Alternative adaptations of LoTR and TH

"A man of words & not of deeds, is like a garden full of weeds"
plagiarism is all to common, we see it in everything that inspires us, whether its in Books, music, films or Art. There are Laws set in place for this, whether its wholly or partially. Unless you can physically do something, like,NOT buy the CD, or veto the film, or protest strongly,waving placards & yelling. All you can do is point out the issue & spread the word. We have come so far that there doesnt seem to be an origional thought left. But,certainly if the FIRST original work by any artist, & its proved its that persons OWN work,should be protected, especially where moneys concerned! Profit is the path of greed.

Late to this thread and haven't read it all, but it seems to me that the word plagiarism is rather harsh in this case. There's not much doubt that Bakshi's attempt at adaptation influenced Peter Jackson's, both by what it did right and what it did wrong. Petty's chapter by chapter analysis really opened my eyes to this.

But as for the choice of how particular scenes are framed, it seems to me that we should be looking at Howe and Lee who Jackson payed handsomely to develop the concept art. Here's one of the pictures in question from Howe's own website:

"The 1987 Tolkien Calendar
This painting was inspired by the Bakshi movie, where the Hobbits cower under a tree root as the Black Rider seeks them. I thought it was the best scene in the movie, and it must have trod a path in my subconscious, as it certainly is nowhere to be found in the Fellowship of the Ring.
After a long hike on the West Coast Trail of Vancouver Island, I returned with exactly this photo - minus the hobbits and the Ringwraith, of course, and painted it for my own pleasure."




For comparison, here's Petty's side-by-side:


Sure it looks rather like Bakshi's, but as Mrs Figg pointed out, how else would you get all the characters in one frame (necessary to tell the story visually) without looking something like this? Does that make John Howe less of an artist? Not for me.

I agree with you Dave. Its an iconic scene, and it couldnt be filmed any other way. Its like saying you cant have King Kong climbing on the Empire State building because its been done before. Or Juliet on the balcony.

Thanks Mrs Figg.

(I've always liked John Howe's works in general and this one in particular, but I'm still a bit curious why two of his hobbits seem to have swords at this point... )

I would argue David it is more than framing, indeed its more than camera angles- I think what bothers me is it is concepts he has taken too.
I dont agree for example that it is necessary to have all four in the one frame for story purposes, Tolkien didnt think so- after all these are the same screen writers who go to such extreme lengths over the Frodo/Sam/Gollum thing just so Frodo has to be alone to enter Shelob's Lair- the same argument for why he should encounter the Rider alone could be made here (not to mention its in the book).
Bakshi's film took a tricky scene- there is no visually dramatic reason for the Rider to withdraw in the book during the first encounter, and the second time its the approach of the elves which scare him off- as neither version has the elves Bakshi had to come up with an idea- his conclusion was to make a struggle of wills between the Rider tempting Frodo to put on the Ring and Frodo resisting it and that resistance driving off the Rider. Which is basically hiegthening for dramatic purposes what happens in the book during the first encounter.
Bakshi also chooose to keep all four hobbits in the frame- and he has a narrative reason for this which is indirectly from the book, he folows that scene with a truncated version of a Conspiracy Unmasked, putting it at this point in the structure after they all experience the Rider provides the dramatic moment Bakshi uses for unveiling the conspiracy and for Merry and Pippin to have a reason to go along with Frodo- PJ even uses this idea, putting a very similar scene right after the Rider encounter.
Its the exact same structure. There is no reason for that scene to be there- in the book it comes a good bit after the first encounter and after the ferry. Its where Bakshi put it, and by coincidence its exactly where PJ puts it too.

Is the whole film stolen from Bakshi- of course not, but for FotR at least the key beats are all there.
It is particularly noticable in my own edits, as once you take the PJ additions back out you are left with a Bakshi film structure and a suprising amount of 'reminiscent' scenes.


Mrs Figg- the differnce there is Kong climbing the EmMpire State Building is an integreal part of the original story.
The scene with them cowering under the tree is not even in FotR- its only in Bakshis film.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

The scene with them cowering under the tree is not even in FotR- its only in Bakshis film.

....and also in Howe's 1987 calendar. Look I think we're in fundamental agreement about the influence of RB-LOTR on PJ-LOTR, the question is more about artistic integrity. I've always thought Jackson did a wise and honorable thing by seeking out and hiring Howe and Lee for the artistic design. If the question is did he give Bakshi equal credit, perhaps not. (Certainly not in Bakshi's eyes, but he's always been notoriously prickley.) Bakshi did solve a few narrative problems with the adaptation of LotR rather well. Others not so well. Personally I think it's entirely reasonable for later directors to follow the same path.

For comparison, I suspect that Sir Laurence Olivier could look at everyone who ever played Hamlet after him and choose either to say, "They stole that from me, and I did it better anyway!" or "Look at the mark I made on the art and craft of Shakespearian acting!" Many credited him. Many didn't.

What it comes down to I think David is a fine line where being influenced and inspired by someone elses work crosses into just re-using it. For me there are occasions where PJ crosses that line, but like all lines in the sand it is subjective to a degree.

The Howe pic is based on Bakshi- and whilst its a nice piece I would not consider it an original concept for that reason- its is more like a fan piece, drawing directly from an image in a film- which Howe readily admits it is.

And PJ 'borrows', or however you wish to put it, at various points not just imagery but concepts, camera angles and scene structure from Bakshi.
That puts him on those occasions over the line for me.

When I first became a PJ fan it was after seeing Bad Taste- and it was not the humour or the gore I was raving about to anyone who would listen- it was the direction, it was the use of camera, the sheer inventiveness of it.
And he still has that- when he just uses the camera and directs you get the death of Boromir, and the Ride of the Rohirrim ect
That's the PJ thats worth watching- when he is finding best use of his camera in a unique, Pj style to convey something.
But where he is just recycling, thats not the PJ worth watching. Thats a lazy PJ. Its not the PJ of Bad Taste who was continually finding new suprising ways to shoot stuff. And that I find disappointing when it occurs.

For you its stealing, for us its borrowing. I think PJ is far too talented to steal images. He uses conventions and transforms them to his own vision. But we all know you are biased against him no matter what arguments we bring forth. So its a bit of a waste of time trying.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
....it was the use of camera, the sheer inventiveness of it.
And he still has that- when he just uses the camera and directs you get the death of Boromir, and the Ride of the Rohirrim ect
That's the PJ thats worth watching- when he is finding best use of his camera in a unique, Pj style to convey something.

Those are both very good scenes on several levels.

I was wondering Petty, since you have analyzed PJ's LotR scene by scene and frame by frame in more detail than anybody else I know, could you put purism aside for a minute and write a short list of what you think are the most effective and visually creative scenes, and why?

I think that could be very interesting!

Sorry David I dont know how to do a short list. Not of an analysis of somethng- so heres a long one instead. Sorry.

Just the prologue.

Caveat paragraph- I'm going to break down the prologue into the type of camera work I think PJ does best- this however does necessarily relfect what I think of the content of what he is shooting!

One of the things PJ loves to do with a camera, and has done since he began are crane shots. He likes elevation.
In the old days of Bad Taste he used to tie cameras to poles to get them- by the time of FotR and the budget to do it properly he not only included a lot of these shot types but 'elevated' even further and added helicams to his list of how high can I shoot from.
The 'classic' LotR's shot, sweeping countryside filmed from an elevated position you can trace right back to the first films PJ ever made where he tried to create the same effect, at times seemingly literally on a shoe-string.

Its no suprise then that FotR opens with a prologue simply full of such shots.
The first are the shots accompanying the dwarves with the 7 rings. A spiraling upwards pull back from the table combined with a tracking back and up shot.
The actual battle of the Last Alliance is full of these elevated and panning heli shots, with the camera swooping across and above the battlefield.
Its very effective in creating a sense of size to the battlefield and giving the impression of the numbers on either side.
And unlike later battles in the tilogy PJ mixes quick cuts in the battle with short locked off shots for the important characters, notably Elrond and Isildur- this is also very effective as it temporary grounds the viewer into focusing on the important people amongst the impression of chaos created by the series of quick cuts.
As the films go on PJ seems to become increasingly nervous that his audience wil get bored and he uses these steady shots less and less in favour of near constent movement in action sequences.
One of the reasons I think the opening battle is effective cinema is because of these more focused shots- a good example is the Ring.

PJ has set out to make the Ring a character in its own right for adaptive reasons and he uses his camera to set this up immediately in the battle- we see the Ring advancing into battle on the hand of Sauron, the rest of Sauron, including his head doesnt even make it into the frame- the focus is on the Ring and this continues as he bashes his way through the enemy ranks- PJ maintains this theme right up until Sauron has the Ring cut off, when the 'body' bit simply falls out of shot the finger with Ring falls through the air almost dead centre of frame and falling towards the camera- the Ring is the more important character in the prologue to PJ than Sauron.
For PJ this makes sense given the Ring is the constent enemy in the story for him whereas Sauron is distant and off screen. And his choice of shots here is all designed to promote this idea. It is well done on that level and is a good use of shots in service of promoting a narrative theme.

In the Isildur scenes PJ again switches between quick cuts and swift camera movements to locked off shots for Isildur- creating a bubble of focus in the middle of the action in which Isildur can put on the Ring.
This, as in the main battle, is a very good way to both convey the confusion of fighting and keep the viewer knowing who and what is important.

Another favoured PJ camera technique is a pan to reveal- where the camera pans across a scene to reveal the focus of the scene- the first shot of Gollum in his cave is a good example of this, where the camera begins pointing at the floor and pans up, first to reveal fish bones on the floor, then the pool of water, then a rock in the pool and finally Gollum perched on top.
It can be a very good way of telling a story concisely and visually and of creating a sense of mystery then revelation, and PJ uses the technique often and well. Its the same technique he uses to introduce Frodo to the audience.

Bilbo discovering the Ring is another of these type of shots- it pans acorss to right of frame and up from Bilbo's hand to reveal Bilbo himself.
By using a similar camera technique for both these characters, and in two scenes closely together, PJ helps solidify a link between the characters.
When he uses the camrea this way he is as good as any at telling a visual narrative.

And of course he ends the prologue with the shot type the trilogy will be most remembered for- a sweeping helishot over a dramtic landscape.

Thanks. Now I need to watch the prologue again! But not tonight. I'm stuffed with turkey and ready for bed.

Just because I like the radio Barliman so much, here's more of him. The scenes where they drop into the Pony on their way home.

I have suggested Lynch as my ideal director of Tolkien's works on film, but I get the sense no one takes me seriously. Here's why you bloody well should!

Why David Lynch should been making Tolkien's books into films.

1. Lynch is not afraid of words. Lynch has used at varies times narration, lengthy exposition and internal thoughts , all or any of which could have a place in adapting Tolkien.







Lynch would not have butchered the dialogue as much I believe.

2. Lynch likes complexity. Twin Peaks is so complex even a dedicated viewer can have trouble keeping track of all the soap opera parody story lines going on at once (not mention following the stories in the actual soap opera parody the people of Twin Peaks watch!).
He would not shy from the more complex parts of the tale like Denethor, or Saruman, or the Corsairs, or the Paths of the Dead.

3. He can do humour that comes from the characters, not a prat fall or a belch or a fart, although he can do those too. And he likes a bit of whimsy in his humour as well as word play.





In general its a gentler more word and character driven comedy, more in keeping with Tolkiens humour than PJ's sense of humour I feel.

4. He is not afraid if darkness. If a scene is supposed to be in the dark then Lynch will bloody well make it dark.



5. Lynch likes music. He is not afraid to include it in his films to evoke emotion. We would have more of Tolkiens songs in a Lynch version.







6. He can get every bit of emotion posible even out of an actor barely visible in prosetics.





I'd bet the pity of Frodo for Gollum wouldnt have left a dry eye in the house if Lynch had handled it.


7. LotR's has a bad guy who is a presence and never on screen. Lynch excels at creating atmospheres, particular ones that are somehow off, disturbing or uncomfortable.



http://vimeo.com/19215499




In short Lynch naturally has in own films all the tools necessary to interpret Tolkien on the big screen.

Hmmmm......maybe he has the tools, but would he use them for goodness or evil? That's the question!

Lynch is at heart a writer/director, and when he has adapted other people's works he has always twisted them to his own surreal vision. They're very watchable, hard to take your eyes off in fact, but far from 'pure'.

I think his reputation for weird is oversated. I would say he uses the camera as a means to help tell the story, as opposed to using it to merely convey the story.
But if you take the Elephant Man as a good example- it is a very straight played film overall in terms of its direction. Lynch's main concern is in telling the tale.

And Dune was an impossible task in terms of purty- the equivelent for PJ would have been to do all of LotR's in one film and bring it in under 3 hours.
Given that I actually think its remarkably faithful and that Lynch captures a suprising amount of the books feel. When I watch Dune I am reminded of the book.
It also has some of the best sets in any film ever in my opinion, one of the few I would readily compare to the work on LotR's.
A Lynch version would I am sure have looked stunning also in that regard.







Also there is a theme in Lynch's films about industrialisation that I think would suit him to Tolkiens work also. His Mordor would have I think have been a much more nightmarish place than PJ's.

Its a shame that even after hard petitioning we cant encourage another directer/writer to have a crack of the whip ? Not in MY lifetime I think ? (unless I won mega bucks on the Lottery?) Seems like, to me, PJ was testing the water, taking "baby steps",but, initially opening the door for someone else to have a go ? I think there is a secret feeling between directors etc, that they feel they could do slightly better than the last guy. Ive often heard in interviews how one director, says of a particular film, from way back, that HE might have done things differently. So you can always hope for the future. I think Tolkien IS tempting enough for another generation to have a go ? How many re-makes of OLD black & white films, sometimes Classics, are being shown again ? Cos someone feels they can improve. Take Agatha Christie, her stories have been done to death, as was Conan Doyle's "Sherlock". Shakespeare, Carroll, C.S Lewis,Dickens ?

It seems like 30 years is about the time that needs to pass for a new generation to see the story with fresh eyes. That should give most of us here a fighting chance of seeing the next Hobbit/ LotR adaptation, shouldn't it? I agree it's going to be an irresistible project for somebody.

Petty, I've always liked David Lynch, and yes of course he's not always weird. The Straight Story is just simply a heartwarming story. Blue Velvet not so much. But it seems to me that his point of view is always small and personal.

I didn't hate Dune when it came out, but I was very disappointed. To me that was proof that Lynch was best left alone making small intimate movies, not continually messed with like working with a major studio requires.

Once again your ability to assemble an in depth argument in record time impresses, Petty. But I'm somewhat with David on this one: Lynch may have had all the tools, but he can go off the rails.

I thought Dune looked fantastic and much of it worked, but he did this weird voice weapon thing which totally removed all need for the Fremen to be desert hardened warriors (a major theme of the book shot to hell), and he made the Harkonnens into pustulant evil rather than refined evil. Some of the best written villains in literature turned into cartoons. I'm as mad at Lynch for screwing up the Harkonnens as I am at PJ for screwing up Denethor. Both finely drawn subtle characters made unrecognizable.

So while I agree that Lynch may have been somewhat better than PJ on many points, I think we still would have ended up with a warped product.

Oh, and I'm not sure I understand your music references. I don't see that your examples show Lynch using music any better than PJ: Howard Shore's score was nearly perfect, and I think it was used to fine effect in the movie. PJ could not have drawn on as wide an array of style as Lynch could for Twin Peaks without risking pulling the audience out of the fantasy world.

David I think LotRs could work as a more inimate tale. A tale that begins intimate, with the four hobbits, and ends intimate wihthe four hobbits would I feel appeal to Lynch.
And I think he would have excelled at the intimate releationship between Frodo and the Ring and when the time comes bring Smeagol into that dynamic.

There were certainly problems with the studio where Dune was concerned. Lynch did not get the control he was used to and that was certainly a problem.

Halfwise- the voice weapon does have its basis in the book (just if memory serves a later book)- but then the films ending comes from the ending of another book in the series too.
All of these problems go back to the impossible task of getting the whole thing in one film.

The Harkonnens are more pantomine villians in the film than they are in the books. But again I am not sure there is the time in that format to do much more with them. Instead Lynch focuses on conveying their corruption, moral and spiritual. Unlike PJ he does not just invent his own addtions, they are at least aspects drawn out from the characters in the book. And therefore for me, whilst they are not the same as the book characters, they are still reminiscent of them because the aspects Lynch does present ring true, even if they fall short of the whole.

It may well be that Lynch too would have produced a 'warped; version of LoTR's but I'd bet even so it would still be a more interesting, fascinating film than what PJ produced.

On the point of the music- the difference I think is that whilst Shore's soundtrack complements the films Lynch is not afraid to incorporate the music into the story as a means of describing characters emotional states of being. He is quite willing to include an entire song as part of the film, not an accompanyment to it, and not just a mood thing but to empahsis or explain characters motivations or feelings, diectly effecting the narrative and story telling.
In fact one of the strongest things in the Lynch armoury I would say is his use of sound and music.

just NO! Legolas would end up getting the hots for Gimli and would tell him to prance aound Fangorn in just leather hotpants and his helmet. thats the campness that is Lynch.

There is some campness in Dune, but then there is also a homoerotic theme in some of Dune regards the Harkonnens.

I dont find the word 'camp' springs to mind when I consider Lynch's body of work- when is it camp in the Elephant Man? Or Fire Walk With Me? Mulholland Drive? Blue Velvet?

Blue Velvet is full of odd sexual stuff. to put it mildly. I wouldnt like to see a Lynchian version of Galadriel twitching Gandalfs hair. PJ is far more innocent and free of adult themes and sexual undertones which is a healthier feeling for Middle Earth. there is no doubt Lynch is interesting and creative, but I wouldnt trust him to hold back on the darker adult themes, whereas PJ seems like a big kid in comparison, and far more childlike.

I think Petty is saying Lynch doesn't go into camp unless the story calls for it. Blue Velvet was sexual because that was an integral part of the story, and it was never campy. My worry with Lynch is he does tend to go just weird, like he did with the Harkonnens.

BTW Petty, I think you should take the two very different cuts of Dune that are out there, and make a purist cut. I think it can be done and would come out better than the LoTR cuts did because there's more good material to work with.