

It has to please all groups of viewers, those that just watch the movies, those who read the books casually and the obsessed Tolkien fans like me.

It is possible and it still can be very profitable, once again, look at the Harry Potter movies. Look at game of thrones (up to season 5).

p.s. - if you've not read of it yet @Ricardo, I'll be happy to share with you the ONE thing I find PJ did, I find most egregious - and have the most difficulty accepting - because it goes so contrary to Tolkien's intent at that spot in his work. If you've read of it, I shall refrain.

Yet I have come to find great joy even in that, because it provides SUCH a wonderful talking point to bring up when people discuss "things Tolkien and Middle-earth" and "movie."

No, I haven't read it and I would appreciate if you share.

 

[Elthir]

Jackson and Company, for example (and according to David Bratman anyway -- see David Bratman: Summa Jacksonica, Tolkien On Film), seemingly extolled "their own faithfulness to the novel in the commentary tracks of the DVD of The Fellowship of the Ring" and even (again, according to David, as I've not seen these DVDS) "started boasting of how much better their script was than the book."

If so, the film folks are at least arguably askin' for a "faithfulness-to-book" comparison!

As subjective as that gets. Cough.

One of my all-time favorite complaints about Jackson's adaptation hails from another forum, basically, summarized as: the grass, and the gardens, in Jackson's "Shire" aren't English enough.

And I agree!

 

[Ent]

OK here it is, @Ricardo.

The Balrog and Gandalf stand on the bridge in Khazad Dum. The Balrog looks as menacing as he can, as he steps forward.

PJ has Gandalf "cry out" "You SHALL NOT pass."
Tolkien has Gandalf simply "say" "you cannot pass." (Previous to this, Tolkien purposely writes Gandalf 'cries out' in a number of situations. Here, Gandalf simply 'says' what Tolkien writes for him.)

Both the change of the word from "cannot" to "shall not" - and the manner in which it's delivered - completely destroy Tolkien's entire purpose for the whole series of events, and particularly this scene itself. I also believe PJ has Gandalf cry it out only two times, rather than the three times Gandalf writes it into the book. (He does write it in with Gandalf 'saying' it a 4th time, after the Balrog's sword is destroyed, as a punctuation mark for the truth the first 3 times implied.)

This is most unfortunate, for those who would probe Tolkien's work as deeply as he himself intended it to be taken.

If necessary, I can expand on what the whole series of events is meant to convey. But it can be found elsewhere in this forum as well. (At least, in part. I've never expressed it all, as the full is reserved for my book - though I may pass it along to others to complete. I'm getting too old to deliver it all at the pace needed, I fear.)

 

[Ent]

"started boasting of how much better their script was than the book."

This alone shows a great misunderstanding of Tolkien's intent with the book.
The script deflated a good deal of Tolkien's embedded intent - for the observant.
As always, if we're going to use a term, we need to define it.
In this case, the term needing definition is "better".

 

[Elthir]

If I like A more than B, A is better.

Take Sea-pizza compared to Land-pizza, for example. One of these is better.

 

[Ent]

@Elthir - you are wise, as always.
You rightly say "If I like - " pitching it into the ever-present realm of opinion - personal preference - level of one's own understanding or enjoyment.

What's difficult is when someone says either:
"Which or what do YOU like better - " then upon receiving an answer, initiates an argument. OR;
"I like this better, and you must agree - " which is tyranny. (This is not said outright - it's demonstrated by behaviors.)

Ent strives to avoid both, as neither grasps reality, nor provides a platform for personal growth, or acceptance of differences held by others, acknowledging their right to differ.

The only thing Ent tries to deal with, is to have us leave 'room for others' and their rights. The only one we are actually "in control of" after all, is ourselves. An effort to control the universe is bound to fail... a great deception leading to frustration, anxiety, disquiet, and much, much more. (To say nothing of completely wasted energy.)

I'll shut up now.

 

[Ent]

I do guess it's worth saying one more thing here, too.
It has been said to me "I'm always arguing on behalf of the movies."
I hasten to say - "no, i'm not."

The problem is, those who are "bookers" are always bashing the movies, and PJ.
There are very few "moviers" who are always bashing the books, and how terrible Tolkien did with the books.

Thus, it SEEMS like I'm always speaking 'against' the bookers, who are bashing the movies. But this is just 'appearance due to circumstance,' should the careful observer care to look.

The FACT is, the bookers are the bashers - and the more intolerant. Therefore they see my ripostes more often.

I am neither pro-book, nor pro-movie, with an extreme few exceptions - because I take each as it is, for what it is. I try to bend neither into being what it was never intended to be.

I do speak of the books more than the films, because obviously the books contain depths, layers, and intents far beyond the gloss of the movies, which had (fundamentally) just two goals - entertainment and revenue gain.

Frankly, clearly, the movies did very well at what their intent was. One might say equally well as the books did - though I believe with regard to the books, Tolkien would have been disappointed at how much of the depth he intended is still not well seen, and some of the many tributaries it has been forced into, where he never intended it to go.

But he (and by the way, he ALONE) - is the only one who has the "right" to hold his hopes and disappointments - though I suspect he too always held them loosely, as he knew few would understand his efforts.

 

[Ricardo]

OK here it is, @Ricardo.

The Balrog and Gandalf stand on the bridge in Khazad Dum. The Balrog looks as menacing as he can, as he steps forward.

PJ has Gandalf "cry out" "You SHALL NOT pass."
Tolkien has Gandalf simply "say" "you cannot pass." (Previous to this, Tolkien purposely writes Gandalf 'cries out' in a number of situations. Here, Gandalf simply 'says' what Tolkien writes for him.)

Both the change of the word from "cannot" to "shall not" - and the manner in which it's delivered - completely destroy Tolkien's entire purpose for the whole series of events, and particularly this scene itself. I also believe PJ has Gandalf cry it out only two times, rather than the three times Gandalf writes it into the book. (He does write it in with Gandalf 'saying' it a 4th time, after the Balrog's sword is destroyed, as a punctuation mark for the truth the first 3 times implied.)

This is most unfortunate, for those who would probe Tolkien's work as deeply as he himself intended it to be taken.

If necessary, I can expand on what the whole series of events is meant to convey. But it can be found elsewhere in this forum as well. (At least, in part. I've never expressed it all, as the full is reserved for my book - though I may pass it along to others to complete. I'm getting too old to deliver it all at the pace needed, I fear.)

Interesting, I never caught that but definitely there is a difference between shall not and cannot. In the books Gandalf makes clear the balrog would not pass while the shall not pass implies that he would just do his best to stop him.

I'd like to see the whole series of events if it isn't too much trouble.

I do guess it's worth saying one more thing here, too.
It has been said to me "I'm always arguing on behalf of the movies."
I hasten to say - "no, i'm not."

The problem is, those who are "bookers" are always bashing the movies, and PJ.
There are very few "moviers" who are always bashing the books, and how terrible Tolkien did with the books.

Thus, it SEEMS like I'm always speaking 'against' the bookers, who are bashing the movies. But this is just 'appearance due to circumstance,' should the careful observer care to look.

The FACT is, the bookers are the bashers - and the more intolerant. Therefore they see my ripostes more often.

well I don't know the prior stories in this forum but certainly it seems right. I don't think those who prefer the movies would be around.

I am neither pro-book, nor pro-movie, with an extreme few exceptions - because I take each as it is, for what it is. I try to bend neither into being what it was never intended to be.

I am definitely pro book as I consider Tolkien the greatest fantasy writer that ever existed.

I do speak of the books more than the films, because obviously the books contain depths, layers, and intents far beyond the gloss of the movies, which had (fundamentally) just two goals - entertainment and revenue gain.

agreed here

Frankly, clearly, the movies did very well at what their intent was. One might say equally well as the books did - though I believe with regard to the books, Tolkien would have been disappointed at how much of the depth he intended is still not well seen, and some of the many tributaries it has been forced into, where he never intended it to go.

by "the movies" I hope you refer only to the LOTR movies because the Hobbit trilogy was IMO atrocious.

Once one of the Tolkien's heirs was asked if JRRT would have liked the movies and he answered with a clear NO, but he added that in fairness JRRT couldn't have possibly liked any movie on his works.

But he (and by the way, he ALONE) - is the only one who has the "right" to hold his hopes and disappointments - though I suspect he too always held them loosely, as he knew few would understand his efforts.

Well, JRRT was long dead when the movies came out, but the one that knew him best and was most immersed in his work, his son Christopher despised the movies.

 

[Ent]

In the books Gandalf makes clear the balrog would not pass while the shall not pass implies that he would just do his best to stop him.

A little more than this.
"Cannot" is a term of ABILITY. "Shall not" is a term of PERMISSION.
Gandalf does not say the Balrog does not have his permission to pass. He is saying the Balrog does not have the AIBILTY to pass.
This is closely coupled with the Balrog's use of the fire of Udun which "will not avail him" only, while Gandalf is a servant of the White Fire. Great meanings heree.

This requires some deeper 'moral and religious' consideration - Tolkien's intent.

I am aware Christopher didn't like the movies, etc. etc.
And I've no problem with those who dislike them disliking them. As long as they don't mind when other people say they find much to admire about them. (Or whatever.)

Things like saying "PJ blunder" speaks to a predetermined opinion/prejudice... where a simple "A difference between book and movie" is more accurate.

There is no 'blunder' about it. PJ did precisely what was intended to be done. This does not constitute a 'blunder' but a choice.
People have left this Forum due to intolerance. And such a statement speaks to a level of 'intolerance.'
This is not the preferred direction the Forum wants to take.
This is all I'm trying to say. Like it or not, the movies are part of the Tolkien and Middle-earth world for many - and these are as welcome as is anyone else.

 

[Ricardo]

A little more than this.
"Cannot" is a term of ABILITY. "Shall not" is a term of PERMISSION.
Gandalf does not say the Balrog does not have his permission to pass. He is saying the Balrog does not have the AIBILTY to pass.
This is closely coupled with the Balrog's use of the fire of Udun which "will not avail him" only, while Gandalf is a servant of the White Fire. Great meanings heree.

This requires some deeper 'moral and religious' consideration - Tolkien's intent.

Yes, that's a good explanation

I am aware Christopher didn't like the movies, etc. etc.
And I've no problem with those who dislike them disliking them. As long as they don't mind when other people say they find much to admire about them. (Or whatever.)

I don't have a problem with people liking the movies, I would never tell people what to like or what to not like, I just express my opinion.

Things like saying "PJ blunder" speaks to a predetermined opinion/prejudice... where a simple "A difference between book and movie" is more accurate.

No, it's not about differences. It's about PJ messing up the story.

I have multiple examples about that, mostly from the first movie, there are so many sequences there that make no sense. And it has nothing to do with adaptation, it has to do with carelessness when writing the script.

There is no 'blunder' about it. PJ did precisely what was intended to be done. This does not constitute a 'blunder' but a choice.

it's a wrong choice in many cases, I can't describe it better than a blunder. Again, I did say the issue with the female dwarves beards was minor. But there are many that are no minor at all, I can give you non-exhaustive list if you want and again, they have nothing to do with adaptation but with making the wrong choices.

People have left this Forum due to intolerance. And such a statement speaks to a level of 'intolerance.'
This is not the preferred direction the Forum wants to take.
This is all I'm trying to say. Like it or not, the movies are part of the Tolkien and Middle-earth world for many - and these are as welcome as is anyone else.

Well first, it would be intolerance if I was questioning race, gender, age, social status, things like that, it's not intolerance to point to obvious flaws in the movies script.

Second, I accept that movies are part of the conversation, I don't accept they are part of Tolkien's world, they are part of Peter Jackson's world.

Everyone is welcome, and everyone's opinion is welcome, including mine I hope.

As I said before, the movies were entertaining and I recognize the production value, the images, the places, some of the characters were spot on. If the story telling I have problems with and again, I don't pretend the movies to follow the books strictly, but many mistakes (if you don't like the word blunder) come from laziness at best.

Now, if someone like how they tell the story, I am OK with it, I disagree but OK.

And notice that what I said about the movies applies only to the LOTR trilogy. The hobbit trilogy (in my opinion) was a slap on the face. I have rewatched the LOTR movies extended editions many times, and I like them. I own the Hobbit movies but I haven't rewatched them once. Again, I think the release of those movies (especially the last 2) is what lost PJ the chance of making the Silmarillion, he has to resort to making a movie about a minor plot in LOTR because he never will get the right to the Silmarillion.

One more thing to add. You mentioned the money and I have to say that Tolkien himself followed the money. He wanted to publish the Silmarillion before LOTR, but with its complexity and the state it was by that time, the publishers weren't convinced, so he had to work in LOTR because it could be out faster and he needed the money.

Yet, that significantly affected the development of the Silmarillion and it's a main reason why he couldn't finish. Among other things, he wrote stuff in LOTR that didn't agree with the Silmarillion multiple manuscripts, notes, etc, so when he went back to work on then, he needed to spend a lot of time to harmonize the stories.

But, why he did it for the money, he remained true to his work. He could have rushed the Silmarillion but he did not, he wanted it to be perfect.

 

[Vardarianna]

Looks like PJ is back on the menu boys!​