Tolkien purity rating and the bloody LoTR movie

I scored a 66% percent. I am a huge fan of the books. One of the biggest that there is. However, I think I can justify my 66%.

Having read Dune and seen both attempts at turning it into a movie, I can appreciate that there are real difficulties from translating novel to film. At the start, I was prepared to bend ... to a point.

Some things I could understand and overlook ...
(which is where I lost my 34%)

Leaving out Tom Bombadil. Hey, Jackson's only got three hours to work with and inserting Bombadil can turn into a distraction even for the hardcore fans watching the movie.

Rearranging some sequences so that it flows better in a movie. For example, Aragorn agonizing to which path to take after Boromir's funeral would have been hard to pull off for a movie audience. So I didn't mind the "goodbye and run Frodo" sequence before he engages the Urukai.

Adding action that actually wasn't in the book. In an age where we're bombarded with Matrix and Terminator movies, what are we to expect? I actually enjoyed the Gandalf vs. Saruman match.

Some things that vex, irritate, and boil me to no end.

I can appreciate reworking sequences and what not for the sake of the movie, so long as it is faithful to the characters and to the books. What you do not do is butcher, slice and dice, and lamely put characters back together so that they end up nothing like they are in the books.

I'll start with Arwen. First of all, Arwen is a gentle and noble woman perfectly reminiscent of Luthien of ages past. She's the kind of lady around whom doves would gather and what not. You do not turn her into a medieval Wonder Woman. If that means bringing in Glorfindel, so be it. It gets even worse in Two Towers, a waste of time on something not in the story better spent on something in the story.

Then there's Elrond. Yuk!!! Elrond did not disapprove of Aragorn's bond to Arwen. He, despite great sadness to himself, gave it his blessing on condition of Aragorn becoming the King of unified Arnor and Gondor. Nor is he as irritable and condescending upon mankind as the movies makes him.

If anything would make the great and venerable J.R.R. Tolkien roll in his grave, it is the butchering of Faramir's character. Words can't describe the outrage I feel over this. And the useless sidetrip to Osgiliath? Don't get me started. I wonder if Christopher Tolkien has said anything about it?

Then there's Frodo. He doesn't even show hints of succumbing to the Ring until the 3rd book. The reader, and the audience I may add, has to believe that he has the spiritual strength to resist the Ring.

Borderline ...

The Ents having to be manipulated into attacking Isengard. Granted, the material in Two Towers is very hard to work with, so usually I can convince myself to overlook it.

The absence of the Huorns from Helm's Deep. Same thing, though their presence would have made the end of the battle more realistic within the movie. I mean, can't you still visualize how bloody huge that army was on its way to Helm's Deep?

Gandalf vs. Saruman being put off until the 3rd movie.

Ah well. I'm crossing my fingers that Return of the King will inspire the same enjoyment I had from Fellowship of the Ring. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of scenes that stir the most powerful of emotions within me. Gandalf vs. the Balrog, Frodo's single tear for Gandalf, Boromir's temptation and martyrdom, Theoden's grief over Theodred, and Gandalf's glorious return. But, Two Towers to my mind went too far at some points.

 

Christopher Tolkien was outraged with the movies, as far as I know. (Though I imagine the millions he got from the profits have calmed him down somewhat.) But that's not really surprising, I'm sure Tolkien would be too. Not because they were bad movies, or even because they didn't keep the Tolkien spirit - they do - but because they weren't reproduced word by word from the book. However, LoTR is almost a century old work, and modelled by epic sagas of old where women usually don't have leading (or at least visible) roles, which would be highly unusual for a movie today. So you can be sure Jackson did it for a reason. While I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it being as it was in the book, critics would, and so would most of the female audience, quite likely labelling the movie as sexist. Yes, I know it's ridiculous, but that's how it works today.

So I really don't mind Jackson's changing of many details to keep the majority happy. I'm enjoying the movies separately from the books, which is how they should be enjoyed. Because as soon as you start looking for differences, you will find them aplenty, of course. But why get worked up because of this? You know you can't change it now anyway. At worst, the movies will make many more people who haven't yet read the books do it now. And Tolkien's work certainly doesn't suffer any damage because of good movies based on LoTR, even if they don't stick to the books word for word. In the end, everyone profits. Literally and figuratively.

[ January 21, 2003, 13:55: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Well, like I said, I wasn't expecting word for word ...

I already indicated where I could accept bending and twisting. So long as the characters and the spirit of the story are kept in tact.

There are however lines that shouldn't be crossed. For example, turning the gentle and noble Faramir into (get this) a less noble version of Boromir (though I liked his character too).

Maybe not all ladies will think Galadriel's presence was sufficient, but I did, as did my mother. She was previously a LOTR basher, and converted by the first movie. Galadriel's temptation and bestowing of gifts are two of the most memorable scenes for her.

Ah well, ... It will nonetheless take me a while to get over it. In the meantime, I'm holding my breath for Return of the King.

[ January 21, 2003, 15:45: Message edited by: Beren ]