View Full Version : "It's a story of genocide"
To those who have watched the TTT preview included on the FOTR DVD, there seems to be a odd thematic change from the books to the plot of TTT.
PJ says that Saruman and Sauron are out to "wipe the race of man off the earth" and that they attempt to do that. What?!
"The Elder Days are gone. The Middle Days are passing. The Younger Days are beginning. The time of the Elves is over, but our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule.
Sound familiar? Saruman had no intention of commiting genocide against the race of men, he only wanted to control it. Sauron had always sought not to destroy men (except for the Numenoreans) but to be lord over them.
This "story of genocide" business is already contradicted within this preview itself. We see the men of Dunland crowded around Saruman who is likely giving them a pep-talk before they hit the town. What are his instructions - "go kill all of yourselves?" Probably not.
On the surface this strikes me as another unnecessary change to the books. However, PJ has stated that TTT required the most heavy "adaptation" from the book since TTT was the least dramatically rounded of the three books (it was never suposed to be dramatically rounded - it was the middle of one big book). So one of his changes has to do with Aragorn deciding to take up a role as a leader of men (rathe than being intent on this all along as in the book). If the entire race of man is under immediate threat of extinction (unless you're a Dunlander...) then that makes Aragorn's adapted story more interesting.
What do you folks think are the pros and cons of this change? It's not the biggest change that's come down the pike but it's noteworthy.
ReadWryt
08-14-2002, 11:15 PM
Be carefull, I mentioned this rediculous statement elsewhere and have had no end of grief for doing so...
Talimon
08-14-2002, 11:25 PM
I don't really know if it matters what Jackson says. Look at it this way: If in the movies villages of Rohan are bruttally attacked and people are tortured, then I don't consider this a big change (if a change at all) from the books. The books mention Saruman and Sauron brutally attacking innocents.
I think it's just a marketing statement on PJ's part, to make things sound bigger and more dramatic. I wouldn't make much of it, though we'll have to see.
What if in the movie the only reason Frodo attempted to destroy the Ring was really just to use Orodruin to reforge the it into two shiny coins to spruce up some pennyloafers? The story would've been almost exactly the same but the motives would've been very different. Would that have been okay?
Darth Saruman
08-15-2002, 07:13 AM
I also don't see the big deal about his.
Even in the book, if Sauron was just going to enslave everybody, wouldn't that be a sort of 'cultural genocide'? It could be that he would have used his dark arts to make the free peoples of Middle-Earth into slaves akin to his orcs. Sure, everybody would still be alive, but not in the way that we know life. The ring could corrupt Saruman into doing the same type of thing.
ReadWryt
08-15-2002, 07:32 AM
...except that Jackson states in the preview that Sauron and Saruman want to wipe out all of mankind...which is a bit more then just culture.
Talimon
08-15-2002, 10:08 AM
The point is that non of the actions taken in the book by Sauron or Saruman really change, even if thier motive is different. Also, so long as the actual words "genocide" or it's equivalent aren't used in the movie it doesn't really matter how Jackson interprets it.
I'm not saying I love this change, but for some reason I never saw Sauron or Saruman as very deep charachters, and so thier motives never really mattered. Tolkien didn't write them as such, and for all we really know they were both driven by greed and a lust for power. I suppose I could see this change as a much bigger change, but it just doesn't really seem to change anything. At the same time I can somewhat see where it's coming from. Instead of just having Saruman and Sauron be plain-evil, without thier evil ever really being shown, Jackson is going to try and actually get the audience to hate them. As I said before, it seems he will do this through the sacking of Rohirrim and Gondorian towns, which isn't really a change at all from the books.
In LOTR, Sauron wasn't particularly deep but I certainly think Saruman was.
You know...thinking back...I can't really remember PJ describing certain aspects of the story and characters in interviews which are not also true of the book without qualifing them. What I mean is, so far I don't think he's passed off story aspects that he'd changed as being THE story of LOTR. I think he avoided talking about stuff like Arwen at the Ford and the like, except when he was speaking specifically about things he'd changed (again, as far as I remember). Now, he's passing off this genocide thing and Aragorn's decision to take up a role as king and not qualifing them as changes - as though they exist in the book. That's another thing that bothers me.
Talimon
08-15-2002, 11:40 PM
That's his interpretation though, skewed as it might be. Note that he never claimed to be making the most true adaptation, but rather his own.
That crosses the line of interpretation. It's a change. We know from the books that genocide was not the intent.
Arwen at the Ford is a change
How Hobbits look in an interpretation
Glamdring not glowing is a change
Galdriel at the mirror is an interpretation
That word 'interpretation' is being thrown around a little too loosely. Let's call a spade a spade.
Talimon
08-16-2002, 10:18 AM
How about cutting a scene? Is that interpretation? Or how about adding a scene that wasn't in the book, but serves the role of a scene that was? I don't think the line is as fine as you make it. As far as I am concerned PJ's movie in it's entirety is an interpretation of FotR, among other things.
As for genocide, Tolkien mentioned Sarumans and Saurons cruelty in numerous places, talking about thier merciless killing. At Orthanc Theoden mentions to Saruman children who have been slain. We have to accept the fact that Rohan didn't claim war on Orthanc just because it better fit the tale. Saruman was cruel to Rohan beforehand. As such I see PJ fleshing out Sarumans cruelty as an interpretation, and a very understandable one at that. I also understand the fact that genocide is a strong word, and I think PJ misused it.
ReadWryt
08-16-2002, 06:34 PM
in-ter-pret
1: to explain or tell the meaning of; present in understandable terms. 2: to conceive in light of individual belief, judgement, or circumstance; CONSTRUE 3: to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performing.
According to the this definition (From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 8th edition) if Piccasso wanted to take chicken feet and dip them in blue paint and then scrape them across a brown canvas as his interpretation of the layout of America's Roadways it would be valid to refer to this as an "interpretation". In artistic expression, especially performance, there are many samples of broad interpretation including the performance of Shakespear's "Julius Cæsar" performed in Cammoflage and set in Viet Nam. Ergo what Jackson has done can, in it's total, be refered to as his Interpretation of the written work. Try taking up the argument of what is interpretation and what is change with an Abstract Painter and see how far it gets you...:p
On the other hand, for all the cuelty mentioned in Tolkien's works performed by Sauron he never once implied, inferred or mentioned any idea that Sauron wanted ALL OF MANKIND dead. This is purely invention for the purpose of Jackson's Interpretation of the work...
"to represent by means of art..." Great. Now we're playing with definitions. This is always fun. "Julius Caesar" performed in Camoflague set in Viet Nam is not an interpretation. It is a adaptation, a version. A changed version. Adaptation in the artistic sense should refer to translation from one medium to another where there is no direct correlation. A bird flying cannot be shown by a ballet dancer, therefore they may jump and wave their arms as an interpretation. To have the written word say one thing and the spoken word in film say another is a change. Using the phrase "artistic interpretation" is far too loose in this regard.
The reason I bother with quibbling over these words is because when one says "interpretation," the real impression is that there was a vauge idea represented in the book which could've been shown any number of ways on film. The look of Sauron for example, exactly how much hair is on a hobbit's foot for another. It's just not fair to use this same word, interpretation, to aspects that are outright changes. It's like someone is trying to slip one by. "Well, adapting LOTR from page to screen to a lot of interpretation. We had to take descriptions and design how tall Barad-Dur was, how long Saruman's beard was, whether Legolas was blond or dark-haired, how fat Sam was, how wide Gwaihir's wingspan was, whether Sauron wanted men dead or just as thralls, if Arwen was in fact at the Ford." These are not all in the same category. Those last two are changes. They were laid out clearly in the book and PJ changed them. Again, I'm not saying he can't do this, it's his version. Just don't say "I interpret Saruman/Sauron saying they want dominion over men as meaning they want to kill them all." Or "I interpret Frodo defying the Nazgul to mean Arwen was actually giving him a ride and defied them herself." Let's call a change a change and an interpretation an interpretation. If you need a euphemism for 'change,' use 'adaptation.'
lilhobo
08-19-2002, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by PRH
That crosses the line of interpretation. It's a change. We know from the books that genocide was not the intent.
Arwen at the Ford is a change
How Hobbits look in an interpretation
Glamdring not glowing is a change
Galdriel at the mirror is an interpretation
That word 'interpretation' is being thrown around a little too loosely. Let's call a spade a spade.
This is a silly arguement, and i can add to the silliness by asking you people how a hobbit who was so wet behind the ears, was able to ride a warhorse at speed?? PJ has interpreted to mean that Frodo must have had some assistance on the horse. Tolkien did not explain the horseriding lessons Frodo had, so PJ "changed" it to interpret the fact that Frodo would have been too ill to ride alone. Logic ya know ;) just as Harad, where is he anyways)
Glamdring not glowing is a "mistake", they just didnt know about it. They didnt fix the car, the sword and the Argonaths, those were easy changes i would have thought.
An interpretation is an interpretation unless you dont agree with it , then u call it a change. I mean if Picasso used chicken legs to do his paintings, they would still call it art. Unless someone decides its worthless piece of colored earth, and then they call it junk :D
lilhobo
08-19-2002, 02:22 AM
on topic lol :D Saruman and Sauron would have wiped out all men if they stood in his way, so i dont disagree with genocide. Sauron would have certainly wanted to wipe out the elves. I mean Saruman and Sauron have plenty of orcs to dominate. there would be other men in the south to dominate, its all about power and corruption.
PS. uruk hais came out of pods so men can too :D
Originally posted by lilhobo
This is a silly arguement, and i can add to the silliness by asking you people how a hobbit who was so wet behind the ears, was able to ride a warhorse at speed?? PJ has interpreted to mean that Frodo must have had some assistance on the horse. Tolkien did not explain the horseriding lessons Frodo had, so PJ "changed" it to interpret the fact that Frodo would have been too ill to ride alone. Logic ya know ;) just as Harad, where is he anyways)
Glamdring not glowing is a "mistake", they just didnt know about it. They didnt fix the car, the sword and the Argonaths, those were easy changes i would have thought.
An interpretation is an interpretation unless you dont agree with it , then u call it a change. I mean if Picasso used chicken legs to do his paintings, they would still call it art. Unless someone decides its worthless piece of colored earth, and then they call it junk :D
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. I can't quite read your sarcasm exactly but I'll say this about Asfaloth/Frodo -- in the book, Frodo was just hanging on for dear life. Glorfindel had commanded Asfaloth to run, plus the horse was intelligent enough to know that the Nazgul were something to avoid. Frodo did not have to control the horse, just hang on. Harad is long since banned.
Glamdring not glowing is a change. I am absolutely positive they knew it was supposed to glow, but just left it as a normal sword so as not to have to explain it (not a wise change in my book, but a change). Argonaths are not a mistake, just a matter of perspective. How the heck could the arms 'accidentally' switch sides on a scale model? There is no car.
An interpretation is an interpretation and a change is a change.
The whole reason I'm bringing this up is just because I don't like people lumping out and out changes (or 'adaptations') like Arwen @ the Ford in with interpretations like crazy Galadriel @ the mirror.
Originally posted by lilhobo
Saruman and Sauron would have wiped out all men if they stood in his way, so i dont disagree with genocide. Sauron would have certainly wanted to wipe out the elves. I mean Saruman and Sauron have plenty of orcs to dominate. there would be other men in the south to dominate, its all about power and corruption.
Yes, plenty of men in the South (and East). Also, I believe Saruman and Sauron would take captives of men (unlike men of orcs)(Morgoth at least had a history of it, and read the Mouth of Sauron's terms @ the Black Gate - men were to be tributary to Sauron). If there's any genocide motive in LOTR, it's men wanting the genocide of orcs. It's a change!
edit: formatting
Talimon
08-19-2002, 10:20 AM
I agree with what you say, PRH, but let me clarify something. Even if PJ says the exact word "genocide", it doesn't necessarily mean that word will comes across in the movie, or even that idea will be conveyed. He's just elaborating on Saruman and Saurons cruelty, and finding the only logical reason behind it there could really be. Tolkien specifically mentions Saruman killing children in Westfold. Sauron doesn't take prisoners, nor does he spare women and children. While I wouldn't say genocide is thier main motive, neither would I say they were purely diplomatic figures who just wanted to take over Gondor and Rohan and had the best intentions for its people. It's silly to cite the terms of the Mouth of Sauron, since those were obviously fake and utterly worthless, as Gandalf immediately noted. Had the terms theoretically been accepted, I have no doubt Sauron would have gone straight to business torturing and killing the elves. Take into account this wasn't Sauron's first shot at power. He had already been defeated by men and elves. Revenge had to have been somewhere in there.
I think this example has touches of both changes and interpretations mixed in it, to some degree. On the one hand Jackson is interpreting Saruman and Saurons motives to a certain extent, and on the other he is changing/expanding certain parts of the plot to reveal the actions that result due to those motives. At the same time it just so happens that doing this makes Saruman and Sauron more hated by the audience, which in turn puts our heroes closer to us. Tolkien's tale was clearly about good and evil, you can't argue with that. I wouldn't spend too much effort trying to make Saruman or Sauron deeper or more likeable, let alone just. I don't think this change/interpretation hurts the plot in anyway, really, and offers a lot to the movie.
ReadWryt
08-20-2002, 05:14 AM
Saruman and Sauron would have wiped out all men if they stood in his way, so i dont disagree with genocide.
They would have wiped out any Orcs, Hobbits and other creatures that stood in their way, but there were obviously some men who still did business with Sauron...at least in the Middle-earth I read about...does this mean that Sauron and Saruman would, by default, NOT want to wipe out any Men who did NOT stand in their way? Are we forgetting that the Nazgul are men?? Wouldn't Genocide mean wiping the species out altogether, or at least attempting to?
lilhobo
08-20-2002, 06:19 AM
well, lemme see. You put 6 million jewish people in the gas chamber. Others you put in labour camps to do menial jobs for you. Still attempted genocide to me???
Sam_Gamgee
09-01-2002, 11:11 AM
what PJ said was a similarity not a description. if you quote correctly he said its almost like a story of genocide. he didn't say THIS IS THE BIOGRAPHY OF GENOCIDE AND THATS THE ONLY REASON THE ORCS FIGHT MEN. and i see where he draws this (*key word*) similarity.
i also agree with lilhobo
Diamond Took
09-07-2002, 09:05 AM
Well i'm not completley sure of What I think until I see the actual full movie TTT. I can't really decide from just seeing a little trailer from the DVD.
But anyhow I trust that PJ will do as every bit a good job and perhaps even better on TTT as he did with the FOTR, genocide or no.
Thorin
09-07-2002, 04:34 PM
:rolleyes:
Whether Saruman and Sauron wanted to wipe out ME, or attempt to enslave ME, does not mean that LoTR is a "story about genocide". That is a poor and narrow minded summary of Tolkien's epic. Yes, the potential for genocide is in it (though I believe that Saruman wanted to rule over the inhabitants of ME and Sauron wanted to enslave them. Genocide doesn't even come into the picture), however, that is not the moral or thrust of the story, and PJ was wrong to give that impression. I think he's just setting it up to justify all the gore he most so desperately wants to throw in, being a low budget splatter movie director.
It is ultimately an epic of good vs evil and the triumph of good due to the courage and endurance of beings who discover and fulfill their destiny.
Originally posted by Thorin
PJ was wrong to give that impression. I think he's just setting it up to justify all the gore he most so desperately wants to throw in, being a low budget splatter movie director.
Wow, that's a bit strong, but who am I to disagree? I don't know much about him, but some of that impression does come over in his swipe-off-that-head sequences in FOTR!
Diamond Took
09-09-2002, 06:24 AM
Peter Jackson also Directed the movies Heavanly creatures and The frightners. His speciality is making big names from little-known actors and actresses, eg Kate Winslett, Orlando Bloom, ect.
He is from New Zealand, born and bred. hopefully that helps.:)
Ariana Undomiel
09-19-2002, 12:07 AM
PJ had it partially right when he said that it was a story of genocide. Sauron and Sarumon would have easily tried to wipe out the race of men in order to achieve the goals. Obviously they didn't get the chance even though to a certain respect they did try.
~Ariana
Talimon
11-27-2002, 12:05 AM
We've already heard a decent amount of it from the trailer. Aragorn talks about Sarumans armies sole objective being the desctruction of the world of men, and Gandalf hints at this as well. I am just curious how PJ will handle the contradiction of actually having men fight for Isengard. He is having them, so I assume we'll get an explanation.
Mrs. Maggott
11-27-2002, 04:57 PM
My, my, my! Mrs. Maggott has found a new and interesting thread! (much sighing at not being able to spend all day since Thanksgiving dinner preparations must be attended to, but swears to return and participate!)
Just one note here (or maybe two - or three - if conscience permits). The reason Saruman is more interesting, deeper if you will, that Sauron, is that the latter is pure evil while the former still retains enough goodness to be salvageable. Hence, Saruman is himself conflicted (although in Jackson's film he appears to be merely a servant of the Dark Lord who has opportunistic tendencies). But in Saruman, you get strategy and much deeper strategy because (unlike Sauron), he is still "out in the world". Fortress that it is, Orthanc in not Barad Dur and the Wizard's Vale is not Mordor. Saruman plays a dangerous game - and he knows it. At any time, something might happen which will place him in grave danger - whether from the men (he has "forgotten" the Ents) around him or from Mordor itself. Of course, this makes far more interesting reading and watching than Sauron's machinations which take place behind an impenetrable shield.
As for the business of "genocide": one supposes that Mr. Jackson is looking for the ultimate horror. The world has become so apathetic whereas once the idea of universal slavery (the original intent of both Sauron and Saruman) would have been horrific enough, today it might scarcely turn a hair. Perhaps it is Mr. Jackson's intention to make the aims and goals of his villains such that everybody has a stake in their defeat and the audience will, perforce, itself be interested in seeing them defeated.
Unfortunately, however, if this is the means by which he hopes to achieve his goal, it is pointless as a plot device for who would be left to "rule" if all men were destroyed? The Elves are leaving and there really aren't enough of them to make all the effort worthwhile. The Ents are also dwindling and what can you do with a tree anyway except build a fire or a piano? The hobbits are not numerous enough or strong enough or anything else enough to make the conquest of Middle Earth worth the cost of the armor and the dwarves - a race that might be useful to a slave lord, would be difficult to root out of their deep places and once that was done, again, to what purpose would be their bondage except to do what dwarves do - and that is not what Sauron needs.
Furthermore, this particular strategy completely fails to take into account Sauron's own "human" allies, the Easterlings, the Southrons and the Corsairs. Unless he intends as Hitler did - to "depopulate" an area and fill it with his own "men", the strategy is foolish to the point of making the story foolish. I ask you! How long would Mordor be supported by these men if they knew in the end they, too, would be done to death? They would probably immediately throw in their lot with the folk of Gondor even if there wasn't much hope of victory. If one is to be hanged anyway, it is better to be so for a wolf than a sheep and the men of these countries were certainly not cowards!
Finally (heavens! the kitchen needs cleaning NOW!), Sauron did not trust his orcs. "Useful slaves" he calls them. His advisors are all men! Is he going to kill them as well? And who will serve him faithfully when they are gone? Not the orcs! As soon as they see "daylight" (not in the literal sense), they will be long gone! The only way he is able to hold them is by fear. If and when they become his only servants, his hold on Middle Earth will cease, strong as he is. Even Sauron cannot be everywhere - that's why he needs slaves, but more importantly, servants - and for the latter, he especially needs men!
Talimon
11-27-2002, 09:30 PM
Two things worth noting:
1) Saruman and Sauron were notorious for thier treachery and lies. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the vast majority of Easterlings and Dundlings would have been enslaved once the war was won, regardless of previous promises. I think there is even mention of this treachery at the end of Helm's Deep, where they are told that Saruman would have betrayed them.
2) Regardless of what PJ says on the DVD, I don't think the way it comes out on-screen will really be that different. Ultimately, Saruman and Sauron did kill innocent civilans, women and children as well. They didn't have mercy, and only took slaves to support thier war machine. If the point PJ makes on-screen is that Saruman and Sauron are evil and merciless, and hate the men of Rohan and Gondor, I don't see that as a deviation from the book. Let's remember who we are talking about here: these villans did not negotiate or compromise. When they gave the impression that they did it was merely deception.
Athelas
11-29-2002, 02:30 AM
In America, we remember quite well what it was like to have thousands of unarmed civilians attacked and slain without warning. The title of the movie is pure coincidence, but the comparisons will be draw regardless. The orcs are portrayed like the 9/11 terrorists; fanatic, inhuman, bestial, beyond any negotiation or redemption. There will never be any peaceful co-existance with these creatures, ever. America has been roused from her complacency just as Theodon was by Gandalf:
Where now the horse and the rider?
Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring,
and the red fire glowing?
This is a call to arms. I think this movie will stir a lot of patriotic feelings.
Talimon
11-29-2002, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Athelas
In America, we remember quite well what it was like to have thousands of unarmed civilians attacked and slain without warning. The title of the movie is pure coincidence, but the comparisons will be draw regardless. The orcs are portrayed like the 9/11 terrorists; fanatic, inhuman, bestial, beyond any negotiation or redemption. There will never be any peaceful co-existance with these creatures, ever. America has been roused from her complacency just as Theodon was by Gandalf:
Where now the horse and the rider?
Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the hand on the harpstring,
and the red fire glowing?
This is a call to arms. I think this movie will stir a lot of patriotic feelings.
Sorry, but I think this is just hyperbole. TTT has nothing to do with the WTC, and anyone making comparisons is akin those who made comparisons between Tolkien and nuclear war.
Mrs. Maggott
11-29-2002, 04:32 AM
My dear Talimon, that's been done before. Furthermore, just because there is no actual connection between two things, does not mean that there won't be people who will find them regardless. If Athelas can make the argument - whether seriously nor not - rest assured others can - and may as well.
The only thing for which we can be grateful under the circumstances is that no building is leveled and therefore that particular connection at least cannot be made. Nevertheless, historically, people have been able to make connections between things and events that are totally divorced from reality, so never count upon sanity and commonsense to save the day! :rolleyes:
chrome_rocknave
12-05-2002, 03:29 AM
Obviously PJ said "genocide" to relate LOTR to WWII (or at least thats the way I see it). Everyone knows Tolkien was a soldier and everyone tries to find the symbolism in his books. I don't see it that way, although I think his experiences influenced his writing, BUT I think PJ sees it that way...and wants to be melodramatic...
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.