Book vs. Film

did an amazing job establishing a massive cast of characters and making each one distinctive and memorable in their own way.- Eldo

They didnt do an amazing job of distinct characters- Tolkien did- then they took them, simplified them down to the their most base mannerisms- Sam calls Frodo Mister, Pippin is young, Borromir is a bit dodgy (boy did they overplay that aspect though) ect
But you are crediting the wrong people.

"All the Dwarves blend together in the book too"

I'd say they are supposed to.

I didn't say that they invented the characters. But they did have to establish them within the context of the cinematic story -- and without assuming that the audience would have any prior knowledge of the characters.  And if for no other reason than time constraints, they faced a greater challenge with that than Tolkien did, which is undoubtedly a big part of the reason why many characters from the book were cut.  By contrast, with The Hobbit, even if you overlook the background Dwarves from the book, the principle characters are not particularly distinctive or memorable in the film.  That's because, no matter how good (or bland) the characters in the source material, the filmmakers fumbled on characterization in AUJ despite having the luxury of time this round.

Edit: Saw some of your additions. I do agree that the "Boromir will betray us" stuff was definitely overplayed.

Petty nope thats mistaken. It was down to fine acting.

The difference is its much easier to present memorable characters when the source already gives you distinct memorable characters as LotR's does.

Taking a book like TH in which the author deliberately doesn't make many of the characters distinct or memorable, and then trying to make them distinct and memorable solely by visual design and shoe horning imagined back story in is doomed to failure- as has been proved by PJ.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The difference is its much easier to present memorable characters when the source already gives you distinct memorable characters.

Taking a book like TH in which the author deliberately doesn't make many of the characters distinct or memorable, and then trying to make them distinct and memorable solely by visual design and shoe horning imagined back story in is doomed to failure- as has been proved by PJ.

That's why I specifically said "even setting aside the background dwarves".  Unless you think that film!Bilbo or film!Gandalf in The Hobbit were especially memorable in their own rights and not just as versions of the characters we already know from the books and LOTR films. Throw Thorin in there too, since he probably got the most attention as a character in the film, at least in the theatrical cut.

I dont think TH film Bilbo is any worse written, or any better an adaptation than film Frodo was, but he is better acted. But they are about the same level (or lack of) in quality of writing.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:They didnt do an amazing job of distinct characters- Tolkien did- then they took them, simplified them down to the their most base mannerisms- Sam calls Frodo Mister, Pippin is young.

I think they traded "young" for "stupid" re: Pippin (until he somehow miraculously knows what Saruman is doing to Fanghorn Forest better than the Ents do), though I could be wrong. But the age order of the actors is actually the reverse of the characters they're portraying.

Film Merry and Pippin bear little more than their names in relation with the book characters.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont think TH film Bilbo is any worse written, or any better an adaptation than film Frodo was, but he is better acted. But they are about the same level (or lack of) in quality of writing.

I don't have an interest in defending film!Frodo since I've complained plenty about him, but there are numerous other memorable characters who carry the LOTR films. And I think that it's more forgivable to have Frodo be bland since he shares main character status, especially in the film, with Aragorn and Sam, who are excellent in the films.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Film Merry and Pippin bear little more than their names in relation with the book characters.

Not going to necessarily argue with that, but they still work -- for the most part -- as their own characters in the movies.  Although they are bogged down by PJ's immature humor at several points.  Not saying I prefer them to the book versions, though.

Reluctant Aragorn sucks- book Aragorn has been memorable to people for decades- he did not require anything Pj and the Coven did to him to make the character memorable, indeed to my mind they reduced the character into cliche territory with that reluctant King crap.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Film Merry and Pippin bear little more than their names in relation with the book characters.

Same goes for Frodo, imho. Sam was fairly true (though I found Astin annoying).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Reluctant Aragorn sucks- book Aragorn has been memorable to people for decades- he did not require anything Pj and the Coven did to him to make the character memorable, indeed to my mind they reduced the character into cliche territory with that reluctant King crap.

Didn't say he was the same as (much less better than) the book version. But I strongly disagree that film!Aragorn sucks.

Viggo made the most wonderful Aragorn, he improved on the book in a lot of ways, as Theoden was improved by Bernard Hill.

I also prefer by miles Elijah's sensitive and gentle portrayal to martin Freemans twitching and fake mannerisms.

But if you think the book version better  Eldo would therefore having the book version in the actual film not also have been a lot better, and not wandering dangerously into the extremely clichéd reluctant hero territory that it did?
Instead of Elronds "I will not leave my daughter here to die" nonsense would it not have been better for Aragorn's character to have retained Elrond setting the bar for marrying his daughter at "no less a man than both King of Gondor and Arnor"?


"he improved on the book in a lot of ways"- MrsFigg

Could you clarify that with examples of what was improved over the book version?

(I think Viggo did a splendid job with what he got landed with, I think he would have done an even better one given the books full character to play- especially in the latter films where he himself has said he felt Pj wandered to far from the source)

no

Good debate  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But if you think the book version better  Eldo would therefore having the book version in the actual film not also have been a lot better, and not wandering dangerously into the extremely clichéd reluctant hero territory that it did?
Instead of Elronds "I will not leave my daughter here to die" nonsense would it not have been better for Aragorn's character to have retained Elrond setting the bar for marrying his daughter at "no less a man than both King of Gondor and Arnor"?

Obviously.

Still doesn't make the film crap.

I never understood how changing something improves it-does Three Hobbit films stuffed full of subplots and overblown action sequences mean it's a better children's fairytale?

 

I generally liked all the cast in PJ's films, but can't really say they improve one way or the other on their book counterparts as in most cases they bear no resemblance to Tolkien's versions, yet come across as much more recognizable cinematic characters.

Though I Loathe Elijah Wood and Haldir/Dodgy Wig Guy who ate all the pie.

I could have forgiven what the movies did to Aragorn, if they'd just bothered/remembered to give Frodo a pair...

hey lay off Haldir! he is cute  

Good debate   Petty

I just have to listen to you slagging off PJ ad infinitum. so whats the point

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But if you think the book version better  Eldo would therefore having the book version in the actual film not also have been a lot better, and not wandering dangerously into the extremely clichéd reluctant hero territory that it did?
Instead of Elronds "I will not leave my daughter here to die" nonsense would it not have been better for Aragorn's character to have retained Elrond setting the bar for marrying his daughter at "no less a man than both King of Gondor and Arnor"?

Obviously.

Still doesn't make the film crap.

I agree Eldo at least about LOTR not being crap. They were for the most part pretty good films which felt like Jackson and company were at least trying to give the audience a good set of middle earth films. Even with some of the character flaws that were present.... The Hobbit though that is a whole different issue though. To me its obvious Peter Jackson doesn't have the same respect for the source material with the Hobbit he did with LOTR and is quite proud of himself to be rewriting it as he sees fit, not caring what the original context of the story was. For him middle earth begins and ends with Sauron and the ring like black and white without having any shades of grey in the middle.

To me its obvious Peter Jackson doesn't have the same respect for the source material with the Hobbit he did with LOTR- Sinsiter

I dont believe he has any more or less respect for the source now than he had for the making of LotR's
The difference then was he was not multi oscar wining money making PJ.
And the studio, the fans of the book ect could not be so easily ignored, he had to play it much safer, and so he was forced to be closer to the text, it certainly wasnt out of love for the written material.
This is clear as the films progress and their success allow him to drop more and more Tolkien and include more and more PJ stuff.

TH is just what happens when he gets complete free reign without the restraints that were on him at the time he made FotR.

I disagree petty. Watching the documentary footage from the Behind the scenes stuff for LOTR. It looked like lots of love and care was taken to try and preserve Tolkien's feel in the films, so I think there was a genuine love for the source material somewhere in there. I will say I agree that the further they went on the ride the less self control Jackson showed. an chose to deviate more but through it all I think there was some love for the source material in there. The Hobbit in the extras I see a love of film making but not so much a love for the source material. Honestly I don't think Jackson truly wanted to make the Hobbit but was forced into it and just figured "If I HAVE to, I'm doing these MY way"... i don't see the respect granted Tolkien in the commentary like I did last time I hear more about how can we change this to fit with our LOTR instead. But the original trilogy was all shot at the same time, so i think the love was there in the process but maybe not so much in the editing of the second and third film which could have been better. But for me they were great compared to the Hobbit.