Jackson Really Destroys The Book

[Quick Beam]

"The director readily admits that of his three films, Two Towers departs most from Tolkien's work. "We were aware that we were making films for the hard-core Tolkien fan base as well as everyone else," says Jackson, who co-wrote the script with Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh. "In the beginning, it was a difficult tightrope to walk, but then we sort of abandoned thinking about it. If we make a good film, we'll be forgiven, whatever the crimes we commit to the book." Arwen, the beautiful elf played by Liv Tyler, doesn't appear in the book. But in the film, Jackson has love scenes between her and Aragorn—a romance based on an appendix that Tolkien later wrote about their doomed relationship."

I have NO problem with this. This is his interpretation and we are lucky to get something at all! hey, it is better then the cartoons!

[Quick Beam]

acutally, i dont get what u mean!! anyway, his movies are awesome, no movie stays true true true to the book, so dont fret! once again, just a tad bit better thent eh cartoons! not my sarcasm. the cartoons worth one dollar, if that, the movie is 4000293u029342 billion dollars. that is the prospective.

[Arvedui]

I think Nòm is trying to point out that the book is still there, the way Tolkien wrote it. No-one can change the book, or destroy it. At least, they would have a hard time trying to get to all the copies.:)

[Leto]

I'd still like to see the true Lord of the Rings presented on screen somehow. A silly dream...for it would surely be far longer and more costly than anyone could manage, and few people would watch the whole thing. :) I like the movie Mr Jackson has made...but it does not satisfy.

[Eliot]

I think LOTR might have been better if it was a TV series. Maybe FOTR one year, TTT the next year, and then ROTK the last. Though it might be a lot more expensive, I think the director could pack in more in each episode. It could have been on TV about once a week. I don't think that would have been too bad. I bet it would be the most popular show :D

[Ancalagon]

I am always satisfied to know that Tolkien will be around in memory much, much longer than Peter Jackson and his comedy script team.

[Talimon]

I am always satisfied to know that Tolkien will be around in memory much, much longer than Peter Jackson and his comedy script team.

We'll see. :) PJ's trilogy just reeks of longetivity. I believe it will be around at least as long as the Star Wars movies have (20+ years). Had the new SW movies not been made, I think the SW legacy would have been secured in the anals of film history forever. As it is, I think the reputation has been seriously hurt. But I firmly believe PJ's movies have won a place in film-history, for the simple reason that they are the first real fantasy movies ever made. That is to say, movies with real vision and commitment behind them. On top of that FotR has made so much money that now studios are sure to invest more in fantasy. I see this as something that will be remembered.

[Ancalagon]

I bet you a bucket of popcorn and a large Diet Coke, that the name Peter Jackson will not be remembered (or even held in any esteem) anywhere near as long as the name of Tolkien;)

[Talimon]

I bet you a bucket of popcorn and a large Diet Coke, that the name Peter Jackson will not be remembered (or even held in any esteem) anywhere near as long as the name of Tolkien

Longetivity isn't necessarily a sign of quality. I'm a big fan of Mickey Mouse besides the point, but would you say he's of higher quality then Tolkein? He's been around longer, and more people still know him.

All I'm saying is that for a film, I believe PJ's movies will be remembered for much longer then any other movies coming out at this time.

[Khamul]

Arwen does appear in Return of the King, so it's not like PJ suddenly decided to create a character out of the blue.

[Calimehtar]

She actually DOES appear in FOTR too... though not the way the movie says. She is just a few sentences long in FOTR. It says that she is Elronds daughter and something about people think she is Luthien or one of those people made again. Sorry, not good with the Elven names, get them mixed up. (Though I didnt get Arwens mixed up w/ someone elses.)

[Niniel]

I saw a book today that was about TTT. It had about 25 pages with large photographs (really nice BTW, lots of things I hadn't seen earlier). Arwen was on ony 1 of the pages, so her part in the film can't be that important. So it doesn't really bother me. What did bother me was that only 4 pages in the book were about Frodo and Sam and the other 15 about the war (Helm's Deep etc.). I really hope PJ won't spend three quarters of the film showing battle scenes, for if he does, he really hasn't understood anything of the book.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Starting tonight, Steven Spielburg is presenting a 20 HOUR television miniseries, "Taken" which deals with alien abduction and supposedly covers all of the various "abductions" that have actually been reported over the years.

Excuse me, but if Mr. Spielburg can give us 20 hours of alien/human contact - which I am assured from the previews do contain "action" sequences, I don't know why something similar cannot be done with LOTR. After all, we have already had a miniseries on the books comprising The Chronicles of Narnia which were quite true to their literary roots in spite of being rather low budget by the looks of them. Of course, they did not have big battle scenes, but in fact, LOTR is far more than the few battle scenes interspersed within it (something that Mr. Jackson seems to have somewhat forgotten given the thrust of his interpretation).

Doubtless, Mr. Jackson's films will "live" a long time because they are excellent cinema. But in a way, that's too bad because in this "visual" culture where many are too lazy or too unlearned to read the original books, Tolkien may be remembered a la Peter Jackson - and that would indeed be a tragedy! :(

[warrior of ice]

im not sure if its correct
but i think spilbuerg also did with tom hanks
band of brothers which was a ten chapter movie

i think it would be wonderfull to see LOTR one hour a week
i think kt could include much more things from older ages such as the battles of beleriand and some scenes from valinor

[Leto]

Mrs.M...you're asbsolutely right. I just wonder where the money comes from to make such a series. Maybe Mr. Spielberg has made enough of his own money, and has such a name for himself, that he can do just about whatever he wants in the film and media industry. Though I think that 20 hours of the special effects necessary to make LOTR look good in live action would be pretty expensive. There would have to be a commercial break every five minutes, so the whole thing would end up being 40 hours, on TV. *lol* I think an animated series could do it justice, if it were well done. The scenery and world would be pretty exact to Tolkien's description, along with all the characters and creatures...with the aid of computers and refined techniques, animation has much greater potential than it did in Bakshi's day...*lol*

I have been reading the Silmarillion again, and forming a picture in my mind of great animation to go along with it...if I had any talent in drawing, painting, or music, I would start work on it right away *lol* I hereby declare that my dream is to bring the world of Tolkien to life in sound and image, true to the vision as I understand it, as has been declared in his letters and forewards, and most of all as literal to his written word as possible. I will strive to gather to me people with ability in art, music, etc, who are willing to work for such a cause, (as well as someone who know about the multimedia business and financing :) )...and to make this happen, somehow, someway. Even if I never get farther than the Ainulindale. Unless someone else does this before I do, which I would have no problem with...I will not let the idea rest. (though it may be a long time before I am able to really actively pursue such a dream...due to money, time, and boring 'real world' considerations) :)

Who's with me?! Anyone that has anything to offer such a project, step forward! To me Eorlingas!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Heavens! There have been so many advances in animation. In Disney's Dinosaur, you had animated characters imposed upon real backgrounds. Toy Story I & II were entirely computer generated. And there have been a host of others, one of the best being Ice Age which created life-like fur via computer animation, something previous efforts had not mastered. Now with the new "Treasure Planet", it seems that the technique is almost so good that a computer generated LOTR is not all the out of the question.

If Jackson's films don't discourage interested parties who might consider that "it's been done", perhaps we may yet get a Tolkien LOTR sometime in the not too distant future. :p

[Quick Beam]

DONT WORRY, TOKIEN IS ALREADY A LEGEND WITHOUT THE MOVIES!! The only thing that the movie is bringring around is the teenage viewers!! AND THEY ARE NOW READING THE BOOKS! I've been a teen for about 4 years, yes im 16, and LOVED tolkien before i even knew of the movies, but now, EVEYRONE is reading the books. This is a good thing!! We even have a lotr club, which is awesome, we learn how to speak elvish!!!! Anyway, teens are reading books, nothing evil can come from that.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Indeed, many good things will doubtless arise from Mr. Jackson's efforts for which we should all be thankful. However, that does not make his efforts any "better" with regard to his bringing the meaning and values of the tale to the screen. No one debates that it is an interesting and exciting film - eventually films - for which everyone is waiting much as they did for the original Star Wars trilogy. But that does not change the fact that they are not seeing J. R. R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings".

Now, if they are reading the book, then they are getting the correct version of the tale. However, one must wonder how many "action-oriented" teenagers are going to be disappointed to discover that Tolkien's work is not an "action-adventure", Dungeons and Dragons, sword & sorcery work filled with comic book heroes, but a deep and serious myth on the virtues of loyalty, courage and selflessness as well as the evils of betrayal, cowardice and greed.

[Leto]

Mrs. M...indeed. That's why it makes me sad...to hear people talking about LOTR who have only seen the movie...and they really don't get it at all. I guess the same people wouldn't 'get' the books either, if they were to read them...(if they know how to read). Short attention spans, lack of active imagination *sigh* It's great that the movies are encouraging new readers. But that has nothing to do with why I want to see a 'true' representation of Tolkien, visually and in sound. The Lord of the Rings needs no movie or anything else to speak for its greatness...in fact I am sometimes amazed at people who have never read it or even heard of it *lol* I grew up on these stories, been reading them since I was old enough to read...and before that the Hobbit was read to me, by my father. I want to see it because of how the beauty of the work has touched me, and how my understanding of it has grown over years of being immersed in it. It is only there in tiny bits and pieces in the movie I have seen, which is unsatisfactory. It's personal to me, and I guess I can't expect anyone else to be able to satisfy my desire to hear and see this. A little like Feanor, maybe *lol*...though I have no great talent or gift for such craft...but I would, for my own pure pleasure in creation, take the light that is Tolkien and preserve it in another form. Luckily for us, the light of Tolkien's writing will not be extinguished, not while people still know how to read...so I would never need end up in Feanor's predicament...*lol*

[Mrs. Maggott]

My Dear Leto:

Do not despair. Many years ago (on live television!) I saw a very funny play about a true incident that happened in the Brooklyn Museum of Art just before they opened their new Egyptian Wing. The Curator had found a mummy in amongst the artifacts that was simply nothing at all and he wished to burn it because it took up space that could be better used for other more historically important objects. However, somehow or another, a nun at the museum asked when the mummy died. When she was told that it had died "A.D.", she firmly asserted that as Christ had redeemed all men by that time, the body could not be burned. Now that was a time when people cared about Judeo-Christian sensibilities and the Curator and his assistant decided that they could not burn what was now a person, rather than "just" a mummy.

Most of the rest of the show concerned the lamentable (and extremely funny) efforts of these gentlemen to get rid of this mummy! First, they went to a funeral home to arrange for its burial - but were told that they needed the certificate of death from the attending physician! Then they tried to give it away to a museum in some rural area, but found that by law they could not ship a body across state lines! Meanwhile, the press found out about the whole thing and it was written up all over the place. When at last the new wing opened, quite a large number of ordinarily disinterested folks made the trip to "see the mummy" that had been in all the papers. The poor Curator was most distressed that his wonderful exhibit had been made into nothing more than a side show for the "masses" - something he certainly did not want to happen.

Then, at the climax of the story, the Curator comes upon a leather jacketed, pompador haired teenager a la John Travolta in Grease who is wandering about looking for the mummy but instead has come to stand before a display of a small but infinitely lovely statue of a scribe carved in onyx. The boy is transfixed by the beauty of the piece and asks the Curator if a "rich guy" made it. The Curator, rather taken by the youth's fascination with the piece, tells him that, no, it was probably carved by a slave. "Well," the boy replies with a shrug, "it sure is nice!" and with that, he walks away, far richer for his experience than perhaps he will ever know. The Curator, too, realizes that such beauty is not just for the knowledgeable, but for everyone - and that the bothersome mummy that the museum "could not lose" had brought into the exhibit people who would never have otherwise come - to his and their delight and enrichment.

So, do not despair. Out of such trials often come great things! ;)

[Radagast]

To be quite honost

I know everyone is all excited to see certain visions that they have from the books come to life, but I really can't go along with the crowd. This weekend I watched the DVD of FOTR (the first time since seeing the film a year ago) and I couldn't get over really what a piece of **** it was as a film. It was edited horribly, and was really poorly acted by half of the cast ( meaning the other half was okay). It really played like Zena meets Monty Python. Jackson really failed in every attempt where he deviates from the story, but at the same time treats the audience like children by having a character explain what just happen or what is going to happen in nearly every scene. It's really exhausting to constantly list how each of his changes flounders, there are just too many.

He scored himself the greatest location for the films, great costumes, and make-up along with wonderful special effects, has an epic in his hands and he still manages to destroy the works of Tolkien. So much so that he himself calls his own deviations "crimes" against the books.
Yes many people will flock to the film to see the excitement, and claim it was the best thing they ever saw. But many of those people also like "pull my finger" jokes.

Am I harsh? Yes. But Jackson deserves it. He made a lot of money for himself and the studios which is his job, no problem with people making money. He just prostituted a great work of literary art to do it. That's the shame of it.

Cheers! Life goes on

[chrome_rocknave]

Xena meets Monty Python!! LOL :D Don't knock Monty though hehe

[Radagast]

I would never dis Monty Python,

But in a way perhaps I did indirectly by even mentioning their genius in the same breath that I mentioned pj's film.
I won't do that again :-)

Cheers!

[Mrs. Maggott]

But Monte Python wanted to be funny!

[Arvedui]

Am I harsh? Yes. But Jackson deserves it. He made a lot of money for himself and the studios which is his job, no problem with people making money. He just prostituted a great work of literary art to do it. That's the shame of it.
But he did NOT!!! destroy the book. I just checked, and it is still there. Not a line is changed.
Watch the movie. Doesn't even say JRR Tolkien in the title, does it?
The book is still there for us to enjoy and discuss.

[Radagast]

You are correct.

He did not destroy the book, he destroyed Tolkien's story in his "adaptation of the book.

[Arvedui]

And on that, we totally agree. Wasn't quite what we hoped it would be. But, IMO it could probably have been worse. The name Bakshi springs to mind.

[Eliot]

I mean no offense, but if you guys want to talk about making the Sil into a movie, start another thread. Let's get back onto the subject. Thanks :D

[Aragon'sGirl24]

Whats wrong with it? first of all no movie adaptions of any novel is ever faithful, so quit complaining!

[Arvedui]

Well, if you open another thread to follow your idea, please let me now. Your visions are awesome, quite close to what I have imagined.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Nóm
A good way to get a thread back on topic is to post something on topic.

I already posted on this subject (I think), and I think that Jackson CAN'T destroy the book unless he burned all of them. So, that's my opinion.

[Leto]

yes, the movie cannot 'destroy' the book. But it can be, and is, an unfaithful adaptation that is missing a lot of the things which many of us here Love from the books. It's a good movie and I like it...but it could have been a lot better. (it could have been faithful to the books in more areas)