Why dont Aragorn or 🧝Legolas wear helmets?

[d4rk3lf]

@d4rk3lf I have heard others often lament some of the decisions regarding how the character's were represented as being a big if not primary issue for them as well. Though, I always felt it was done to convey other meanings. I forget who I was speaking with and I agreed with him that the depictions of Denethor

The answer is simple.
You can't justify changing of Denethor character, by placing somebody that is completely madman.
Even if we ignore the books, Denethor character in the movie is completely unrealistic, and shouldn't be like that, even if the filmmakers invented him.
Peter Jacson characters in the movies are too 1-dimmensional... while in the books they are not.

As for other movies, and how characters are built, one of my all time favorite is Braveheart.
Not only William Wallace, but every other character is done greatly, and have it's purpose, and have his/her agenda.
There's a plenty of movies from 80's and 90's that have way better characters then lotr movies had.

And yes, we are a little bit of-topic

 

[Olorgando]

Also, curious to know if you think they could have done better if they were granted something more.

As to your question "has there been a better representation of something like the trilogy (the books) depicted on film?", I simply haven't seen many adaptations of books to film. The first two "Godfather" films did a pretty good job with Mario Puzo's book. Beyond that I can only recall the film adaptations of Arthur C. Clark's first two books of his "Space Odyssey" tetralogy, "2001" and "2010". My (High) Fantasy reading is practically limited to JRRT, and beyond that my reading (and my private library) is hugely weighted towards non-fiction - as you similarly mentioned about your reading in another thread.

Regarding your question that I selected for my "Reply", I also have doubts, no matter how much "extra" they would have been given.

This has to do with a tendency I (dimly) believe I detect in products for both the large screen and the small, probably a part of the "cookie cutter" and "tick list": that audiences have to be able to "relate" to the characters. That may be fine for sitcoms & soaps & whatever playing in our times. By now it gets tricky if the time period depicted is the post-WW II era up to the 1960's. Go to pre-WW II, perhaps even pre-WW I, then depictions will probably start to ring false. Go back to the 19th century (which in a way only ended in 1914), the we very probably don't know what we're talking about. Go back even further, then it would get more and more difficult to just understand people when they speak - and regular spelling is also a quite recent development, late 19th century.
No, people who lived in such earlier times - popular periods to depict are the middle ages, Roman and Greek times, ancient Egypt, anything to do with the Bible - were not the "reg'lar Joe and Jane from next door", not even remotely. But no, everything, no matter from what period, seems to have to conform to some "modernist" notion - which is why so many critics were and are utterly unable to understand JRRT's writings. No, if the filmmakers believe we must be able to "relate" to most of the characters - with the possible exception of the Hobbits, but they also belong to an era more than a century ago - they will never get the book onto the screen even halfway faithfully.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

It's hard for me to tell if some of you are not mixing in some hyperbole into your opinions of the LoTR trilogy, particularly those of you whom seem most informed on the canon and lore (might even dare to say those who I'd maybe consider to be scholars of his work.)

I'll ask for another opinion however as it's the only opinion I'm really much concerned with and me being in middle school and then high school when the movies were released and some of you having had read and re-read the books and likely had been well equipped to answer questions of lore many years before the films were conceived.

Do you think an attempt to capture the spirit of the books and further elaborate and the vision of Tolkien was made at all? Or was in nothing more than another Hollywood attempt to shamelessly cash in on perhaps on the most valued treasure (at least to many) in literature? Or somewhere in between as most things tend to be.

I do think that attempt was made personally, even with it's shortcomings. All answers to this question are true in their own way.

I don't believe I know the term of 'hyperbole' but I will try to answer your questions.

This is both a good, and very difficult question. Perhaps an attempt was made. I think maybe it started out with thinking about how great this would be, and how much it would really bring the incredible elements of the book to life, but it did not remain this way through filming. Being altogether an extremely expensive film, it would cost a lot to make, and because of that, money was considered and thought of constantly in the making of this, and it showed. I think that in the process it stopped being about how to bring the books to life, but how to make the most profit from the production.

Then, I think there was a division on set. Some people I think were truly there to do justice and give life on the screen to the works of Tolkien, to make his works more popular, and to widely show the incredible genius behind his writing. The only problem, others on that same set were determined to make money. That is all they wanted. Money, and lots of it. And so that is why I think that parts of the movies are down extremely well, and others are either cut out completely or just totally changed beyond recognition of the original books from Tolkien.

Of course, the movies could not have done full justice to the books, but a better effort could have been made.

That being said, I recommend to read the books, and perhaps re-read them, and read some of The Silmarillion and other books, and then watch the films, so...

1. You know what people are talking about when they either praise or criticize it.
2. You get the insight into someone else's idea of how it might have been.
3. You understand it's shortcomings, and can correct people who remember the book wrong, or are just repeating what is shown in the movies.
4. While they fail at accuracy to the book, the cinematography is actually quite good, and with the right perspective and attitude, they are enjoyable.

I hope this answers your question-- I felt the need to answer, quite plainly, because you were speaking of those wo had given opinion and speculation, and I had done both of those.

 

[cart]

As for other movies, and how characters are built, one of my all time favorite is Braveheart.
Not only William Wallace, but every other character is done greatly, and have it's purpose, and have his/her agenda.
There's a plenty of movies from 80's and 90's that have way better characters then lotr movies had.

And yes, we are a little bit of-topic

While I love Braveheart as any other person and agree with well everything you typed here.. This is not a fair comparison, is it?
Braveheart: based off a poem and some cohesion to historical events (as far as we can tell.. and to my limited understanding not even those that can tell.. don't have much to tell in terms of the historical relevance).
- starred.. Mel Gibson, Produced... Mel Gibson, Directed... This is called a pattern now. In other words this is, to put it simply very much closer to lets say if Tolkien (and it perhaps wouldn't surprise me..) was also very talented Director, Actor and understood the back end of the film industry and produced it as well. In other words this vision of Braveheart we got on film had hardly any obstacles in delivering Gibson's vision to film.. the primary ones likely being internal conflicts that Gibson had with maybe a certain seen or this thing or another... not trying to depict another's vision.. nor having to deal with many other strong voices in opposition to manifesting his vision.. I'd guess (and i could be wrong.. though budget is always a consideration) when there were group decisions to be made be them artistic or otherwise Mel likely got his way.

The LoTR had just so much more to take into consideration.. and likely many decision makers (at the very least compared to this example) that impacted what was filmed. And the story was far more complex in terms of events, locations, characters, peoples.. etc.. And most I mentioned were the minor obstacles between the two for the original vision-> published film yet attempting to maintain this vision.

I just think since I can't think of any example of such an undertaking and no one else seems to be able to.. then perhaps the ultimate satisfaction or requirements that some may hold are simply impossible to meet, or so specific to a certain audience that a non-reader may not understand or more likely enjoy what it is they are seeing. Surely, no body is expecting them (Hollywood or anyone who undertakes a film they intend more than just some Sundance invitees to enjoy) make the film so seemingly only readers could enjoy it.

(tangent: i've always wished i was more succinct in how i express myself... i type and say far more than what i think is likely needed to convey the same point..)

 

[cart]

As to your question "has there been a better representation of something like the trilogy (the books) depicted on film?", I simply haven't seen many adaptations of books to film. The first two "Godfather" films did a pretty good job with Mario Puzo's book. Beyond that I can only recall the film adaptations of Arthur C. Clark's first two books of his "Space Odyssey" tetralogy, "2001" and "2010". My (High) Fantasy reading is practically limited to JRRT, and beyond that my reading (and my private library) is hugely weighted towards non-fiction - as you similarly mentioned about your reading in another thread.

Regarding your question that I selected for my "Reply", I also have doubts, no matter how much "extra" they would have been given.

This has to do with a tendency I (dimly) believe I detect in products for both the large screen and the small, probably a part of the "cookie cutter" and "tick list": that audiences have to be able to "relate" to the characters. That may be fine for sitcoms & soaps & whatever playing in our times. By now it gets tricky if the time period depicted is the post-WW II era up to the 1960's. Go to pre-WW II, perhaps even pre-WW I, then depictions will probably start to ring false. Go back to the 19th century (which in a way only ended in 1914), the we very probably don't know what we're talking about. Go back even further, then it would get more and more difficult to just understand people when they speak - and regular spelling is also a quite recent development, late 19th century.
No, people who lived in such earlier times - popular periods to depict are the middle ages, Roman and Greek times, ancient Egypt, anything to do with the Bible - were not the "reg'lar Joe and Jane from next door", not even remotely. But no, everything, no matter from what period, seems to have to conform to some "modernist" notion - which is why so many critics were and are utterly unable to understand JRRT's writings. No, if the filmmakers believe we must be able to "relate" to most of the characters - with the possible exception of the Hobbits, but they also belong to an era more than a century ago - they will never get the book onto the screen even halfway faithfully.

I see.

Lastly, if the ideal form (in your mind) was produced and lets say it was a Trilogy of films of similar length (though feel free to opine on that possibility) would it reach a global audience? How do you think it would perform in a general sense in the box office or however you'd like to express it's reach.. or impact.. reviews.. idk.. book sales, but its roll as "product" in a larger context.

Cheers

 

[Aldarion]

Do you think an attempt to capture the spirit of the books and further elaborate and the vision of Tolkien was made at all? Or was in nothing more than another Hollywood attempt to shamelessly cash in on perhaps on the most valued treasure (at least to many) in literature? Or somewhere in between as most things tend to be.

There was an attempt - you can see it for example in Saruman's speech about industry, which may well have come from Tolkien himself, although his stance would naturally be complete opposite of Saruman's. But Jackson could not fully capture the spirit of the books, because there was a lot he had either misunderstood, or mutilated through his obsession with interpersonal conflict. And in attempting to "add depth" through this conflict, Jackson had actually made characters one-dimensional.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

And in attempting to "add depth" through this conflict, Jackson had actually made characters one-dimensional.

Very profound and true. It's sad.

 

[Olorgando]

I see.
Lastly, if the ideal form (in your mind) was produced and lets say it was a Trilogy of films of similar length (though feel free to opine on that possibility) would it reach a global audience? How do you think it would perform in a general sense in the box office or however you'd like to express it's reach.. or impact.. reviews.. idk.. book sales, but its roll as "product" in a larger context.
Cheers

My low opinion of what I'll call the "visual media industry" (with that 9,000-pound gorilla Hollywood always being very prominent) has to do with reading I've done on other book-to-visuals adaptations (TV as well as cinema films). Leaving aside the Harvey Weinsteins (of which there are probably legion, and always were in this sordid industry), the opinion of too many of these trolls of their customers - in the case of films people buying tickets (and thus ultimately paying them their sometimes ridiculous income) - is extremely low. Not that they are entirely wrong in this opinion - even in the book market we have the "Sword of Shannara" rip-off of JRRT's writings starting 1977, others later. Yes, an undefined section of all media consumers want "more of the same" - the "duh" segment. I've occasionally voiced the opinion that these are the bottom 5% of a scraped barrel - that percentage may be higher. But I've also often voiced the opinion that in the end - to get a "blockbuster" - that's the actual target audience for the industry trolls - "their own kind", maybe. With which, to my mind, they are insulting the intelligence of about 95% of their audience - and probably even that of a sizable portion of even the (as they believe) lowest 5%.

That "reaching a global audience" hasn't helped matters. The Chinese, Japanese, Indian (Bollywood), Korean (?) film industries have also, as far as I can tell (mainly from my 8-month stay in South Korea in 1988), partially dealt with legendarium of their countries. Ummmmm - those to be seen sure looked like 100% "natives" - though in the case of East Asian films I'm probably missing fine points obvious to any audience there.

Films having a side effect on book sales does seem to be true for LoTR - not nearly as sure for TH, where the differences were just too huge. That bloated, beached 3-film whale has very little resemblance to the book.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Films having a side effect on book sales does seem to be true for LoTR

This is one of the reasons that while I don't agree with their changes, I am glad it was created to lead more people to the immense treasure of Tolkien's true works.