What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
...the reaction the film-makers have got from fans has not been a negative one....
It seems that most true Tolkien fans are happy with the film version of FOTR.
There are a lot of things in the film that happen a different way, or characters who are introduced in a different way. All the way through the film, there are continual changes.

Two comments and a question:
The important word here has to be "fans", and that has to mean people who are fanatical, and people who read fan magazines, neither category being of any great significance!
There is NO way anyone could KNOW that MOST fans are happy. The numbers who write in to the magazines, or somehow communicate with the film-makers, have to be a tiny proportion of them, and there is no way of knowing whether they are or are not representative of a substantial majority.
And how do those last two sentences reconcile with what PJ said before the film was made, and on the DVD extra? They don't.

 

[Kelonus]

Jackson shouldnt have changed anything, but in my opinion the movie is still.

 

[Talimon]

And how do those last two sentences reconcile with what PJ said before the film was made, and on the DVD extra? They don't.

I don't see what the problem is. PJ never claimed he was going to keep the tale exactly as Tolkien wrote it. Perhaps you are looking too deeply into his earlier quotes. He has always stated, from the very beginning, that this is not the Lord of the Rings, only his adaptation of it. I don't see how that still doesn't apply.

There is NO way anyone could KNOW that MOST fans are happy. The numbers who write in to the magazines, or somehow communicate with the film-makers, have to be a tiny proportion of them, and there is no way of knowing whether they are or are not representative of a substantial majority.

Joxy, there are no ways to get down to the concrete percentages, but you can certainly get a feel for it. There are nuemerous factors that go into this. One, reviews. Two, box-office sales. Three, fan-sites. And I guess four would be just the general "vibe" that the movie recieves. I mean, everyone knows fans did not recieve Star Wars: Episode I with open arms. They did not enjoy it or embrace it nearly as much. By the same token it is accepted that FotR was accepted. I mean, if you really want to maintain this point go ahead, but I think it's pretty well established that FotR was huge success, both at the box office and critically. It's not as if New Line or PJ are gloomy about the "failure" of FotR. I'm not really sure how to really present this to you in concrete numbers. I mean, I'd assume just the feeling in the theatre would be enough.

 

[Radagast]

Parrot, you hit the mark it think

"Then again maybe he knew that his movie was going to be good and once he got them in they would be hooked, lies or no. Granted, I don’t have any special insight or know any of this for fact, but I do know that few issues are as simple as the most extreme voices on either side would have us believe, "

Parrot, you have to give yourself more credit.

He made the movie he WANTED to make, and during the whole undertaking told everyone he would remain true so people wouldn't bug him so much.

As for Talimon's article's testimony,

Come on buddy, what else are they gonna say. "Yeah we ****ed off a lot of serious fans and this has caused us to re-think the way we made this film. Especially because we re-assured them we would make a film that remained faithful to Tolkien and one they would love, but we even caused a rift in the Tolkien family and they made us take out the 'JRR Tolkien's' part of The Lord of the Rings title"

It's a business, they have to say they have support and everyone loves the film or they won't get work in Hollywood again. Who would want an actor that critcizes his own film in PR interviews. They could have made Lord of the Flies and had it take place in Middle-Earth and if they made it entertaining it could have been a box office smash too.

No Spin Zone

Cheers

back to my animal friends

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Yes, LOTR/FOTR has received critical and audience acclaim and that's understandable. Whatever criticism may be made of Mr. Jackson's changes in character, plot etc., there can be NO doubt that he paid very careful attention to his PRODUCTION VALUES. The armor of EVERY person involved in a scene was "real". He built Hobbiton and let it stand for a year so that it would "age". I have MANY disagreements with Jackson, but his production standards and attention to detail and the APPEARANCE of reality are not among them. When you add this aspect of the film along with its "hi-tech" computer generated special effects and the fact that it's a corking good adventure yarn, it is not difficult to understand this almost unanimous acclaim.

Sadly, however, the meaning of Tolkien's mythic tale - the superiority of love, loyalty and self sacrifice over hate, duplicity and greed and the fact that EVERYONE, big or small, has a part to play in the triumph of good - is lost in all of the other cinematic falderol that exites and engages the audience because Jackson has chosen style over substance.

 

[Talimon]

When you add this aspect of the film along with its "hi-tech" computer generated special effects and the fact that it's a corking good adventure yarn, it is not difficult to understand this almost unanimous acclaim.

You must have not seen the last two Star Wars movies, and the reviews and critical acclaim (or lack thereof) it recieved. High production values do NOT result in critical sucess. Kevin Costners two monstrously budgeted movies are testament to this: Waterworld and The Postman. I think, in the case of the Postman, it didn't even make back half of it's budget. And it got some horrible reviews.

I just can't help feeling that you are looking for the themes in the all the wrong places. Why is it that, after having watched FotR, I can sum up it's themes as being percisely the following?

the superiority of love, loyalty and self sacrifice over hate, duplicity and greed and the fact that EVERYONE, big or small, has a part to play in the triumph of good

I can't help feeling that you were watching a different movie, or are simply choosing to ignore what the movie is showing you. Each of those points you mention are expressed in poignantly acted and written scenes. Not just small, minute scenes either. Scenes that define what the movie is about. Scenes that carry the movie, scenes that give the movie its emotional depth. If those themes you mention aren't what PJ's movie is about, please tell me what is. You don't have to go digging through the film to find love: It's in the very first shot between Frodo and Gandalf, the very last shot between Frodo and Sam. Loyalty: Sam carring for Frodo, protecting him from Aragorn and from the Nazgul, sitting in on the council, and finally willing to drown and die rather then be separated from Frodo. Self-sacrifice: This is is pretty self-explanatory, in that Frodo accepting the the task of destroying the ring is in itself self-sacrificial. Boromir dying to protect the hobbits. The fact that this triumphs over hate, duplicity, and greed is driven home by the fact that Gandalf, Galadriel, and Boromir are tempted by it. PJ even went beyond the call of duty here and had Aragorn be tempted in a short scene, but prevailing. And as for everyone, big or small, having an effect, I quote:

Frodo: I wish the Ring had never come to me.
I wish none of this had happened.

Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.

Or, more directly:

Frodo: I know what I must do. It's just, I'm afraid to do it.

Galadriel: Even the smallest person
can change the course of the future.

I have no agenda to change your opinions, but you can't claim PJ did not, by deffinition, understand or capture the meaning of Tolkiens tale. Had you left it at a personal level I wouldn't mind. But since you happened to mention themes from the book that I too feel are important, I had to mention this. The themes you mention seem to be the percise themes PJ cocentrated on.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Perhaps if the story for the two Star Wars movies and Mr. Kostner's efforts had been written by Tolkien, they might have fared better. OF COURSE one must BEGIN with a good story - and you might notice that I mentioned that in my comment.

Interestingly enough, the things that you present as some of the reasons WHY the film worked - Gandalf's touching moment with Frodo in Moria (it was in Bag End in the book AT THE BEGINNING of the tale) and Sam's willingness to drown rather than allow Frodo to go east alone - are BOTH "true" to Tolkien and not Jackson's innovations.

Yes, of course, much of what I spoke of was "developed" in the film, but in the wrong places - later in story instead of in the beginning - and obviously this fundamentally affects EVERYTHING including character development. Let me explain it this way: I have a bread machine; there are certain ingredients that go into making the bread and the instructions with the machine clearly state that these ingredients must go into the machine in a SET ORDER and in PRESCRIBED AMOUNTS. If you put THE SAME INGREDIENTS into the machine in any other order or amounts, the bread is not only not the same, it will probably be ruined.

Thus, although Mr. Jackson may have put essentially the same "ingredients" in the film as were in the book, he has changed, mixed, added and subtracted their presentation, value and position within the story. As a result, he may have produced "bread", but it certainly isn't the SAME "bread" that he would have been produced had the "chef" been more interested in bringing Tolkien and not Tolkien a la Jackson to the screen.

 

[Grond]

LOL!! Great analogy Mrs. Maggott!! Of course, the FAD defenders of PJ will simply say that he made a great French bread rather than Tolkien's stale crusty bread.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
it's pretty well established that FotR was huge success, both at the box office and critically

Of course it is, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I was talking about the claim that "most true Tolkien fans are happy", and neither of those factors say anything about the claim.
People are going to see the film anyway, whether they have an advance idea of it being good or bad, or not. What they think when they leave the cinema, no-one can know. If they go back and see it again, that does not mean they are happy.
The critics/reviews I've commented on before; they represent the views of those who write them, no more, no less.
You also mention fan-sites, and "general vibes".
This site answers the first point, though all it tells is what those who contribute think.
Vibes may come over to you in however many cinemas you have seen the film. I don't listen to what others in the audience are saying, and there isn't a convention of applause in cinemas to give an idea of it! On the wider scale the only way to assess the vibes is from the media, and they're not exactly a reliable judge of anything!
You're not sure how to put this into concrete numbers. Of course, there isn't a way, for you, or me, or anyone else to do that.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I also would like to posit a thought regarding the ongoing debate about the success of the films and who does and does not "like" them. If one goes to see the film and is willing to accept it/them on THEIR OWN - even LOVING as I do, the book - then, of course, they will be popular.

I found FOTR an excellent film, well paced and full of both action and character development. Indeed, I would probably have enjoyed it MORE if I had not known the book as well as I do! It was my constant comparison between the two that caused my trepidation with the film. As soon as I decided to view the film as if I knew NOTHING about the book, that all disappeared.

However, within the threads in this site have been debates about the book vis a vie the film (and vice versa) and that has been the basis of my criticism. I have MANY things to criticize in the film when it is being compared to the book and very few criticisms thereof when I am just looking at the film standing alone. And that, I think, is the crux of the "popularity" argument. Those who look at the film critically (as we should ALL do) will not be all that happy if they use the book as their criteria, but if they forego using that standard, they should be happy enough with what Mr. Jackson has provided.

 

[Grond]

Just so everyone will know. From the inception of this debate, shortly after The Fellowship of the Ring premiered, the forum became divided into two separate groups.

The FADs - Film Adaptation Defenders (which I am not)

The NPWs - Nit Picking Weenies (which I am not either)

Actually, most of us fit somewhere in between, but since you asked... those were the original team names in this debate.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Oh, dear! It appears that the "con" side of that debate definitely got, er, "stuck" with its name! One can hardly equate Film Adaptation Defenders with Nit-picking Weenies! Who thought up the names, pray tell? Mr. Jackson? I would suggest that Book Centered Critics might have been not only more to the point, but also much more polite!

Hopefully, the next time a debate is arranged, some neutral soul can be called upon to label the sides!

 

[Talimon]

As a result, he may have produced "bread", but it certainly isn't the SAME "bread" that he would have been produced had the "chef" been more interested in bringing Tolkien and not Tolkien a la Jackson to the screen.

While certainly amusing, there is a fault in your analogy. It stems from the fact that one was making a book, and the other a movie. As such, what is really happening here is that you have one chef making bread, and the other making a different food altogether. In fact, I'd argue that on a certain level they aren't even both chefs. One is using an entirely different medium of expression. The fact is, if you judge the film as a book (which, by saying they are both attempting to be "bread" you are doing) then yes, it will dissapoint. So will the vast majority of films . I think this is one place where we defer: I am judging this as a movie. Yes, a movie adaptation. But ultimately I am being keenly aware that the medium at hand here is film.

If we are to stick to the food analogy I think this would be more appropriate: both chefs are making meals. However, one meal is Italian and one meal is Japanese. You wouldn't judge the Italian meal by Japanese standards, and vice versa. However, certain elements can carry over from one meal to the other. Certain patterns, spices, ingredients. And I think this is the level the comparisons ought to be made on.

And finally, I have to note something else. It is very possible for two breads to be made of the same ingredients, used in the same order, and for one bread to still pale in comparison. Maybe cooking isn't the best medium here, but my point is that you need to put feeling into it, something more then just the right ingredients. A cook has a "feel" for what's right, what's good.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

<If we are to stick to the food analogy I think this would be more appropriate: both chefs are making meals. However, one meal is Italian and one meal is Japanese. You wouldn't judge the Italian meal by Japanese standards, and vice versa. However, certain elements can carry over from one meal to the other. Certain patterns, spices, ingredients. And I think this is the level the comparisons ought to be made on. quote Talimon>

Yes, but it is YOU who are saying that the SAME INGREDIENTS have gone into both - but that Mr. Jackson has simply put them in differently in different amounts and in different places and that therefore, the results should be the same. I dispute that. Now, you are saying that the two "chefs" are using DIFFERENT INGREDIENTS which means that it doesn't matter HOW or WHEN they are put together, since neither chef intended to produce the same meal.

<And finally, I have to note something else. It is very possible for two breads to be made of the same ingredients, used in the same order, and for one bread to still pale in comparison. Maybe cooking isn't the best medium here, but my point is that you need to put feeling into it, something more then just the right ingredients. A cook has a "feel" for what's right, what's good. quote Talimon>

But the chefs DIDN'T use the same ingredients in the same amount and in the same order. Mr. Jackson deviated from the receipe for whatever reason (including "feel") and therefore, the "loaf" that he has produced is certainly far different from the "loaf" he supposedly used as his guide and inspiration. As a result, the argument cannot be made (as noted above) that because Mr. Jackson used the "same" ingredients (with some changes occasioned by his medium), the "purists" must then admit that he has followed the receipe and therefore, they have no reason to complain about the finished product.

 

[Talimon]

Now, you are saying that the two "chefs" are using DIFFERENT INGREDIENTS which means that it doesn't matter HOW or WHEN they are put together, since neither chef intended to produce the same meal.

I never stated they were using different ingredients. Indeed, I state where you quote me:

If we are to stick to the food analogy I think this would be more appropriate: both chefs are making meals. However, one meal is Italian and one meal is Japanese. You wouldn't judge the Italian meal by Japanese standards, and vice versa. However, certain elements can carry over from one meal to the other. Certain patterns, spices, ingredients. And I think this is the level the comparisons ought to be made on.

Next:

As a result, the argument cannot be made (as noted above) that because Mr. Jackson used the "same" ingredients (with some changes occasioned by his medium), the "purists" must then admit that he has followed the receipe and therefore, they have no reason to complain about the finished product.

I never claimed he followed the recipe. What I am saying is that he took the best elements from the original loaf/meal, and wrote an entriely new recipe using the ingredients he liked from that original loaf/meal. It's not the same recipe is the equivalent of me saying it's not Tolkiens exact book. Which, of course, it's not. It's a different recipe, with the cook taking what he feels are the most important elements from the original and making his own food. I still feel there is a problem here, in that PJ wasn't just writing another book using his favorite ingredients, but making a movie. That's the weakness in using the bread analogy, which is why I resorted to using the different meals. Bread can be judged by one standard. Movies and books cannot.

 

[Radagast]

Bread review

Yeah but in this wizards opinion, pj's bread wasn't that good. It looked great and smelled pretty good too, but it didn't taste all that good, in fact quite tasteless in some spots.Te worst part of it was that he kept on telling me I was gonna love it because he was keeping to the old recipe of Grampa Tolkien.

 

[Grond]

Yes... but Talimon has made the point that none of us purists can ever undo. That point is the one where he vowed to maintain "the spirit" of the book. "The Spirit" is such a subjective criteria and is something that is so different to so many different people that it is an impossible standard to judge and I'm sure that PJ new that when he stated it.

On the other hand, where he leaves himself open to sharper criticism is when he states that he feels a duty "not to disappoint the countless fans of the book". In that, we have a very objective criteria when he has failed in many cases. I would venture to guess that on all the forums to which I belong (which are many although I am here most of the time) the ration is probably 1 : 1 of book fans that were disappointed with the adaptation.

And here I must heavily qualify my last statemenet. I, personally, loved the film and the visualizations were beyond my wildest expectations; however, for me, it failed miserably as a "great" adaptation of the book. The reason being that IMHO, the characterizations of the major players have been drastically rearranged in a manner that may work for the movie going public but failed my to meet my vision of the story.

Great movie PJ!! Wish you would have stuck to the story (as it is forever imprinted into my mind) rather than gone off on some cinematic tangents which damage Tolkien's story.

 

[Talimon]

On the other hand, where he leaves himself open to sharper criticism is when he states that he feels a duty "not to disappoint the countless fans of the book". In that, we have a very objective criteria when he has failed in many cases. I would venture to guess that on all the forums to which I belong (which are many although I am here most of the time) the ration is probably 1 : 1 of book fans that were disappointed with the adaptation.

At the risk of assuming too much, let me propose something. What kind of folks go on Tolkien forums? Most likely people who highly enjoyed the book and have a clear memory of it. However, there is something to be said about the millions of people who have read the book but don't have a clear memory of it. I think, when people post these "100 million readers" claims, they ignore the fact that many of these readers haven't read the book for a decade or more. Consider that Tolkiens last great surge in popularity (short of today) was in the 1960's. And I don't think that those folks are as prone to noticing some of the finer changes. My point is, there is still some doubt here as to whether he in fact did "disappoint the countless fans of the book". I'd argue that he didn't. But, as joxy can tell you, there is no accurate way to know public opinion. While I disagree to an extent, the truth is you can't make an accurate objective claim that he failed to not dissapoint the countless fans. In fact, if we are to each collect as many sources as possible, I think we'd find that there is more evidence showing that the majority of fans in fact weren't dissapointed.

As you point out, this is a highly subjective issue. I agree, and it's percisely because of that that I don't think you can make one, universal statement as to whether PJ succeeded or failed. I do feel, however, that there is something to be said about actually expecting the movie to completely meet your "vision of the story". Unless you have a very sketchy memory of Tolkiens book, there is absolutely no way PJ completely met your vision. I have never claimed this, and I know very, very few who honestly have. I think the difference here is that for you the trueness to the book is playing a much bigger role then it is for me. If for me PJ's movie gets a 90% score, were it 100% true to the book maybe it would get a 95% at most. That would be assumming, of course, that it still maintained it's pacing and quality. For you, I assume that it's more a 60%, but were it truer it would also be a 95%. I'm not sure how to explain this, other then stating the obvious. Yes, we perhaps disagree a little bit on what the meaning of Tolkiens tale actually is, but I'd say perhaps more relevant is what we are looking for. And, ironic as it may sound, I think you are looking for much more in PJ's movie then I am.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....if we were to each collect as many sources as possible, I think we'd find that there is more evidence showing that the majority of fans in fact weren't disappointed.

No matter how many sources were collected, they couldn't tell us that a majority were or were not disappointed, to SOME extent. If that last comma were a full stop, it would be a different matter altogether: I've very little doubt that very few were totally disappointed; I wasn't. Looking at it the other way, you wouldn't say you were fully satisfied; would you?!

 

[Ent]

As I've said before Tar. LoTR is not some cheap five and dime store novel. It is considered one of greatest books of the 20th Century and has developed an incredible following from it's imaginative power. You don't just take that and bastardize it because Hollywood, who as you've said does that to movies, wants to get its mud hooks on it and create a big money maker.

Having your kid taking a crayon and defacing your average local artist's painting is a lot different then him scribbling all over your Picasso. Don't you think that something this awesome deserves a little more sacredness? LoTR is a classic literary work that intertwines symbolism and allegory and prose and poetry into a story. When you change things, you change the rest. By eliminating the eggs, you alter the cake. The changes made aren't as insignificant as you may think. Most of PJ's changes are not just gimmicks to make more money or get a bigger audience By his changes he has:

1) Diminished the power of the ring, which is a central part of the story.
2) Gone against the specific wishes of Tolkien himself written in his letters as to how his characters should be portrayed. Tolkien must have had a good reason for keeping his characters as he wrote them don't you think?
3) Eliminated crucial elements to the background and history of things that are important to truly understanding the whole story.

I'm surprised it doesn't bother you that the person who has decided to undertake a venture such as bringing this masterpiece to the screen has such a casual disregard to what Tolkien intended. Oh well.

I'm not denying that it will be a entertaining movie. I'm not saying that I will not see it. I just don't think that it is truly Tolkien and I do believe that it will distort the way "newbies" will view the real LoTR and Tolkien in general.

A very old fossil, this thread, yet Thorin's "belief" as stated is entirely true. For many, the Film is now all they know of LoTR - to much great loss. And they try to talk "knowledgeably" about what Tolkien's LoTR is all about, and what the various characters have said and done.

Saints preserve us..!!
In such a case as this, may we ever find Radagast the Eccentric leading the wolves away in his Bunny-drawn Sled to keep us safe a bit longer from the pod-born Orcs of Isengard. (To mix different movies having the same malodorous types of errors as their frequent fare..!)