Book vs. Film

I think thats exactly right Sinister, you could tell they really tried to make LOTR as authentic as possible, those guys were amazingly good at it as well. but by the time TH came along PJ was bored of it and was more interested in fiddling around with the new technology. I really think he wasnt inspired by TH in any way as a story.

I think what you perceive as respect shown Sin I perceive as pandering to the fans at the time, keeping the core element on side and keeping the backers happy- he had only read the book once as a teenager, and only then after having seen Bakshis version- he didnt even read it again before making the film.
I think he was excited to remake the Bakshi film as he always wanted it to be.
We have examples of that- such as where he said that he was always disappointed in the Moria scene in Bakshi's that you only get to see the trolls foot- for Pj putting a ten minute troll fight in there was improving on Bakshi, I dont think Tolkien's original scene, how it played out, or any effect changing the narrative (such as the physical difference between being stabbed with a spear thrust by a mannish sized orc and a troll weighing several tons!) even came into his considerations.
As he is less and less confined by a need to please the core of book fans, as its making pots of money off the general public, he goes more and more into the stuff he likes, and is less and less concerned by the effect on the original books narrative structure.

I honestly dont see any evidence that PJ ever had a love for the source material, or Tolkiens writing- anyone who did could not go along with the cavalier and disrespectful attitude taken by the script to Tolkien's dialogue and characterisations.
The language is a huge part of what makes Tolkien Tolkien and Pj from the very beginning throws it out where ever possible.
That does not suggest a genuine love for Tolkien to me.

I think the love came from the crew- the costume department ect not from PJ, his was just PR all along.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:TH is just what happens when he gets complete free reign without the restraints that were on him at the time he made FotR.

Pretty much my feelings exactly. PJ wasn't a star before LotR; it's what made him a star. Also, LotR had more than enough story for three films, such that it had to be gutted to fit the allotted time (with extra footage spilling over into the extended editions, most of which I'm glad to say I've not seen). So if Jackson was more faithful to the text, it was because he had a pretty rigid framework. But he was hardly lavish in his fidelity and there are more than a few places where he departs from the text. As PT suggests, I think LotR existed more as a blueprint for PJ from which he could make a hit trilogy, than an honored, classic work that he wanted to faithfully and lovingly adapt.

After the rather lukewarm success of King Kong and the outright failure of The Lovely Bones, PJ needed to keep himself in the limelight somehow, so naturally he gravitated back to Tolkien and TH was the obvious (well, only) target. The LotR movies still carried plenty of currency so Jackson pretty much had carte blanche with it. The New Line bigwigs had plenty to say about it too, I'm sure, and want to fill their coffers and what have you, and so wanted another trilogy to replicate the success of LotR.

But this time, there's not nearly enough story to fill three movies, so a lot of shit had to be made up. Outrageously, though, instead of including everything and being utterly faithful to what's actually in the book, Jackson still managed to leave things out of the book, change the story and shift the focus from the titular character to supporting characters.

That Whole argument makes him just like any other film director in the Whole of Hollywood, no more no less. I dont understand what the criticizm is. Obviously he wanted to be a success, dont we all? I dont get why everyone is down on him because he made the best films he could at the time and against the odds. He wasnt a big Hollywood hitter when he made LOTR and its more credit to him that he forged ahead and made successful films. I thank him for making them, they are brilliant if flawed.

TH is another kettle of fish however. He was a big hitter by then and therefore there was no excuse not to make a faithful adaptation. But he was seduced by the thought of recognition via the technology as he knew the story itself wasnt going to have the same impact as LOTR in terms of bang for your buck. He just wasnt inspired by TH and it shows.

[quote="Radaghast"]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
After the rather lukewarm success of King Kong and the outright failure of The Lovely Bones, PJ needed to keep himself in the limelight somehow, so naturally he gravitated back to Tolkien and TH was the obvious (well, only) target. The LotR movies still carried plenty of currency so Jackson pretty much had carte blanche with it. The New Line bigwigs had plenty to say about it too, I'm sure, and want to fill their coffers and what have you, and so wanted another trilogy to replicate the success of LotR.

Honestly, that is stretching the events leading up to The Hobbit project a biiit too much.

Right, got another one for you all. Although I think I know how this one will slide! This is not a direct battle, but what do you think are the pros and cons of both men when it comes to LOTR? Has Jackson done anything right? Did Tolkien do anything wrong?

Discuss!

I'm noticing a pattern here.

someone is either researching or making us jump through hoops. Not sure which.

How about Cowley gives us HIS/HER views??

I have to say that these topics are becoming a bit tiresome. They don't look nice on the forum page, and the conversations within are often hijacked by various... individuals, which shall not be named (although I am most definitely not one of them, at all, for sure) due to the vagueness of their content.

I like where these head, sometimes, but you need to present these ideas in a different format Cowley 121, with a more concise vision.


Edit:
For example, of course Jackson got some things right, no matter what Pettytyrant might be lambasting about these days. And of course Tolkien made his mistakes. Well, at least one: he didn't write more!

Not sure I understand? But I'll give you my views anyway.

I think Jackson gets a bit too much stick for his films, they're simply his interpretations of the books. I agree that perhaps he runs away with ideas or doesn't put important book parts into the films, but they're not bad and don't really take away from the novels anyway.

Tolkien just doesn't have any cons in my opinion. Although it's harder to find any as you can't point out flaws in his own writing as it's exactly how he intended it to be.

But yeh, that's my own view

Ok forest this will be my last one.

I have to agree with Petty and Radaghast on this.

I think a lot of Jacksons perceived partiality to the story of the Lord of the Rings can be put down to two things that have been mentioned already.

1. There was such amount of story already in the books that they had to cut parts to fit it into three movies.

2. Jackson was greatly inspired by Bakshi and was following in the vain of that adaptation.

Neither of those things were relevant for the Hobbit, and so his treatment of that story has turned out completely different. I don't think that there is much evidence to support some great affinity of his with the story in the Lord of the Rings books.

Also, I don't buy that Peter Jackson reluctantly had the movie trust on him. In my opinion there would have been some harsh words said behind closed doors when it was decided to give the movie to del Toro. And I think their goal was to get him off the film from day one. And surprise surprise, some time later del Toro pulls out of the project.

At least that is the way it appears to me.

But WHY ON EARTH should PJ need to be in love with Tolkien to make the films? Thats entirely an imposed presupposition coming from the rankled few. Its a bit of a stretch to think he doesnt have a working knowledge of them, he has Tolkien advisors coming out his ears, and was trying in the case of LOTR to make a believable world, which he succeeded in doing. Are ALL directors supposed to know intimately their sources or can they make changes and adapt in any way they see fit artistically? I think its unreasonable to expect PJ to make a film that would please purists, as I believe they would be a lot duller as films. In a radio play you can be as faithful as word for word, but films have their own visual logic, and PJs cinematography was masterful.

Cowley 121 wrote:Ok forest this will be my last one.

Nice, thanks!
I've always been a bit down on these, sorry if I stifled things.

I would like to thank you for the "Hobbit Vs. LOTR" thread, as I had the most fun yet for me on this forum posting those completely off-topic rants and gifs.
So there's that.  

Cowley 121 wrote:
Tolkien just doesn't have any cons in my opinion. Although it's harder to find any as you can't point out flaws in his own writing as it's exactly how he intended it to be.
But yeh, that's my own view

I suppose the flaws, in that case, would be in the writing itself: the flow of the story, and such.
As some have said on other forums, the long wait in both the Shire (of Frodo, after speaking with Gandalf about leaving) and Rivendell (once the Fellowship is formed) would appear to be a mistake in tactics, allowing, as it does, the Nazgul to muster their strength in both cases.
So perhaps that could be a "flaw in the writing."

However, if we are defining flaws as "Things Tolkien did not put into the story," (as I suspect Pettytyrant does) then we will never find anything wrong with Tolkien's writing and the films will be riddled with incompetence. (Sounding familiar here guys? hmm?)

I might very well agree with most of that Figg, to a smaller or larger degree however.

Sinisters point was that the reason Peter Jacksons the Hobbit differed so much from his LotRs was because Jackson had an affinity for the LotRs books which he did not have for the story the Hobbit.

Which, if I read your last post correctly, you don't necesarily agree with either?

Not enough Talking Purses!

But seriously I don't see the point in the comparison-Jackson made an action film for the masses, Tolkien wrote a heroic romance for himself, Jackson was a poor novelist, Tolkien a terrible screenwriter.

If I had to say, then yes I think Tolkien was a bit too leisurely with his time-frames (I actually like the early chapters in the shire, but the wait in Rivendell always struck me as rather random and stupid-even though there is the metaphor of Frodo setting out on Xmas day) an perhaps too reliant on bit parters-we who have read The Silmarillion know more about Celeborn, Cirdan and Galadriel for instance, but there status as wise elven lords in LOTR dosen't seem to justify their cameo drop in, drop out appearances in the story.

Although I found the Arwen/Aragorn stuff in the films to be cheesy and drawn out at times, it never made sense to me why Tolkien left the story so much to the appendices-whilst I know Arwen was a relatively late addition (and you could argue making the story more of a footnote makes it sadder) it still seems silly for such an important aspect of Aragorn's history.

As for Jackson, my feelings are much more complicated, the films are both pretty poor adapations but entertaining hollywood epics-I love what Tolkien did with the books, but the films introduced me to them, and annoy me as much as they entertain me, so on a good day I guess:

                                      

I haven't read or seen the trilogy in several years though.

Don't get me started on his fan fiction overblown rewrite of The Hobbit....

if we are defining flaws as "Things Tolkien did not put into the story," (as I suspect Pettytyrant does)- Forest

I cant even work out what that means!  

Regards the time framing in the Shire- at the point where Frodo tells Gandalf he will wait and go on his birthday neither of them know there is any pursuit at all. Gandalf only begins to supsect the existence of the Black Riders through rumour as he travels south to Isengard and meets refugees with a 'great fear on them' that they wont talk about, and the re-emerging of the Black Riders he does not find out ffor certain until Saruman tells him in Orthanc "The Nine have crossed the river Isen disguised as Riders in black".

The delay at Rivendell if memory serves is so allow time for the good guys to scout out the land many miles in all directions- both to find out what might have happened to the Ring Wraiths and for any other dangers- Aragorn goes out for periods of time there with the sons of Elrond on just such a set of missions.
This seems to me realistic, and probably comes from Tolkiens own experiences in war- just because you think the bad guys are on the move- it doesn't mean it wont take your side ages to get everything prepared. locate the threats, devise a counter measure (in this case the Fellowship) and to be ready to move too.

Tolkiens writing is certainly not along any modern novel writing lines, he rarely leaves the main group of hobbits and so anything that happens 'off page' we get relayed to us after the event, which few if any authors would normally do, let alone frequently.
For me this actually adds to the sense of reality rather than detracts from it as life is like that, nobody witnesses everything.

On Arwen I think Tolkien was right when he said he tried to fit her into the main text but there was no way to do so without holding everything up. For the book it makes sense.
In an adaptation I do believe she has to be brought back in to the main story, as that's easier to do in a film where you have a variety of established techniques for doing so. But that's no excuse for rewriting her and changing the marriage conditions.

But WHY ON EARTH should PJ need to be in love with Tolkien to make the films? - Figg

In reality, no reason, it is not a prerequisite for being able to make a good adaptation.

A better question might be however -why did he go to such lengths to pretend he was in love with Tolkien, when his actual personal interest in Tolkiens writing was almost zilch?
Why all the lies? Why all the pretence? Its the dishonesty of his approach that most rankles with me.
Hell when they completely alter something they still cant just come out and be honest and say we did it this way because we liked it better, they make up rubbish to try to change it and still justify and claim it somehow in the 'spirit' of Tolkien.
Its all the insincere bull that really makes a person crabbit.  

I think the sending out of scouts before they leave Rivendell is defnitely an influence from the war. It's basic military intelligence on a tactical level - know who and where your enemy is within your area of operations, what he is capable of and so on. If they spent a little too much time doing it, well, I wouldn't say that was a flaw in Tolkien's writing, but rather a mistake made by Elrond, Gandalf and the rest. And everyone makes mistakes, not just enemies

Cowley 121 wrote:Right, got another one for you all. Although I think I know how this one will slide! This is not a direct battle, but what do you think are the pros and cons of both men when it comes to LOTR? Has Jackson done anything right? Did Tolkien do anything wrong?

Discuss!

Jackson has perhaps done some things right, but I'll have to think about it.

Conversely, Tolkien's work is by no stretch flawless and I'll bet he'd be the first to say that.

Mrs Figg wrote:That Whole argument makes him just like any other film director in the Whole of Hollywood, no more no less. I dont understand what the criticizm is. Obviously he wanted to be a success, dont we all? I dont get why everyone is down on him because he made the best films he could at the time and against the odds.

Agreed, but I don't see how being successful and truer to the books are mutually exclusive. As for "everyone" being down on him, to me it seems his critics are in the minority. This is the one of the few sites I've run across that seems to even tolerate criticism of Peter Jackson.

Forest Shepherd wrote:

Radaghast wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
After the rather lukewarm success of King Kong and the outright failure of The Lovely Bones, PJ needed to keep himself in the limelight somehow, so naturally he gravitated back to Tolkien and TH was the obvious (well, only) target. The LotR movies still carried plenty of currency so Jackson pretty much had carte blanche with it. The New Line bigwigs had plenty to say about it too, I'm sure, and want to fill their coffers and what have you, and so wanted another trilogy to replicate the success of LotR.

Honestly, that is stretching the events leading up to The Hobbit project a biiit too much.

Simplifying, maybe, but stretching things? How so?

Mrs Figg wrote:I think its unreasonable to expect PJ to make a film that would please purists, as I believe they would be a lot duller as films.

I wouldn't realistically expect a 100% faithful adaptation, but I do think they could have been closer, without being mutually exclusive with excitement. It's all in the execution and different directors handle things differently. I've said from the beginning that PJ deserves kudos for being able to adapt the book at all. But some of his changes, at the very least, strike me as curious. I can sort of understand adjusting the timeline to expedite the narrative, but I don't understand the changes he made to certain characters; I don't see how these serve the story at all. Re: the things PT complains about, I don't see how these complaints can be seen as inconsequential. I think a movie should at least try to make sense, but too many filmmakers (especially those of the action blockbuster) don't seem to view it as a concern.

I dont think there is anyone, purist or otherwise, who believes in a word for word adaptations as being the best means or would expect that.
I dont even expect something as close as the BBC radio play, apart from anything it wouldnt fit in the running time (although its wroth noting its only 4 hours, or one EE film longer and gets most of the book and its secondary characters in there).

There is often a view seemingly held by people in the pro PJ camp that how he did it was the only way you could do things to make them work on film- I dont buy that- there are loads of different ways things could have been done, PJ made deliberate choices, it was not some invisible force of adaptation that meant it had to be that way.