Faramir and other changes

Elthir wrote:
Oddly for example, with respect to The Two Towers and in the context of 'capturing Tolkien', one of Jackson's 'best' scenes in my opinion was not from the book. It was also cut from versions in theaters too, if I recall correctly.

I would have loved more of that, but far less of what Jackson gave us. I would have loved a film 'less based' on the book as far as sticking to plot and detail, and more based on what I feel captures the spirit of Tolkien. Of course that's as about as subjective as things get. If I gave you my imagined script, it might even be said to deviate from the books more than Jackson's did, but it would be a very [very] different sort of film, with a very different focus and tone.

So what scene was this?   Many people would say Gollum's split personality scene was the best: it was not straight from Tolkien, though it was in the theatrical version.

I simply do not agree with that at all, all the changes are choices, deliberate choices, not inevitabilities of changing medium.

Yes Petty. And sometimes I feel that Jackson has a 'legitimate enough film concern' [not that it would necessarily be all agreed upon, but an arguable concern, at least, let's say], but it is the way he tries to solve this concern that is quite subjective. Arwen for Glorfindel, case in point to my mind.

Have you read David Bratman's essay in 'Tolkien On Film? I think you would enjoy it. I love when he quotes someone 'in films' or connected to the industry I think, about the needs of film [can't remember who it was at the moment], but it went something like this:

'Nobody knows nothin'

Meaning that what films 'have' to change because they are films is very subjective. Choices. There is no rulebook out there, even if filmmakers like to judge 'what worked' and what didn't with respect to something that came before, and did well in some sense. There might be some 'all agreed upon' [or mostly agreed upon] things that films should not do that books can, but that's a very general statement in any case, and even some seeming 'usually agreed upon rule' might be challenged and still work in the context of the whole.

In my opinion Tolkien himself said it well when he said the mediums cannot be that different. Different yes, but not that different that many of the things Tolkien objected to [for a film treatment in his day] were 'necessary', as opposed to the subjective opinions of filmmakers.

halfwise wrote: So what scene was this?   Many people would say Gollum's split personality scene was the best: it was not straight from Tolkien, though it was in the theatrical version.

I like some of the Gollum stuff. Some. But that was not the [short] scene I was talking about. No buttons yet

By the way when I said this...

I would have loved a film 'less based' on the book as far as sticking to plot and detail, and more based on what I feel captures the spirit of Tolkien.

... I only meant: compared to what Jackson did. That is, if I had the choice between this and what Jackson did. I would generally still 'love' a film that stuck close to plot and detail of course -- but not at the expense of a poorer film.

You're gonna make us guess, are you? Well from googling it the added scenes are:

2. Elven Rope
7. Massacre at the Fords of Isen
16. The Song of the Entwives
17. The Heir of Numenor (not sure what this is)
19. Ent Draft
21. The Funeral of Theodred
24. Brego
25. The Ring of Barahir
32. One of the Dunedain
41. Sons of the Steward
61. Fangorn comes to Helm's Deep
62. The Final Tally (not sure what this is)
63. Flotsam and Jetsam
64. Farewell to Faramir (what was this?)

Of these the ones that might be considered made up would be

17. The Heir of Numenor (not sure what this is)
19. Ent Draft
24. Brego
25. The Ring of Barahir
32. One of the Dunedain
41. Sons of the Steward
62. The Final Tally (not sure what this is)
64. Farewell to Faramir (what was this?)

I'll have to think on this.

Yes, it's one of those  

[quote="Elthir"]

Very well, but as you are a Tolkien fan, am I correct that you wanted 'something of the books' to be captured in the films? Or let's put it this way: I hope you can easily understand why Tolkien fans would want a 'faithful enough' adaptation as part of why they would further enjoy a film, not simply an enjoyable film with a superficial connection to the books.

If the answer is yes, then you too wanted what I wanted. However our measures, about almost everything if not everything, will probably be different however. We will both, at least in potential, take very different subjective paths to arrive at what is 'faithful enough' even though each of us fully realizes that books and films are different mediums.

... but my point is: I think it is a rare Tolkien fan who simply says: I don't care if the films are not 'Tolkien enough' I will enjoy them as films, wholly divorced from the book. As I say, I still can't enjoy them in that sense, not in enough measure anyway, to pass my 'tipping point' at least.

I think LOTR were 'faithful enough' for me to love them. My enjoyment is based on them being far more than a superficial connection to the books. (in the case of LOTR but not TH) Having read them over decades I am pretty familiar with them, although I havent studied around them. Matters such as cinematic licence or Jacksons style of film making doesnt lessen my enjoyment indeed it increased it. I dont tend to be annoyed much about grass length or the use of correct Elven, although if I was a Tolkien scholar no doubt the slightest deviation would stick out like a sore thumb. These films should be fun entertainment, yes, for the masses, and blockbusters made for the masses are not the best place to search for intellectual rigour.

Thankfully the web can fill in the holes.  So putting the reminders together with what I remember:

• The heir of Numenor - in which Gandalf the White pulls Aragorn aside at night on the way to Edoras, and lays out everything that is going on and what is expected.  Pure exposition monologue, but well written.  Good candidate.

• Ent draft - in which Pippin and Merry notice the changes in heights and indulge in some very hobbit like banter about it.  It also brings in some talk of ent wives.  Would be a good candidate if they didn't shovel in the Old Man Willow scene which came out of nowhere.

• Brego - from memory I believe this is where Aragorn 'tames' Brego in the stables.
It has neo-Elvish, lots of it.  Wouldn't sit right.

• The Ring of Berehir - where Wormtongue describes Aragorn's ring and Saruman discovers he must be the heir of Isildur.  Nothing to highly recommend this scene.  Probably has some more of that "world of Men" crap.

• One of the Dunedain - this must be the soup incident where Eowyn discovers Aragorn's age and guesses his lineage.  Universally loathed.

• Sons of the Steward - in Osgiliath where Boromir and Faramir meet with Denethor and Boromir is sent on his journey.  Would be good except for the mad Denethor of no respect, which instantly disqualifies it.

• The final Tally - Legolas and Gimli: 42 versus 43.  Anachronistic remark about an orc's central nervous system.  Out.

• Farewell to Faramir - I didn't realize this wasn't in the theatrical version, so was confused about whether this was the sewer scene where Sam tells Faramir he's shown his quality.  But Faramir also mistreats Gollum some more, which disqualifies it.

So my final analysis is the favored scene is Gandalf's Exposition to Aragorn about the way things are moving while camping on the plains of Rohan.

Mrs Figg wrote: (...) I dont tend to be annoyed much about grass length or the use of correct Elven, although if I was a Tolkien scholar no doubt the slightest deviation would stick out like a sore thumb.  These films should be fun entertainment, yes, for the masses, and blockbusters made for the masses are not the best place to search for intellectual rigour.

Is this directed at me Mrs Figg?

If so, I must reject the [at least possible] implication behind the idea of someone being annoyed by 'grass length or the use of correct Elven' and 'slightest deviation' being a sore thumb. The implication being that purists only dislike the films due to unreasonable demands about not important details.

In my opinion these sort of statements are not unlike the hyperbolic barbs [whether you meant to imply that I indulge in such thinking or not] often enough intended for the so called 'purist', again which label I reject.

The grass length thing is actually something that Petty did complain about with one of the posters. And while I have complained in the past that movie!Rohan wasn't green enough, it did strike me as an example of nitpickery. Petty had a reasonable point, I think, but it was so minor that I'm not sure why he felt the need to bring it up. I know that back in my movie-debating heyday (when I completely embraced the term purist) I did my best to avoid nitpicks and questionable arguments and just stick to the core of changes that I thought cheapened the story and characters. But Petty goes whole-hog on everything.

I have actually known a number of people who have a similar (though less rigorous) approach than Petty, but I don't think it really does "purism" or the anti-Jackson side of the debate much good overall.

grass length is directed at Petty. (which is meant to be a friendly dig and not some kind of supercilious anti-intellectualism) and just an observation from two years of posting here in which the minuteiae of Jacksons version has been criticized for its lack of rigour. I also reject the implication that I am using the label purist as a hyperbolic barb, I dont remember using the term.

I also reject the implication that I am using the label purist as a hyperbolic barb, I dont remember using the term.

I didn't say that, I said your phrasing above was not unlike certain hyperbolic barbs, aimed at purists.

And yes, some of the criticisms have been arguably pedantic, but they are just part of a larger heap of criticisms, and does not mean that noting them reveals some sort of unreasonable person who only dislikes Jackson's films for unreasonable, pedantic reasons.

Not that you said so

But then what is the real point of raising that some of the criticisms have been about arguably small details? Some will be and some won't be.

I forgot about Petty's comments on the landscape of England versus New Zealand. I happen to agree with him. Doesn't mean that this alone represents the type of reasons why I don't like Jackson's films. Again you didn't say it did.

But should we, or can we, not talk about them too?

All of this is overshadowing the much more important issue of which non-direct-from-Tolkien EE scene Elthir actually liked.  

And no offence taken by me Figg at it- I received it in the spirit it was meant.  

But to clarify on the grass issue it originally arose in a conversation in which I as saying I understood why Jackson choose to shoot it all in NZ but that didnt change the fact that had it been shot in the sort to countryside Tolkien grew up in and was imaging it would have looked even better, and some things which if you look for and know are obvious, such as the over long lush NZ grass.( Although I never liked the overgrown Shire look anyway as Tolkien takes the time to tell us hobbits love ordered land and well tilled earth)
I was never saying the films are terrible because of this one thing though- merely pointing out if he had shot more globally some things would have been better.

Well, I have to admit I seemingly read Mrs Figg's post in a light it was not intended. It happens. My responses were not in an angry tone in any case [or not intended to be], but they were responses given to what I thought might be a possible implication.

But all too often I encounter this on line: that people who don't like Jackson's films are just being too nitpicky about things like 'grass length' and so on. Or at least what I feel is the implication of this, since it is often enough not accompanied by statements that make it clear [that the Jackson fans realize] that the Unfans have plenty of important reasons to be Unfans, at least important to them. Of course it's very subjective.

I am all too wary of statements like we Unfans 'just wanted the book read on film', or are just nitpicking about the colour or shade of grass, or similar. And I did say 'possible' implication too. Although admittedly that goes either way.

But yes, of course one can post about this nitpicking without meaning that that's the only reason the Unfans are Unfans. It seems Mrs figg was doing so.

But I still maintain [not that anyone said otherwise] the arguably 'little things' can be topics of discussion in any case, and that some things that might be 'little' to one person, might not be so little to the next.

Are you three quite done yet?  

halfwise wrote:All of this is overshadowing the much more important issue of which non-direct-from-Tolkien EE scene Elthir actually liked.  

Im going to gamble on the Aragorn/Eowyn scene.

And the grass is wrong, just saying....

And the grass is wrong, just saying....

 


The answer was included in the post by Halfwise with the 'two lists'. The scene wasn't in the books that I recall. Although something like it arguably 'happened' between the pages I would say.

Actually, if 'not from the book' could mean described in the appendices, then the massacre at the fords of Isen would be more in line with Tolkien than anything else put in that film.

Well I can't make it too easy  

There's a silver button at stake!

Okay hint.

You otto know by now.

The Funeral of Theodred

Elthir wrote:

I also reject the implication that I am using the label purist as a hyperbolic barb, I dont remember using the term.

Not that you said so

  MEN!!!! give me strength

I thought of the funeral, but for some reason remembered it being described in the books. Have to go check on that one.

halfwise wrote:I thought of the funeral, but for some reason remembered it being described in the books.  Have to go check on that one.

All of the Rohan scenes not witnessed firsthand by a member of the Fellowship were PJ originals, though some were implied by the book.

Theodred wouldn't have been buried in a barrow before Edoras though, as he was never king.

Good point!   Obviously (well, if you think about it) a PJ insertion then.