Purists Unite!

[-K-]

having read through the forums, there are two distinct groups. the purists and the people i think of as the 'movie-fans'. the two are constantly at war in each thread.

i thought it would be a good idea to try and create a thread to which only purists could respond. not because i wish to be an elitist, i thought a lot about whether creating such a thread would be an elitist action before making it. and therefore, if one of the movie-fans wants to create a 'movie-fans unite!' thread, and invite only movie-fans to post, i would see no problems. i just cannot start it myself as i am not a movie-fan.

even though i request that movie-fans do not post in this thread, i have no problems with them reading it, or referencing it in one of the many other threads in the forum. if you read something you don't like, feel free to create a seperate thread to put forth your opinion about it. you have a right to disagree, and to make your disagreement heard.

the reason i wanted to create such a thread, was to allow a more free flow of ideas. i find that having read many of the threads, i have noticed that many purists have held back in entirely speaking their minds. i think this has partly to do with the fact that they worry about a movie-fan immediately refuting them. in a purists only thread, would make it easier for some of these people to fully speak their minds, and i am interested to hear ALL of what they have to say.

i am aware that some movie-fans experience the same thing, i am just not as sensitive to it as a purist. i encourage you guys to create your own thread as well, as i think you would probably enjoy some freedom as well as us. also, i am very interested in what a ideas a counter-thread is capable of producing. i hope reading each other's 'exclusive' thread may actually have benefits for both sides. if anyone wants to give me feedback on this thread, private message me. if you are unhappy, or extremely happy, let me know. i will respond.

again, i request that ONLY PURISTS post in this thread. and if a counter-thread is created, that purists respect the movie-fans. if respect is shown, i think this may be a very interesting endeavour. and i encourage movie-fans to read this thread if they feel inclined, and quote and respond to it. but create a new thread, do not post in this one.

a definition of what a purist is must be set. i will set the definition of a purist as:

-a person who feels the movies suffered as a result of the changes made

i myself, will post my own opinions and feeling if i see that people respond positively to this idea.

 

[-K-]

wow, i left this thread so ridiculously open ended. just came to that realisation now.

i was looking at the thread 'the worst movie':

http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?t=14492

currently TTT is the most popular choice for worst movie, the reason usually cited is that it was the most innaccurate. even among some of the movie fans. as a purist, this makes me ready to pounce and use that particular thread as proof that accuracy is the major factor in determining the quality of the movies.

but such proof is not precise. the burden of proof seems to lay heavily on the purists. fans of the movies seem to have ample proof for their claims. the wild success of the movies, the sheer number of books sold as a result, the fact that the movies were so much better than anything else in cinema in the past few years from a general standpoint. i was wondering, where can we find proof of the claim that the movie would have been better with more accuracy?

the fact is that no such movie has been made to compare PJs with. the cartoon version was never really completed.

i constantly look to the booktapes of the BBC radio-play of the lord of the rings for my own personal proof. the accuracy of the booktapes makes them noticeably better than the movies, i can't remember even finding an inconsistency greater than the hatred of elrond for men in the first movie. (relatively speaking, i mean to say no inconsistency of greater significance) the dialogue the characters use is always based as far as possible on what tolkien actually wrote. where do other purists look?

if we do want to continuosly argue against movie-fans, is it worth it if we can't come up with any real world proof?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

What exactly are we trying to "prove"? We believe that the films failed to faithfully adapt the book in many instances (mostly with regard to the characters), but many of the FADs agree that this is true. So, we don't have to "prove" it. Now where we do differ is that the purists believe that this makes a difference to the essence of the tale whereas many of the FADs do not. On the other hand, there are FADs who do agree, but who say that on the whole, the films still bring Tolkien's story of good v. evil convincingly to the screen. Yes, to some extent they do, but........

The problem here is that many FADs simply do not see what we're talking about and no amount of posting facts, examples, quotes and even the opinions of Tolkien scholars appears to make one little bit of difference since many of the points we are trying to make are obscure or so subtle that it escapes even many "purists".

As you say, they have all the "cards" especially as many of our own purists "love" the films in spite of their deviations! Frankly, at this point in time, if people cannot see the difference in Aragorn or Elrond or the relationship between Frodo and Sam or the nature of Gollum or the change that (I'm told) takes place in Gandalf in the last film, then nothing that I or anyone else has to say is going to make one iota of difference. Indeed, taken against the huge scope of half a day's worth of film when all is said and done, most of what we have to say sounds purile or obsessive or nothing more than a case of sour grapes.

I'm afraid that, alas, too many of us come out of Jackson's situational background and that makes Tolkien's absolutist values difficult if not impossible to fathom much less film.

 

[-K-]

or the change that (I'm told) takes place in Gandalf in the last film

I'm afraid that, alas, too many of us come out of Jackson's situational background and that makes Tolkien's absolutist values difficult if not impossible to fathom much less film.

the specific changes in gandalf were that he had no qualms striking denethor with his staff, and stealing control of his forces from him. he was never given charge by denethor as in the book. and gandalf in the book would strike no man unless in defense.

i come from an extremely Catholic background. when i was a kid, i attended Church once a day. during my adolescence i rebelled, but came back as i discovered that many of the absolutes that i had rebelled against were actually quite useful tools in becoming a better person. there are still people who understand the Christian message well enough to direct the movies. But any good Christian could not in good conscience work in the hollywood film industry. it takes a secularist like PJ to work in hollywood.

 

[-K-]

Frankly, at this point in time, if people cannot see the difference in Aragorn or Elrond or the relationship between Frodo and Sam or the nature of Gollum or the change that (I'm told) takes place in Gandalf in the last film, then nothing that I or anyone else has to say is going to make one iota of difference. Indeed, taken against the huge scope of half a day's worth of film when all is said and done, most of what we have to say sounds purile or obsessive or nothing more than a case of sour grapes.

but i do believe that PJs version was disrespectful to tolkien. and i would expect that you would understand me on this, from what i have heard you say.

PJs lack of effort to maintain integrity, and feeling that he could 'do better', is really quite an insult to tolkien himself. he has taken what tolkien wrote, and without any permission given to him, played around with it.

you can of course argue that he was in possession of the 'movie rights'. but i don't believe that tolkien sold the movie rights with an attached 'feel free to change what you don't like'. he wrote in his letter about the cartoon version that he found unnecessary changes in the story great grieviences. and likely, he would find such changes unsettling in any variety of movie adaptation.

i think this is why cristopher tolkien is so horribly upset about it all, as it's happening on 'his watch'. christopher was not given the 'feel free to change what you don't like' from his father. nonetheless, tolkien entrusted him with sorting through his notes and making sure that the WHOLE story was brought with integrity into the world. christopher has spent painstaking years sorting through his father's notes in an attempt to gain as much accuracy as possible. the result of this is the silmarillion, unfinished tales, and the home series. in all of these christopher writes a forward in which he explains just how hard it was for him to do this. and the texts show in themselves an obvious effort to maintain integrity. it is also insulting to him that PJ would be so casual about the changes he made.

and worst of all is PJs thinking he can make the story 'better'. i don't know about you, but i didn't go into the theatre expecting to see a 'better' version of the story. such a version is impossible (bar reincarnation of tolkien so HE can work on it). and for PJ to think that he could make such a version is 100% arrogance and ignorance. this is a final insult to tolkien himself, and also to those who love the books for their quality in even the smallest detail. it implies that tolkien's version is somewhat inferior to PJs, what a laughable concept.

the reason that this all makes ME so angry is because i view tolkien with a fondness. he wrote his marvelous books, not for me, but for us all. but that still doesn't change the fact that he has made a huge positive impact on MY life. even if you just consider the time spent enjoying the books. i feel obligated to defend him when he is insulted in this manner. as i would feel obligated to defend any of my good friends whom have also had huge positive impacts on my life if they were to be insulted in such a manner.

purists are constantly attacked for obsessing and their anger dismissed as elitism. that isn't it. it's the fact that we see someone whom we really care about insulted in front of an audience of millions of movie-goers, so that some hollywood execs can sell advertising rights to burger king to pad their wallets. we know that's the only reason the hollywood execs supported the movie (300 mill has to come from somewhere), not because they really cared about producing a good version of the books in film.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Please do not misunderstand me! You have my absolute and complete agreement about the egregioius nature of what has happened in these films. Virtually from the beginning (after FOTR) I believed that Jackson had misunderstood or deliberatly changed the core values and essence of the story with his character depictions. Only Gandalf and Bilbo (and to a lesser degree Frodo, Sam, Legolas and Gimli) retained to any degree their "book" characters. He destroyed Aragorn although not at first. It wasn't until we got to Weathertop that he began that process which then was reinforced in Rivendell with the change from a "hidden king" to a "running king". I am sure any review of my considerably large number of posts on this subject after the first two films will prove my point.

The point that I am making here is that apparently although many FADs agree with this position, they either don't think the changes fundamentally affect the characters or if they do, it's "no big deal". Furthermore, they believe that as long as the overall "message" gets through (i.e. "the good guys win"), what's the problem? So you see, it really doesn't matter how much you "prove" if no one (or only a very few) see a problem with what has gone on.

This, by the way, was the point I was making when I also stated that the very spectacular nature of these films which move even those who dislike Jackson's changes, makes them so dangerous. Had they been Bashi-ish or merely cinematically adequate, their shortcomings would have been not only more noticable but less "forgivable" by the audience. However, given their undisputed excellence (in most cases), it is difficult to prevail in an argument which involves the subtleties of the difference between situational and absolutist moral values, especially when most of your "audience" really don't understand the difference between the two anyway! As I said, our "complaints" then sound obsessive or inane or merely a matter that Jackson didn't reproduce the book verbatim onto the screen!

Certainly, we can continue to point out the moral shortcomings of the films' message, but that in most instances is like trying to explain a calculus equation to fifth graders - frustrating at best and hopeless at worst.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

This is just great. This thread will create, if it hasn't been created yet, a further wedge between two camps that may or may not exist. This is NOT helpful.

Lotho

 

[-K-]

Please do not misunderstand me! You have my absolute and complete agreement about the egregioius nature of what has happened in these films. Virtually from the beginning (after FOTR) I believed that Jackson had misunderstood or deliberatly changed the core values and essence of the story with his character depictions. Only Gandalf and Bilbo (and to a lesser degree Frodo, Sam, Legolas and Gimli) retained to any degree their "book" characters. He destroyed Aragorn although not at first. It wasn't until we got to Weathertop that he began that process which then was reinforced in Rivendell with the change from a "hidden king" to a "running king". I am sure any review of my considerably large number of posts on this subject after the first two films will prove my point.

The point that I am making here is that apparently although many FADs agree with this position, they either don't think the changes fundamentally affect the characters or if they do, it's "no big deal". Furthermore, they believe that as long as the overall "message" gets through (i.e. "the good guys win"), what's the problem? So you see, it really doesn't matter how much you "prove" if no one (or only a very few) see a problem with what has gone on.

This, by the way, was the point I was making when I also stated that the very spectacular nature of these films which move even those who dislike Jackson's changes, makes them so dangerous. Had they been Bashi-ish or merely cinematically adequate, their shortcomings would have been not only more noticable but less "forgivable" by the audience. However, given their undisputed excellence (in most cases), it is difficult to prevail in an argument which involves the subtleties of the difference between situational and absolutist moral values, especially when most of your "audience" really don't understand the difference between the two anyway! As I said, our "complaints" then sound obsessive or inane or merely a matter that Jackson didn't reproduce the book verbatim onto the screen!

Certainly, we can continue to point out the moral shortcomings of the films' message, but that in most instances is like trying to explain a calculus equation to fifth graders - frustrating at best and hopeless at worst.

well, in my last post my arguement changed somewhat. it is as you say, impossible to convince some people that certain small inaccuracies in the movie have a large effect on the 'essence' of the story. there are many seemingly unimportant changes that affect the essence of the story on a much deeper level. picking up on these requires that you are cognizant of the subtle nature of the essence of the story. most people are happy to JUST see 'good triumph over evil', but that's too simplified to effectively replace the many deeper meanings in the story.

the deeper meanings are often rooted in Christian ideas and symbolism. tolkien denied allegory constantly, but admitted casually nonetheless, that there was a fair amount of Christianity in the books. This despite the fact that his world contains no organized religions per se. most of the movie-fans who argue that the changes are unimportant, argue so because they either aren't aware, or have chosen to ignore this portion of the meaning of the books. the portion of the meaning of the books that involves the Christian moral standard was non-existent in the movie. PJ didn't think it was important, movie-fans don't think that it is important, but i think it is horribly important.

this brings me to the burden of proof issue. a purist simply cannot prove to the general public that the Christian symbolism is important. nor can they prove that any other portion of the 'deeper' meaning is important. that would require that we teach movie-fans all that Christianity is about before we argue that the Christian meanings are important. this is too monstrous a task. it also requires that we can change people's values, which i have learned is impossible.

no, my arguements hinges more on the statement:

'we all deserve to see a lord of the rings on the big screen that we can enjoy'

i doubt anyone would like to argue with that.

but what some people enjoyed about the books seems irrelevant to others, and vice versa. this has been explored by PJ, but he never came up with a plan to tackle this problem. he decided that he would just simply make the movie as 'he' saw it, and in a form that the huge audience of american cinema could understand well. this is what he used to justify the changes in the story that he made for the film.

but there is a problem here, he has cut from the meaning of the movie what purists thought was important. or at least, they feel that what was cut is important enough to constantly spend time and effort arguing so.

the problem is that the meanings in the books are multi-facetted. they can be viewed in many ways. to view them in only one is to exclude certain people, who prefer another take on the same meanings.

the issue of different takes on the movies can be argued. we can debate forever what exactly is important, and what is not. but no movie would get made. we can choose one of the ways in which to view the meaning and use it exclusively, as PJ did. or we can put in an honest effort to maintain integrity.

an honest effort to make a movie using as much material from the books as possible, and not scenes we created on our own, will allow the inclusion of more people in the enjoyment of the movies. (this is also good for cash, so i can't see why they didn't do it) creating scenes of our own forces a certain way of looking at the meaning, namely the one that we hold. using tolkien's original source means that the meanings can still be interpreted in many ways. thus more people are included. also it saves us from the pitfalls of simplifying things, and losing the meaning altogether.

for example, gimli. what ever happened to the strong, yet surprisingly thoughtful dwarf we read about in the books? he said some fairly wise things at the council of elrond, made galadriel an offer she couldn't refuse because it was so courteous, and connected with legolas on an INTELLECTUAL level. instead we saw a gimli in the movies that was only good for one thing, cheap laughs. such a character is not capable of the same things behind the scenes, even if said scenes are not included.

would it have taken more time to accurately portray gimli? such a consideration is needed when trying to keep the run time of the movies reasonable. the movie-fans for the most part argue: yes! i disagree. in terms of time, it takes the same time for gimli to do the following actions on screen:

a)walk about 10 feet, and swing his axe into the ring, watch his axe break into shards, and look bewildered for a while. all of this caught on tape in FOTR

OR

say something intellegent as he does in the BBC radio-play: 'it seems to me that we have but three choices, to keep the ring from sauron, to send it over the sea, or to destroy it.' elrond then replies with a line similar to the one in the movie about the only method of destruction being the fires of ordruin, not by an axe or gimli the dwarf.

-both versions take the same time, and acheive the same general purpose. setting elrond up for the line something like 'the ring cannot be destroyed by your axe, gimli. it must be sent to the fires of mount doom'. admittedly in the book, gimli only speaks to tell his name at the council of elrond. his father is the one who does the talking. it MUST be changed for the screen. but the first method of changing it creates a character that is impulsive, fairly shallow thinking, and is used for comic relief (the bewildered shot). the second version gives us an feeling that gimli is trying to reason through the problem of the ring. this creates a character with more depth, and truer to the story (not an endless joke bag).-

b)look bewildered again, as some elf has a bow drawn and pressed up to his face when walking in lothlorien. then the insult, as it is an insult from haldir about how he is so loud, he could shot in the dark. this in FOTR the movie.

OR

he could speak his line from the books, when galadriel says farewell to the company 'it is enough for me to have seen the Lady of the Galadhrim, and to have heard her gentle words'. this could be worked into the movie without the gift-giving scene. he could also say this to legolas in the boat, as they sail off.

-again, both these methods achieve the same basic end, in the same time. showing that gimli is not all that, and that the elves of lorien are deserving of his respect. in the movies, because they can show him up in combat, in the book because they are beautiful people within themselves. the version in the movies again simplifies gimli's character, the insult is again gimli being used for comic relief. the line in the books shows us something more. a fuller character. someone who is taken aback by the beauty of the elves, and we can then find it believable that he would begin to lose his hatred for legolas.-

c)to be used as comic relief again as he jumps up and down at helms deep to try and see over the edge. then he is made fun of by legolas who asks him if he needs a box. also, the scene in which he asked aragorn to toos him, and then asks aragorn not to tell legolas. this seen in TTT.

OR

an accurate representation of the game of kills they played there, with the lines 'my count now reaches 42' spoken by gimli, and legolas' reply of 'that beats mine by one, but i do not grudge you the game, so glad i am to see you alive'.

(cnt'd)

 

[-K-]

cnt'd

this is more of an extension of the previous inaccuracies. the movie version could not include the second option. despite the fact that it leads to great character development of BOTH legolas and gimli, and a proof that over time they have formed a genuine friendship. this because it doesn't work given the previous calls that the movie made. but it would work given the other options that i provided. and in my opinion makes for much richer characters in legolas and gimli.

this example, i hope shows why i found the simplification of the stories in the movies both unnecessary and ineffective. i honestly believe the movie could have been made more accuartely, and not become much longer. all this would improve the quality considerably.

also, it allows more people to enjoy the films. people for whom gimli is their favorite character are happier because he is more accurately portrayed. also people unfamiliar with the stories would be able to pick up the clues and still understand the relationship of legolas and gimli. it may take them another viewing, but that makes the hollywood execs more money anyways.

again, my feelings are simply that we all deserve to see an adaptation of the books in the movies that we can enjoy.

i doubt that PJs version of the movie will remain the one and only film adaptation, even now there is the semi-complete cartoon version.

to many fans of the movies the nuances of gimli's character and the changes regarding him in the movie are insignificant. and to a certain extent i envy them. they are still quite capable of enjoying the films, i will probably always find it difficult. the changes to gimli are significant to me, because they interfere with MY ability to enjoy the movie. and this is likely why they make me so upset. gimli is not my favorite character, but i find that the friendship of gimli and legolas is my favorite in the books. a gimli that is used only for comic relief, and a legolas that was used to attract women to the theatre, cannot be shown to possess that friendship which i love so much.

and i realise that it is easy to point out the flaws in the handling of gimli. he is one of the worst handled characters in the movies. there are a lot of other characters that PJ did a better job of. especially since i cannot claim to have done better in any movie i directed myself. i can at least claim that if i was director, i would enjoy the movie. the question is would other people? i am not totally within my right to say that the movie is bad because i have so much trouble enjoying it. i am within my right to say that there was room for improvement, and some things i thought were important were changed for reasons i found insufficient.

no, what really troubles me in the end was the attitude with which PJ handles the movies.

i absolutely despise his scenes added so that he could make the story 'better', particularily aragorn floating down the river. and here i am within my right to criticize. PJ was wrong not to put forth an honest effort to maintain as much integrity as was still feasible given the logistics of filming these movies. this shows that he holds less respect for the story than he could.

by adding his own creations in an effort to make the story 'better', PJ has made one big mistake:

he has implied that the original story of the lord of the rings is inferior to his version.

clearly, it is not. and it is very insulting for him to imply such a thing.

PJ did devote a large portion of his life to making the films, and it shows. they are good movies. but he did not spend nearly as much time as tolkien spent writing the book. i don't know of anyone in the world who was better eduacted in the art of myth as tolkien was, and PJ definately isn't one of those people who have been hiding in obscurity. it is arrogant and ignorant for PJ to think that he was capable of making the lord of the rings into a better story. there is one kind of movie-fan i simply refuse to talk to, those that argue that the movies are actually better than the books.

it is an insult to tolkien for him to have set out to create a 'better' version. and the changes i see in the movies that are not as a result of the very difficult change from book to movie, are as a result of this. many of these changes are not catostrophic to the plot. but nonetheless, they are important.

each little detail that PJ chose to add from his own estimation of what would make lotr 'better' is an insult of the same magnitude. no matter how small that change is. the size of the change does not matter, it is that PJ made the decision each time to include them.

so if it seems at times that purists are nit-pickers, it is because of this: the degree of the insult involved in each change is the same, it is not proportional to the degree of significance it had on the story. the insult is not what was changed, but simply that PJ not only thought he could do 'better' than tolkien himself, he actually went and changed things that really didn't need to be changed as a result of that arrogant idea.

 

[-K-]

This is just great. This thread will create, if it hasn't been created yet, a further wedge between two camps that may or may not exist. This is NOT helpful.

Lotho

a huge wedge already exists. i'm not trying to widen it. that is why i am telling movie-fans to feel free to read this thread, to quote it, to start other threads if they wish to argue some of what is said, and even create their own thread of similar nature. i think this may have a chance of shortening the gap, so i think it's worth the try.

i am not trying to exclude people who are not purists. i stated in the first post i made, that i spent time thinking about whether creating such a thread was an elitist action. it isn't. i created the thread for the purpose of providing purists a place to post without having to worry about an immediate response from a movie-fan which is entirely polar to their postion. so far, myself and mrs. maggot are the only two to have used it.

the tremendous back and forth in some threads, i would argue creates a lot of passion. this passion sometimes is actually upset. people becoming upset widens the gap. by asking movie-fans not to post in this thread, there is an arena for purists to speak their mind and not worry about being upset.

if movie-fans want to create a similar thread, i'd at least read most of it. i do care what they have to say.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, it seems to me that there are at least two problems here: the first is that far too many people who have seen these films are lacking in a knowledge of the book suitable enough to understand the points we are making. Our priest saw the films and thought them "just great". When I tried to point out the subtle differences in the characters that change essential meanings, I soon "lost" him simply because his familiarity with the book is virtually nil except on the most basic level: yes, he knows what a hobbit is - sort of - and that the book was written by Tolkien. After that, he has no clue. Therefore, when you are speaking to these people, you haven't got a prayer of making your point simply because you would have to sit down and virtually 'explain' the entire story to them in depth in order for them to even begin to see the subtle differences between an Aragorn who for the sake of the peoples of Middle-earth does not press his claim to the throne of Gondor and an Aragorn who spurns the responsibility and fears the nature of his own "blood". These are not exactly "white vs. black" issues, but frequently ones of great subtlety.

On the other hand, knowledgeable persons who love the films agree that much was changed, but they believe that in the end, Tolkien's message "got through", so what's the big deal? Frankly, the umpteenth time you have to make the same point about Aragorn or Sam or Frodo or Gimli or Treebeard, it begins to dawn that either you aren't "getting through", or having done so, your audience simply does not believe that it is important enough to worry about. Of course, when that is the case, then every time the point is made, yet again, the person to whom it is being made begins to believe that the problem is your's not Jackson's! It's sort of the same thing as the old joke about the fond mother looking at her son John marching in the band and telling a bystander, "Look! Everybody's out of step but Johnnie!" When millions "love" the films, the few who do not (not counting those for whom such films in general have no interest) must have a problem since it can't be the films!

As for the "Christian" foundation of LOTR: that statement going to create controversy even at times among purists. We keep hearing that Tolkien did not create an allegory and therefore we cannot "inject" his religion into the work. However, that doesn't mean that the foundation of his "myth" is not Christian and even, more precisely, Catholic! But trying to make that point usually degenerates into a debate not about the films, but about the nature of the book itself rather than how well or poorly it has been translated to the screen - and that's another whole debate quite outside the films.

And as for "widening the breach": I quite agree with you. I don't see how it can be much wider. Still, I will say that there appears to be a position among many FADs that dislike of the films - in full or in part - is somehow "unacceptable" and anyone entertaining that opinion exhibits some sort of personal failing or, worse, a hostility towards those who do like them. Frankly, I have never understood that point of view! However much one may "love" these films, one should be open to the fact that there are going to be those who don't and one should be prepared to accept that person's point of view. In the same way, the person who doesn't like the films for whatever reason should be willing to accept the fact that others do like them if for no other reason than that's the way things are!

 

[-K-]

i agree with you, mrs. maggot, there is an impasse it's nice to know that there is a least one person on this forum who understands what it is that makes it difficult for me to enjoy the movies, and even angered by them.

with your example of the priest, you illustrate beautifully something i have always felt myself. you need a thorough understanding of BOTH lotr and the Christian moral standard (in rare cases a bright mind to pick out some flaws intuitively can make up for a lack in one) to appreciate how the films change that portion of the books meaning. but you cannot point this out to a 'movie-fan'. they immediately get defensive because you are telling them that they have an inferior understanding of what is going on. you are calling them 'dumb', in their eyes.

the only exception i am aware of is one friend who asks me at certain scenes: 'this wasn't in the book was it?'. he has no knowledge of the books whatsoever, and only a very small knowledge of Christianity. but he is very smart, and i think he holds tolkien in great respect mostly because i do. given his position of respect, certain scenes in the movie just make no sense to him. these are uaually the most changed from tolkien's original work, try though PJ might, he couldn't entirely integrate his scenes into the movies. this friend picks them out based on the fact that 'a man like tolkien wouldn't have wrote something that makes this little sense'.

this particular friend brings me joy, as he is yet further proof that some of what i am saying is true.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

There was something on TV last night about ROTK and how it was "put together" and, although I only watched snatches of it, I would assume there were references to the other films as well. It was obvious from what I did see that all involved were most concerned with "making a film" which is, of course, understandably very important. However, aside from the "nuts and bolts" of the story, certainly no one was taking about how to bring Tolkien's great moral vision to the screen. Indeed, I really don't think that anyone there was attuned to the book except as a screenplay and certainly not as a work that had anything truly deep to convey. It was all about how the characters and plot threads would translate into the most exciting and spectacular way into film.

This is, as I said, understandable. But it also explains how the essence of the book which is being put forth by way of the actions and reactions of the characters could be overlooked and/or dismissed if they happened to "conflict" with how this or that character or plot element could best be filmed. After all, as long as the end is the same, who cares if a few things "get lost" or changed along the way especially if it made Gollum or Aragorn or Frodo even more exciting or dramatic?

Jackson wanted to make exciting and dramatic films using as a general foundation, a book by an English professor. It was a corking good story in his opinion and one that would "film" well. He knew that the story had lots of "fans" and adherents who would "pick up" on any egregious errors and so he concentrated mainly on getting the "look" of the thing right - something in which, on the whole, he was successful. However, whether the great vision of the book escaped him or whether he believed that it was enough to have it come right in the end is unimportant. Certainly, he didn't think that it was necessary to portray the characters as faithfully as possible to the book or he would have done so. But whatever his motives, they are unimportant. Only the end result matters and now that the three films are available for judgment, it is up to each person to determine if he or she is able to accept what has been done or not.

 

[joxy]

....one friend who asks me at certain scenes: 'this wasn't in the book was it?'....but he is very smart....certain scenes in the movie just make no sense to him....these are usually the most changed from tolkien's original work,
....try though PJ might, he couldn't entirely integrate his scenes into the movies. this friend picks them out based on the fact that 'a man like tolkien wouldn't have wrote something that makes this little sense'.
....this particular friend brings me joy.

Well, he certainly brings pleasure to me, and I'm sure to many others around here!
I've been trying to determine all along how people who know nothing of the books react to the film, and particularly whether they are struck by the internal inconsistencies of the films. To me, those inconsistencies, as well as the PJ'ian changes, simply throw themselves out of the screen at me, and I have always failed to see how it is that so many people seem not to notice them at all! Your friend obviously does see them, and it is good to hear that the changes are so obvious to him.
With due respect to your friend, though, I really don't think anyone needs to be all that smart to realise that the films are actually a combination of the sublime and the ridiculous, that they lurch from high drama to low comedy in an instant. Frankly, I don't see much evidence that PJ actually has tried to integrate his inventions into the rest of the material. Particularly in terms of dialogue, but in every aspect too, they "stand out a mile", and I would hope that many people do in fact realise that someone of Tolkien's reputation could not possibly be responsible for them.
Your friend has the advantage of realising for himself, and having information from you. Others may see the films; find them lacking in quality; think that Tolkien actually was responsible for all they saw; and decide that the books cannot, therefore, possibly be as good as their reputation claims; then simply decide they're not worth the effort of buying and reading.

 

[-K-]

in response to what both mrs. maggot and joxy have said:

the goal of the movies, as stated by PJ was simply:

we want to try and increase tolkien readership

and the numbers appear to prove that they achieved this. the fact that 1/3 of all tolkien books sold have been sold after the first movie was released.

but i am still skeptical. one thing that i will say is this, i will look at the numbers after 10 years of the release of the last movie and then make MY judgement. i am worried about how many of the new readers will actually be 'retained'. and there will be numbers to show how many readers are 'retained' in about ten year's time.

of course, there will be a huge spike in book sales during the period of july 2001 to about june 2004. this is directly attributed to the movies themselves, in the theatres specifically. these are people who decided upon prompting from friends and all the hype to read the books before the movies came out to better understand the movies, and/or after the movies came out to read them because they liked the movies.

there will also be a somewhat gentler large 'hump' that adds to this between 1999 (when the movies were announced) and about 2006 when all the hype has died. this is from people who have read the books before, and are tolkien devotees, also from people who missed the movies in cinema, and see them at home. after 2006, the movies are not going to remain likely ways for people to 'get into' tolkien. if they haven't reacted to the movie by that time, they never will as a result of the movies. tolkien book sales will again return more and more to people who have read the books before, or hear about the books from existing tolkien readers.

by the year 2014, tolkien book sales will have settled into a steady level, and solely as a result of current tolkien readers, and people they reccomend the books to. current tolkien readers at that time will include those who had read the books as a result of the movies.

this is where the 'retention' comes in. if at a steady state, tolkien book sales are significantly higher in 2014 than they were in 1998, then the movies have not only succeeded in gaining quick, one-time readers, but lifelong readers of tolkien. this will be genuine success.

i wonder how significantly the movies will impact the book sales at that point. here's why:

tolkien's books were misrepresented in the films for a variety of reasons, i don't need to list them here. they were represented in a way that would make them as easily digestible and enjoyable to the current movie fans of our day as possible. this is how PJ thought he could reach the most people with the movies. and he was right. the tremendous success of the movies in the box office, and in terms of immeditate book sales is proof of that.

but, there are two potential problems in terms of retention that i see. directly as a result of the fact that the movie is not catered to life-long fans of tolkien.

i) people who read the books simply as a result of thinking the movies are absolutely amazing may be retained at a low rate. this is because the reality of the text is such that it is not catered to their tastes. their tastes are exactly in line with the movies. good though the text may be, it may not actually be found enjoyable by these people.

ii) people who watched the movies, and find the qualities lacking as a result of never having read the books are lost entirely. these people may very well have been candidates for life-long tolkien fans, but are mislead by the very different scope of the movies than that enjoyed by devoted tolkien fans. therefore, this very important group is lost. the group of people who would be purists if they had read the books before the movies. *this of course, joxy originally pointed out in a thread before this one, and again in the previous post*

this, i see as the main difficulties that PJ's goal of increasing tolkien readership now face (the test of time). these two factors may actually DECREASE tolkien book sales in 2014 as opposed to if the movies had been more faithful to the books.

[added later]

as an afterthought, if the movie version of the hobbit is made, then the new date from which to estimate the retention would then be 2016, or 10 years after that movie is made.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

the goal of the movies, as stated by PJ was simply:

we want to try and increase tolkien readership <quote K>

If indeed Jackson actually made such a statement, then of all the nonsense he has spouted since he began to develop these films, that has to be the "biggest and the baddest" bit of effluvia ever!

The "goal of the movies" was to make Mr. Jackson a cinematic success/legend and to make money! I'm sure he didn't mind if the books benefitted from his efforts, but the idea that the books were a primary - never mind THE primary - consideration in the whole project is laughable!

 

[-K-]

the goal of the movies, as stated by PJ was simply:

we want to try and increase tolkien readership <quote K>

If indeed Jackson actually made such a statement, then of all the nonsense he has spouted since he began to develop these films, that has to be the "biggest and the baddest" bit of effluvia ever!

The "goal of the movies" was to make Mr. Jackson a cinematic success/legend and to make money! I'm sure he didn't mind if the books benefitted from his efforts, but the idea that the books were a primary - never mind THE primary - consideration in the whole project is laughable!

i don't remember where the quote is from, but i read it quite quickly after the fotr came out in theatres. it was in an article in which PJ was questioned by an interviewer as to what his motives in making the movies were, as the huge inconsistency of arwen replacing glorfindel (and the creation of more to the love story of aragorn and arwen than was found in the books) ruled out accuracy as the prime motive.

he responded by saying basically as close to the quote above as my memory allows. he could not easily argue that he was going for accuracy, even then. now there is simply no way that he could.

i think though, we need to give PJ credit. he did, as far as i can tell, make the movies with the goal of increasing tolkien readership in mind. he is not only about his own career and money. it is unfair to make that assumption, or accusation at any point.

the hollywood execs, however i don't believe were there for tolkien. THEY were there for money. PJ also deserves credit for keeping the movies as good as they are with the HUGE pressure to make a lucrative-only movie from his higher-ups.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Whatever pressure Jackson had from above, below or either side, he resisted because he believed that his project was best served by doing so. I'm sorry, but I cannot buy the idea that he was principally motivated by a desire to "tell the story" however much he may have 'liked' it. Nobody sinks that much time, money and effort into a project simply to sell another man's book! If Jackson had doubted for a minute that the films wouldn't "fly" with the public, he would have filmed something else. Now, is he happy that the book's popularity has increased? I'm sure he is! But that was not his sole motivation nor, I insist, anywhere near his primary motivation for these films.

In fact, the only director/producer I can think of who has ever made a film based solely on his desire to tell a story absent any thought of profit or career benefits is Mel Gibson and his "The Passion of the Christ". And incredible as that film is apparently going to be, it cannot be compared to Jackson's LOTR project for time, expense and complexity. Therefore, I hope you will forgive me if I take the Director's statement with quite a bit more than a "grain" of salt!

 

[joxy]

....the goal of the movies, as stated by PJ was simply:
we want to try and increase tolkien readership
the fact that 1/3 of all tolkien books sold have been sold after the first movie was released.
they were represented in a way that would make them as easily digestible and enjoyable to the current movie fans of our day as possible. this is how PJ thought he could reach the most people with the movies. and he was right. the tremendous success of the movies in the box office, and in terms of immediate book sales is proof of that.
ii) people who watched the movies, and find the qualities lacking as a result of never having read the books are lost entirely.

PJ has stated an awful lot of things in the last few years. I recommend taking them all very lightly, not least because many of them contradict each other.
If he DID say that, about "wanting to try and increase readership", then he was saying something equally significant as saying that he "wanted to try and make water wet". i.e. not significant at all. The act of releasing the films was certain to increase readership; he didn't need to make any deliberate and specific effort to achieve that aim, any more than trying to increase the sale of popcorn and icecream, increases which were just as guaranteed as those of the books.
I don't understand the "1/3" statistic; could you explain it, and tell us the source?
Then, if PJ really did think that his changes would make the films "as easily digestible and enjoyable to the current movie fans of our day as possible", there is NO WAY of proving that "he was right", and the sales of seats and books are NOT "proof" of it.
Who can say that films that were much closer to the original material would not have done even BETTER in all respects? Also it is perfectly possible that the people who bought the tickets and the books did so because they appreciated the "close" parts of the films, and NOT the changes; they may well have disliked the changes as much as I, and you, do! I still buy the DVDs!
Those people who may have been "lost entirely" are the ones which I specified in the post before yours, and which I have mentioned before, in the hope of having some reactions from people who might have found themselves in just that position.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Purist Pleasures

Purists will love this: http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001242.html#001242

Lotho