Re: Petty's Purist LotR Edits [3]

by Bluebottle Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:57 pm

I think I could agree on the three extra hours.

I do find it a bit sad on rewatching seeing some things that just doesn't work, like Gandalf dragging Frodo and Sam from Bag End and then riding straight past the black riders on his way out out of the Shire, because they got a lot of it right with the tone and feel of Fellowship.

As Petty also said the treatment of Frodo is different as it's a change from the books, but it follows an inner logic. So that is more a question of wether you like the choice Peter and co made or not.

by Mrs Figg Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:46 pm

I agree Bluebottle, the way they interpreted Frodo is down to personal taste rather than it altering the story in a detrimental way. They make Frodo gentler than the book but that was to highlight the hardship of the Quest, some people call it wimpyness but I call it gentleness, its personal opinion. It still worked, and his character isnt bent out of all recognition as Bilbos is in AUJ.

by malickfan Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:28 pm

Good points all round, but I do have to say Petty, many of your points (no matter how well made) wouldn't really matter to the average filmgoer-we can argue all day about the film's merits and an adaption, but in general I think the LOTR trilogy work as they were intended-films for the mass market who hadn't read the book-we wouldn't know if Gandalf had missed the Nazgul in the film (as far as I can remember) as there is no indication how big the borders of the shire are or where abouts Isengaurd was.

I seem to have a different approach to others-I'm GLAD Jackson missed so much out of the story-they'd only butcher it more and corrupt my own images of the book-I read LOTR after the films, and all my favourite chapters were ones not really covered in the films.

by Mrs Figg Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:38 pm

my absolute favourite chapters are from the Hobbits leaving Fatty Bolger to arriving in Bree. That whole section is steeped in wondrous magic. The Old Forest, Farmer Maggot, the Elves, Tom, Old Man Willow and the Wythywindle valley, Barrows, Goldberry, rainy days, its gorgeous.

by malickfan Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:24 pm

Yeah me too-I LOVE the slow pace of LOTR book, the section with Gildor Inglorion and 'In the house of Tom Bombadil' were the sections that to this day stand out as pure magic to me-reading that as a 15 year old just six years ago really brought Middle Earth alive to me, and sucked me into the story in a way the films never could.

But-I'm devoutly thankful Jackson never touched them, written for a book so leave it in the book.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:58 pm

many of your points (no matter how well made) wouldn't really matter to the average filmgoer- Malick

Thats hard to say, but I dont think so.

For example had they retained Frodo and Sam's master/servant relationship at the start, and retained as an arc Frodo coming to understand Sam better as a full person as Sam comes to explore his own fuller potential, and followed that through to Frodo and Sam becoming equals in the adversity of Mordor, and then Sams elevation from gardener to Mayor living in Bag End- it would be a more satisfying journey for a film goer to go on than what PJ gave them, which has no development.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:04 am

They didnt need to hammer home the master servant arc, and Sams character is quite well enough developed to miss out the mayor bit, plus it would have meant pointless exposition.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:59 am

They dont have to hammer it home- Tolkien didnt- that's no excuse for leaving it out altogether however.

Its important- one of the many things Tolkiens work highlights is that in places like Mordor the whole class thing is meaningless.
In a broader sense there is also what class does to ourselves- Sam (and by extension his Gaffer) are self deprecating about Sam in large part based on the fact he is just a gardener who shouldn't mess in the affairs of his betters- Tolkien hated that small minded parochial viewpoint and Sam is his exemplary of why its nonsense.

And everyone loves a bit of class tension in a story that's why Downton ect are so popular, and no one does class stories better than the British.

by Bluebottle Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:51 am

I sometimes wonder what the base of this major difference of opinion is. And I can think of little other than that you are utilising completely different standards.

I think Christopher Tolkien summed it up for me when he said Jackson made the Lord of the Rings movies "action movie for young people aged 15 to 25." (I think I'll leave the more inflamitary part of his comment for another discussion.) What he didn't say but what will is that they were actually quite good action movies for 15 to 25 year olds, whatever a previously big fan of Tolkiens books might think of them as adaptations.

So while they might be greatly enjoyable movies the grievances you and I have voiced, Petty, might not be very relevant to their genre. How much does the story matter in general in a good epic action movie? Shrugging

All the while it doesn't live up to the glory and detail of Tolkiens story.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:21 pm

I suppose for me Blue the whole problem stems from the decision to turn LotR's into a genre epic action movie in the first place.
For me it should have been treated in the manner other great authors works tend to be on screen, from Dickens to Bronte to Shakespeare. None of which are suited to being shoehorned into the action movie genre any more than Tolkien is and all of which have been given a great deal more respect than Tolkien has been in this treatment of his work.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:30 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:They dont have to hammer it home- Tolkien didnt- that's no excuse for leaving it out altogether however.

They didnt leave it out altogether.

Its important- one of the many things Tolkiens work highlights is that in places like Mordor the whole class thing is meaningless.

By the time they had got to Mordor, Sam and Frodo were equals.

In a broader sense there is also what class does to ourselves- Sam (and by extension his Gaffer) are self deprecating about Sam in large part based on the fact he is just a gardener who shouldn't mess in the affairs of his betters- Tolkien hated that small minded parochial viewpoint and Sam is his exemplary of why its nonsense.

And everyone loves a bit of class tension in a story that's why Downton ect are so popular, and no one does class stories better than the British.

I dont. I think Downton Abbey is trite rubbish.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:52 pm

They didnt leave it out altogether.- Mrs Figg

The only direct reference I can think of is Sam saying he is a gardener to Faramir.
They drink together in the pub, they walk home together with arms thrown over each other shoulder- they are friends from the word go.
In the book Sam is much more Frodo's servant, and Frodo is of a different class than Sam and they do not socialise together.
Getting to that point is a large part of their character arc, by starting there PJ removes it.

Sam surpasses all the narrow minded expectations of him, from his own fathers derision of him learning his letters to Sandymans derision of his love of tales and stories, and in the end he becomes the Master of Bag End himself.
Sam ends up just where he started in PJ's with the one exception that he is now confident enough to pull a bird. Rolling Eyes

Tolkien's message is lost in PJ's, Sam doesn't even end up in Bag End in PJ's account.

"By the time they had got to Mordor, Sam and Frodo were equals."

In PJ's they are equal from the start. See above.

"Downton Abbey is trite rubbish."

I agree, but I believe a large part of its appeal and the appeal of things like Pride and Prejudice is in part the portrayal of the class system.
And Tolkien has important things to say about the class system, both from the perspective of his rural upbringing and from his experiences alongside the average Tommy in WW1, and why its stupid and meaningless when the chips are down.
If you are adapting his work I think it is important to try to keep and represent the things Tolkien seemed to think were important to say.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:06 pm

I dont think it was necessary to make the class system of England in the 40s painfully obvious in the films, it wouldnt be any more effective than the way they did things.
The appeal of Pride and Prejudice has more to do with Jane Austens skill than a fascination with class per se. Some Writers who deal with class dont translate well to our sensibilities today, but she did it with humour and a deceptively light hand.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:19 pm

But why reduce their relationship and what it stars from and develops into- why jump to the end and start there? It only reduces the story unnecessarily.
Class I think is as evident today as it ever has been, and therefore as relevant- the world over there are masters and servants in modern form, from the mexican maid to the diamond miner to Cameron and his Cabinet of Upper Class Billionares.
Tolkiens message that the maid might be the one who saves the world one day and not the master she cleans for is important and still relevant.
To appreciate each other for our being and not for our rank or station in life.
It speaks to Tolkien's religious beliefs as well as his own direct experience.

To just dump all that for the reasons they gave in the commentary- they didnt think a modern audience would relate to it- is in my view to miss the point and the continued relevance of it entirely.
They thought it would make Frodo seem less likeable, which is to fail to trust the author that the audience will go along with Frodo's personal development to the end and see him in the fuller light of that.

And a distrust in Tolkien's story telling is a hallmark of the PJ/Coven scripts.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:38 pm

It wasnt dumped, it was used with a light hand rather than a bludgeon. It wasnt necessary for the films either. It wouldnt have added anything worth having. Middle Earth in the books didnt hammer the class thing, thats why its so fresh, thats what makes it so unique for his time. Other Writers wouldnt have allowed Sam to become so important and be Frodos friend,on an equal footing so why make it any less fresh for the films?

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:46 pm

It wasnt dumped, it was used with a light hand rather than a bludgeon.- Mrs Figg

Could you give examples of the films where the class issue between Frodo and Sam is highlighted or made relevant, because I honestly cannot think of any instances where it is.

"It wouldnt have added anything worth having."

I couldnt disagree more, it is an important theme in the book that is developed throught out from Sam's first meeting with elves in the Woody End and his subsequent conversation with Frodo, through his reciting of the troll song an the Fall of Gil-Galad right through to his actions in Mordor and his eventual position as Mayor and Master of Bag End.
The underpinning moral message and the extra depth it gives to the development of the relationship between Frodo and Sam are in my view more than worth having.

"Other Writers wouldnt have allowed Sam to become so important and be Frodos friend,on an equal footing so why make it any less fresh for the films?"

I am not sure I understand you here. Why would removing their development make it any less fresh for the films? And Im not sure what you mean by fresh in this context.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:54 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It wasnt dumped, it was used with a light hand rather than a bludgeon.- Mrs Figg

Could you give examples of the films where the class issue between Frodo and Sam is highlighted or made relevant, because I honestly cannot think of any instances where it is.

Its obvious Sam is the Gardner, we first meet him in the garden, he calls Frodo 'Master Frodo' thats all we need, the class issue doesnt need any more than this.

"It wouldnt have added anything worth having."

I couldnt disagree more, it is an important theme in the book that is developed throught out from Sam's first meeting with elves in the Woody End and his subsequent conversation with Frodo, through his reciting of the troll song an the Fall of Gil-Galad right through to his actions in Mordor and his eventual position as Mayor and Master of Bag End.
The underpinning moral message and the extra depth it gives to the development of the relationship between Frodo and Sam are in my view more than worth having.

Meeting the Elves is nothing to do with class, its about his views on his love of the Elves and how his imagination is different from the reality of them when he actually meets them

"Other Writers wouldnt have allowed Sam to become so important and be Frodos friend,on an equal footing so why make it any less fresh for the films?"

I am not sure I understand you here. Why would removing their development make it any less fresh for the films? And Im not sure what you mean by fresh in this context.

cant make it any clearer than that.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:41 pm

Its obvious Sam is the Gardner, we first meet him in the garden- Mrs Figg

Only in the EE and there is nothing beyond bringing book knowledge to it to make you assume he is a gardener working for Frodo- all we see is him planting some flowers, it could be in his own garden for all we know.

That and occasionally calling him Master does not come close to conveying what Tolkien does about their characters, and is fundamentally undermined by establishing them as drinking buddies right at the start.

That and they state in the commentaries themselves that they took the class stuff out.

"Meeting the Elves is nothing to do with class, its about his views on his love of the Elves and how his imagination is different from the reality of them when he actually meets them"

I specifically mentioned the conversation following that encounter with the elves, between Frodo and Sam where Frodo first begins to realise there is more to Sam than he had ever bothered to fin out about before-

'Frodo looked at Sam rather startled, half expecting to see some outward sign of the odd change that seemed to have come over him. I t did not sound like the voice of the old Sam Gamgee that he thought he knew. But it looked like the old sam Gamgee sitting there, except that his face was unusually thoughtful.'- A Shortcut to Mushrooms.

Tolkien has these beats along the way of Frodo slowly coming at first to know Sam better, then to see that he is capable of much more than he had expected, and to even be surprised at him, to finally trusting him implicitly without any judgements.
And at the same time Sam comes to see Frodo less as some superior being and more as an equal and to grow in his own self confidence.

The next beat after Mushrooms is the conspiracy where the last person Frodo expects is Sam, and then at Weatherop where Sam recites the Gil Galad song and Frodo comments that he is discovering a lot about Sam that he didnt know before.

And these moments continue right the way through the development of their relationship.

If you take it all out as PJ and the Coven did there is no development left.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:52 pm

''Frodo looked at Sam rather startled, half expecting to see some outward sign of the odd change that seemed to have come over him. I t did not sound like the voice of the old Sam Gamgee that he thought he knew. But it looked like the old sam Gamgee sitting there, except that his face was unusually thoughtful.'- A Shortcut to Mushrooms''

Did you want a voiceover for that scene. How do you expect a film to portray those emotions exactly? It seems you are expecting a radio play rather than a film.

by Eldorion Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:36 pm

Not trying to take sides here, but I thought they replaced all instances of "Master" with a simple "Mister Frodo" in the movie. Conveys some of the same meaning, but without requiring an explanation of the early-20th century British class system to keep teenagers from tittering (or adults from eyebrow-raising).

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:21 pm

Did you want a voiceover for that scene. How do you expect a film to portray those emotions exactly? - Mrs Figg

Through the process of adapting one medium to another- this is very crux of adapting, finding ways in the different mediums to convey the same information, or sentiments.
PJ and Co dont even bother trying they just cut it all out.

Eldo, I dont think any explanation of the class system is necessary to relate to or understand that Sam works for Frodo and therefore they dont socialise together.
Its conveyed perfectly well in the radioplays without any form of explanation at all, they just let the dialogue and characters stand and it works perfectly.
And Mister is just a title everyone male shares, Sam is a mister. It does not convey any sense of perceived inequality or expectations.

by Mrs Figg Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:00 pm

It does when he calls Frodo 'Mister Frodo', it signifies his lower rank in the class system.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:17 pm

Mister differentiates nothing without book knowledge- they are both misters, its just part of Sam's speech pattern in Pj's, like people who say 'like' at the end of every sentence for no good reason.
There is nothing to support the existence of any class system or difference in standing between them in the films. They dont act towards one another if they come from different classes in society, and even less so with Merry and Pippin who are also supposed to be from the upper classes and not the seemingly homeless thieving hobos of the films.

by Mrs Figg Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:16 am

nope. it signifies his lower rank. The Others just call each other by name.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:11 am

No, in the films without bringing book knowledge to it, it merely signifies Sam's manner of speech- not only is there no surrounding evidence to support that they see each other as different classes, but there is the complete opposite, evidence that they do not, with them socialising with one another as friends.
And every last one of the character beats Tolkien puts in of them coming to know and understand one another more as people and less by preconceived hobbit ranks, PJ and the Coven have expunged from the story, by their own admission. So I dont really know how you can argue it is still there when none of the arc is present and the writers say they took it out.