The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Beren]

Huh? How does consciously changing the story because of a personal preference constitute a faithful adaptation? (Faithful is defined as "close, faithful (marked by fidelity to an original) "a close translation"; "a faithful copy of the portrait"; "a faithful rendering of the observed facts"" by WordNet.)

My sentence saying that everything was done for faithful adaptation was in summary of my entire post, not part of the second paragraph. Sorry for the confusion.

And Jackson's conviction wasn't personal preference. It was a conviction that he had. He believed that, on film, it worked best as a climax if Frodo went over the edge. It wasn't that he wanted Frodo to go over, he thought it was best. What I was saying in my summary statement was that Jackson, (and Boyens and Walsh), when they were writing the script, were doing so in the spirit of Tolkien. They wanted to take the story of LOTR and make it a movie. They made every decision with the conviction that Tolkien would have done the same. They did nothing out of preference (except for stylistic characteristics, like the Uruk-Hai head stuck on the pole). This "code" of theirs was what guided them.
But, guess what? They are human, and since Tolkien is dead, they sometimes had to make educated guesses on what Tolkien would have done. There is plenty of room for them to be wrong in some aspects. But, overall, I think Tolkien would have been very impressed with their job. Yes, he would probably nit-pick it, but deep down, I think that he'd be satisfied.

[Eldorion]

And Jackson's conviction wasn't personal preference. It was a conviction that he had. He believed that, on film, it worked best as a climax if Frodo went over the edge. It wasn't that he wanted Frodo to go over, he thought it was best.

Conviction, preference: it's semantics. My point is that Jackson made a change.

What I was saying in my summary statement was that Jackson, (and Boyens and Walsh), when they were writing the script, were doing so in the spirit of Tolkien.

I've seen variations of this argument before, but I've not yet a specific statement of what the "spirit" was. If you could provide one that could be preserved despite numerous changes to the details of the story it would be much appreciated.

They wanted to take the story of LOTR and make it a movie. They made every decision with the conviction that Tolkien would have done the same. They did nothing out of preference (except for stylistic characteristics, like the Uruk-Hai head stuck on the pole).

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Let's look at what the filmmakers actually said about their decision in "From Book to Film" on the ROTK EE:

And we also knew that we needed Frodo to go over the edge, we needed for him to go. And the reason we wanted him to go over the edge was because we felt one of the most dramatic moments was not just the death of Gollum and then Sam saying "come on Mr. Frodo, we've got to get out of here". It's gotta be "Don't you let go", and to make that a tough choice for Frodo. We needed to give him the other choice, which was to let go and end it all. And you can't do that by just having him stay there and not get up, you need to have him dangling over the edge.

No mention of the "spirit" of Tolkien, and no mention of what Tolkien "would have done". For that matter, we know what Tolkien would have done: it's what he did in the book. And no, the process of adapting the story to film did not make it necessary for Frodo to fight with Gollum and fall of the edge with him. We also know what Tolkien's general opinion on adaptation was:

The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.

This could very well have been written about Peter Jackson.

But, overall, I think Tolkien would have been very impressed with their job. Yes, he would probably nit-pick it, but deep down, I think that he'd be satisfied.

I am highly doubtful of that given the above quote and the rest of Letter 210 (particularly the passage "I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about" - for a lengthy analysis of Letter 210 and how it relates to PJ that I found, see here.) Just because you liked the films doesn't mean Tolkien would have.

[Gandalfs Beard]

I think "a close translation" is the applicable definition Eldorion. Just as when one translates popular idiom from one language to another, one must often drastically alter the key words and phrases to convey the same meaning; when adapting from a book to film one must often alter a scene to translate the meaning of the passage to a vision that means the same thing.

As I pointed out in a post on the last page, Jackson used dialogue in several scenes to directly attribute events and actions to Destiny, i.e. Providence prior to the final scene, making it clear that the Rings fate was in the hands of Providence. The final scene was definitely "Faithful" to the meaning of Tolkiens written scene, if not to the letter. And as Beren says, Pure Providence. Again, If you consider this, I think you will see that the disagreement is based purely on semantics.

GB

[Beren]

No mention of the "spirit" of Tolkien, and no mention of what Tolkien "would have done". For that matter, we know what Tolkien would have done: it's what he did in the book. And no, the process of adapting the story to film did not make it necessary for Frodo to fight with Gollum and fall of the edge with him.

Then what about these two quotes:

Although we have made some significant changes, we’ve tried to be faithful and true to the spirit of the end of that book.

She acknowledges that they made changes (that will madden some people), but she said that their purpose was to stick with Tolkien. This is what I've been saying all along.

THIS is the story living in a different medium. What I hope is that people will see the film and say, “What Peter Jackson has captured, what his actors have personified, is something which is really the heart, the spirit of the book.

If a Tolkien EXPERT believes this, I think that should be enough for us amateurs.

[Eldorion]

Then what about these two quotes:

Although we have made some significant changes, we’ve tried to be faithful and true to the spirit of the end of that book.

She acknowledges that they made changes (that will madden some people), but she said that their purpose was to stick with Tolkien. This is what I've been saying all along.

So ... they say they've tried to be true to the spirit of the book, yet they have made changes for no apparent reason other than they didn't like it (take Faramir for example). I have a hard time believing the filmmakers though that Tolkien would have done the same as they did and changed one of the characters so radically? I might disagree with some of their decisions, but I don't think they're idiots.

We can keep quote-mining for a long time, or we can look at what the filmmakers DID, as opposed to what they said.

THIS is the story living in a different medium. What I hope is that people will see the film and say, “What Peter Jackson has captured, what his actors have personified, is something which is really the heart, the spirit of the book.

If a Tolkien EXPERT believes this, I think that should be enough for us amateurs.

1. "Tolkien Expert" is incredibly generic. What are Sibley's credentials beyond producing a different adaptation of LOTR? A title given to him by the filmmakers does not automatically give him authority on Tolkien's works.

2. Brian Sibley was involved in the making of the film, so he has a vested interest in making them look as good as possible.

3. Ever heard of the Appeal to Authority? It's a logical fallacy. The hopes of a (supposed) "Tolkien Expert" are not a substitute for an actual argument.

[Eldorion]

Jackson used dialogue in several scenes to directly attribute events and actions to Destiny, i.e. Providence prior to the final scene, making it clear that the Rings fate was in the hands of Providence. The final scene was definitely "Faithful" to the meaning of Tolkiens written scene, if not to the letter.

Talking specifically about the destruction of the Ring (as opposed to the films in general) you may have a point. How is one to discern this meaning though? For instance: I've encountered a few people who didn't think Providence had anything to do with it. I ask as a matter of general curiosity because "meaning" (or "spirit") seems a very nebulous and subjective concept.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Too true Eldorion (re: Experts) . But I think our own arguments stand on their own. Jackson's films provide ample overt (as opposed to implied) indications of Providence in the story, and I pointed out some of the key scenes in a post on the last page. Given that, there is no reason to believe that all of a sudden Jackson abandoned Providence in the Climactic scene of the story. Beren and I have both demonstrated how that scene (in the film) reflects the Hand of Providence. I think the ball is in your court now to demonstrate that it does not .

GB

[Gandalfs Beard]

I just saw your last post Eldorion. Yes, it's true that the scene is just nebulous enough in meaning that an Atheist can enjoy it and interpret it as Random Chance. But the same can be said of Tolkien's version too. In fact Tolkien went out of his way to leave things up to the interpretation of the reader. But...Tolkien, and Jackson, also made it perfectly clear to anyone paying attention, that the Hand of Providence was a key part of the story.

GB

[Eldorion]

I've thought on it a bit GB, and re-read a good deal of this thread. I think the best argument for it being Providence was mentioned back on the first page, where you mentioned the line by Gandalf about how Frodo was "meant" to have the Ring. I think that's the closest the films come to mentioned Providence (though as I recall Jackson prefers the term "fate" in the documentary features).

However, this line does not mean that the fall of the edge was the direct intervention of Providence. I think there's a difference between Frodo being meant to have the Ring and Frodo and Gollum being given a little "nudge" to fall of the edge. Forgive me if I'm missing something staring me in the eye, but where is the evidence in the film (not referencing back to the book) that that event was direct intervention by Providence?

Given that you and Beren are the ones making the positive argument, I think the burden is on you to provide evidence (not assertions or opinions) for your interpretation of the events.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well I gave it my best shot . C'est La Vie .

GB