The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Eldorion]

Glad I can be helpful Odo.

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'm just responding to your points on the other thread Eldorion. This seems a more suitable place .

Gandalfs Beard wrote:
While it's perfectly reasonable to debate the merits of certain changes vs others, it is less reasonable to challenge the necessity for making such changes.

Eldorion:
I'm curious as to how this is relevant, as I have never claimed that no changes need be made.

Sorry, I wasn’t directing that at you personally Eldorion . I was just trying to answer your question generally speaking (as quoted below):

Eldorion:
“Are you saying then, anaclagon, that the point of adaptation is not to give an accurate representation of the original story, just in a different media with some changes made to facilitate this; but is in fact to make a story that may or may not show similarities to the original?”

As to your points regarding Faramir, Denethor and Aragorn, I don’t think Jackson did significantly alter those characters. Although he did develop Aragorn and Faramir’s character arcs, but I really don’t think he changed their basic natures, nor their roles. He took the characters’ essential traits and developed believable character arcs that were tied symbolically to the Greater Story. Denethor was introduced, in the films, after his losses. Which would explain why we only see him in his "fallen" state .

Your own use of quotes around “essential” suggests that perhaps it ain’t necessarily so . The Scouring of the Shire is not so essential as to necessitate drawing out an already lengthy denouement. It’s fine in the book (despite it’s anti-climactic nature) because one can read it at their own pace, but in film that anti-climax would have thrown the pacing and balance of the action totally off. Some of my friends who never read the books asked me how many endings LotR had when they saw it . Which just shows that one more would have been overkill .

And I think Spirit refers to a number of aspects such as imagery, mood, setting, key plot points, basic character archetypes etc., that, when taken as a whole, convey the primary aspects of the original author’s works. When the Spirit of the film gives you that same tingle you felt from reading the books for the first time, you know it works. And yes, that is subjective, but I think a lot of us felt that way.

An extensive analysis (such as that which you linked to) will undoubtedly uncover many details that were indeed either, eliminated, added, altered, or shifted to another part of the story. But that doesn’t make them, in and of themselves, bad. Each point is debatable on it's own merits, but if you’re making a film you have to make these choices and trade-offs.

And honestly, do you agree that: “…some of these changes were so drastic that the story cannot truly be called The Lord of the Rings (in any form).” (from the first numbered points regarding Tolkien purism on the blog you linked). That seems a little overstated to me.

Anyway, I do think that purism has an important role to play in making certain that adaptations are successful and faithful nowadays . I just think that too much can spoil one’s own enjoyment of something that is exceptional in it’s own right.

GB

EDIT: I just read your previous posts on the last page Eldorion. So I know you aren't necessarily an "ultra"-purist .

[Odo Banks]

GB,

Have to disagree with you on a few specific points (and generally too, but I won't tie up space just paraphrasing Eldorion's arguments!)

(1) Faramir was markedly different in the movie. I don't think his 'arc' was credible at all. (Well acted - yet wrong wrong wrong!)

(2) Denethor just wasn't Denethor. (Well acted - I really don't know - just bad bad bad!)

(3) Aragorn, well we could make some argument that his 'arc' seemed reasonably consistent. At least, his character did not generally jar with me. (I have to say his scenes with Arwen were nice. It did not bother me they weren't anything to do with the book. I tend to the Purist Trend - but can obviously be swayed by a lovely romance!)

As to the Scouring of the Shire being 'anti-climactic'! I didn't know there were two versions of the chapter. I mean, a hugely climactic one and an anti-climactic one! Maybe you meant you forgot the first time you read it and only remember the times you read it when you already knew the good guys win? Might you not be getting forgetful with venerability? I mean it kindly... And how can you say it was not 'essential' to the story!?!? Oh fiddlesticks to you!

I'll leave Eldorion to respond to your more technical points, if willing. That stuff's a bit above a simple hobbit's head, thank you very much.

Odo

[Eldorion]

Although he did develop Aragorn and Faramir’s character arcs, but I really don’t think he changed their basic natures, nor their roles.

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree. Aragorn was made into a reluctant King-in-Exile as opposed to one who was simply biding his time, and his self-doubt over leaving Frodo in TTT (the book) was expanded to fill more or less his entire "arc" up until his meeting with Arwen in RotK (I'm not sure if that was supposed to be their wedding or what ). As for Faramir, I think his role was changed into one of growing out of a Boromir-like mold and into one more like book-Faramir, but it involved removing his resistance to the Ring from the book.

Denethor was introduced, in the films, after his losses. Which would explain why we only see him in his "fallen" state .

He was introduced after losing Boromir but before "losing" Faramir. In other words, at the same point as in the book.

Your own use of quotes around “essential” suggests that perhaps it ain’t necessarily so . The Scouring of the Shire is not so essential as to necessitate drawing out an already lengthy denouement. It’s fine in the book (despite it’s anti-climactic nature) because one can read it at their own pace, but in film that anti-climax would have thrown the pacing and balance of the action totally off.

Sorry, I wasn't really clear about that. "Essential" was put in quotation marks because it is part of a passage from the Foreword to the Second Edition of LOTR: "It [the Scouring] is an essential part of the plot". It is, in the book, the true culmination of the story where the Hobbits' journey finally comes to an end but they also realize that not even the Shire was safe. In the events of the Scouring they truly come into their own without any outside help.

In the films, on the other hand, the Destruction of the Ring was made the culmination of the story. This would explain why the Scouring wasn't included, though of course it doesn't mean the films were faithful.

And I think Spirit refers to a number of aspects such as imagery, mood, setting, key plot points, basic character archetypes etc., that, when taken as a whole, convey the primary aspects of the original author’s works.

That seems a reasonable definition, but when imagery (ex: Rohan and the Rohirrim), mood (ex: emphasis on battles, especially in TTT), setting (ex: adding stuff like Osgiliath), key plot points (ex: Aragorn's "tumble off the cliff", going to Osgiliath, expanding Helm's Deep, cutting the Scouring, etc.), and basic character archetypes (see above in this post) are changed then the spirit changes.

When the Spirit of the film gives you that same tingle you felt from reading the books for the first time, you know it works. And yes, that is subjective, but I think a lot of us felt that way.

It is of course impossible to invalidate that subjective feeling, but it seems to me a poor method for adaptation, since it essentially leaves it up to the director to define the spirit he wants to follow. I think that sort of misses the point of adapting an existing story rather than being inspired by a story to create one of your devising.

if you’re making a film you have to make these choices and trade-offs.

Of course you do, to a degree, but I think they went much too far on some of them.

do you agree that: “…some of these changes were so drastic that the story cannot truly be called The Lord of the Rings (in any form).” (from the first numbered points regarding Tolkien purism on the blog you linked).

I do agree with that (I wrote it ). My point in that statement is one that I think I've made here too: that I feel that when the filmmakers change the story itself in the process of "adapting" it, it becomes misleading to still call it The Lord of the Rings, since it has ceased to be the story of LOTR (in my opinion).

I just think that too much can spoil one’s own enjoyment of something that is exceptional in it’s own right.

I suppose it could depending on how much is "too much", but for myself I enjoy the films, or at least parts of them, despite being annoyed by their unfaithfulness. I think they should have shown more respect to the original story without which the films would never have existed, but I can still appreciate them as more or less great cinema.

[Eldorion]

I forgot to mention this before GB, but thanks for having these discussions with me. They're a lot of fun.

[Gandalfs Beard]

It's even more fun when I'm not too busy to respond properly . Sorry, to drop out in the middle of a debate . I'll pop back when I can. I'm still monitoring the boards though (i.e. "lurking" ). So, if you have a particular query for me, just holler .

GB

[Eldorion]

No problem GB, RL definitely takes priority. I come on here just about every day for a bit so I'll keep an eye on this thread. Good luck with getting through your time of business.

[Tinuviel]

Well, (kind of off topic) I realized some continuity errors with the movie.
In ROTK mainly, probably because they finished it two days before it was released.
1) Gandalf's staff magically reappears at the end of the movie
2) Frodo was stabbed by Shelob in the stomach in the movie. In the book, he was stabbed in the neck. IN the movie, the sting wouldn't have affected him because he was wearing the mithril vest.(hence the whole "shiny shirt" scene)
3)Frodo's finger grows back at the end!(Though they try to make it conspicuous)

Just some little things that wouldn't have been missed if there was more time to finish and there was no rush... but the movie was still GREATLY EPIC!!!!!

[Odo Banks]

Isn't there a wound high on Frodo's right shoulder in the tower scene with the orcs? Is this the spot he was stung in? Could the sting have gone at an angle through the 'V' of his mithril shirt? Though I do also seem to remember Frodo copping it in the gut. Must take another look!

Odo

[Eldorion]

I stand by my previous position that the stinger hit Frodo on the upper chest, below the neck but above the impractically low neckline of the maille shirt.