Bad writing in the LOTR movies

[thaddeus6th]

To be honest, I have mixed views about LoTR. Boromir and Gollum are interesting, but most of the characters are thoroughly two-dimensional and uninteresting.

By contrast, I really like the Silmarillion. Be impossible to make it into a film though. Unless you made it a ten-parter

 

[Siberian]

To be honest, I have mixed views about LoTR. Boromir and Gollum are interesting, but most of the characters are thoroughly two-dimensional and uninteresting.

Are you talking about the books or the movies?

By contrast, I really like the Silmarillion. Be impossible to make it into a film though. Unless you made it a ten-parter

I think the cosmogony myths would be hard to show... And maybe Valinor. However, events in Beleriand are quite interesting and epic, but better suited for TV series, than films, I think. Just not enough time.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Regarding two-dimensional nigh-on invincible characters, both films and the book.

I like main characters who end up with arms lopped off and getting killed. Mind you, it is possible to go too far. I shudder to think how A Song of Ice and Fire will end, it's like Midsummer Murders meets LoTR.

 

[Clansman]

Regarding two-dimensional nigh-on invincible characters, both films and the book.

I like main characters who end up with arms lopped off and getting killed. Mind you, it is possible to go too far. I shudder to think how A Song of Ice and Fire will end, it's like Midsummer Murders meets LoTR.

Midsummer Murders meets LOTR? More like The Sopranos meets LOTR! Like an opera, lets just say that it won't end well...

 

[Ursa major]

The one thing we (think we**) know about ASoIaF is that it is not set in midsummer. (Or Midsomer, for that matter.) The two things we know about the Spanish Inquisition....

*cough*



Back on topic, I have a terrible admission to make. I have never even opened LOTR, although one day I will. I have seen the Jackson films (as shown in the cinema) and did listen to the 1981 BBC radio adaptation - which was fine, but I could have done without the singing (I hope I've not confused it with something else, here) - and even Bakshi's animated version from 1978.


Perhaps it is because I haven't had my mental image (or Tolkien's prose) destroyed in front of my eyes, but I can't get worked up about the bad things in Jackson's films. All adaptations differ from the original. A film that used the dialogue word for word from a book would only rarely work: the difference in medium leads the recipient to expect a different treatment and a different pace. When I watch a film "adaptation" - even one where only the title and a few generalisations have been copied across, as in I, Robot, for example - I don't really worry about it.

I ought to point out here that I am a great fan of piano transcriptions of orchestral works: not because I think they are better - how could they be, with such a limited sound pallette? - but they do reveal different aspects of the genius within the original work. That is all a good film adaptation can do: focus on what is good in cinematic terms. If you want the prose and the wonderful dialogue, the books are there for you - and for others introduced to the books through the films.

Remakes of earlier films, however, are a different matter. Where the original (or what we believe is the original) is a classic, I can't see what the new film is adding on an artistic level. The special effects ought to be "better" and it may make a lot of money for its makers; but it will only rarely bring the classic original film new fans. Worse, it will probably eclipse it for all but a few knowledgable people.




** - With GRRM, the reader cannot be certain of anything.

 

[Siberian]

Nobody wants a "word for word" adaptation. That's what books are for

However, it's not an excuse for cheesy lines and altered characters and actions that make no sense. Consider my example about "orc hunting". Did I expect to hear the exact line as it's written in the book? No. But could it have been at least not in the cheesy B-movie style? Absolutely. I think that even a student in the screenwriting class could have done better. It's a shame that professional writers couldn't.

 

[Boaz]

Ursa...

The Inquistion, let's begin
The Inquistion, look out sin
We have a mission to convert the Jews (Jew ja Jew ja Jew ja Jews)
We're gonna teach them wrong from right
We're gonna help them see the light
And make an offer that they can't refuse (that the Jews just can't refuse)

So... aside from my snobbish comments (something about the unwashed and illiterate masses) you are the target audience for the films. You've heard something, but were really uninformed as to the characters and their motivations. Thus for you, the films are The Lord of the Rings. And you enjoyed them... that's great. I'm just saying that the movies were not made for die hard, freakishly devoted fanatics like me.

Again... if I'd never read Tolkien, then I'd confess the films to be among the best I've ever seen.

thaddeus, congratulations on finishing The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. I was also intrigued by characters like Maedhros.

Because the stories of The Silmarillion are not as detailed as the rest of Tolkien's big works, I think it could be made into many movies. The stories could be fleshed out. The style could be brought down from a bardic style to a personal story... like The 13th Warrior. I don't think I'd feel as bad for a change in style or presentation from the written form to the screen as I did with The Lord of the Rings.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Hmm.. some good points , well put. The screen version has some limitations,but overall wasn't bad. I don't think a Hollywood blockbuster could culminate with the Scouring after the defeat of Sauron- but then again , I don't think it's half as important in the movie as it is in the novels.

The changes to the storyline were (imho) done to make it easier for an audience to understand what is going on without having to read the novels ; although the dialogue has been heavily editted , it allows the audience to associate and understand the characters for the same reasons - the same goes for the simplification of the dialogue.

The way I look at it is this - the movies create a living,breathing Middle Earth for our thoughts to inhabit. The choice of locations and special effects are excellent, in particular Helms Deep and Moria, and are as good as I could possibly have wished for - and re-reading of he novels with visions of these big-screen locations etched on my mind enhances the enjoyment.

I feel one just has to accept that the alteration (in some cases assassination!) of some of the characters and the simplification of much the script was neccessary to allow a movie to be produced in the first place; I did feel that the depiction of Sauron as a sort of lighthouse beam was rather good , and Merry and Pippin 's antics were perhas BETTER portrayed by Jackson than they were by Tolkein himself, but I was quite unhappy with the complete change of storyline with Faramir (totally unneccesary) and sad (but not surprised) with the omission of the Scouring.

 

[chopper]

i have to say at this point that i enjoyed both the films and the books. the films are, in parts, needlessly cheesy. but then so are the books. i love how language is used in the books to make the non-hobbit parts more declamatory and historical, making Frodo's journey more intensely personal. at the same time i love the epic scope of the films, and i burst into tears every time the beacons are lit - something the books will never do for me.
ursa's point that the two mediums (media??) are completely different is exactly the point i would have made myself. making the film with Tolkien's dialogue represented word for word would have resulted in some of the most stilted, archaic dialogue known to mankind. it would have been offputtingly boring and po-faced, and would quite possibly have been unintentionally hilarious.
yep, it's unfortunate that modern popular culture (surfboarding elves) had to creep in, but popular culture does that. remember that had the films been made 30 years ago, they would have all worn bad flares and the camera effects would have been psyche-hippy-delic. hey nonny nonny.

 

[Urien]

Chopper,

You mean like this... you'll never look at Spock the same way again.

YouTube - The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins

 

[paranoid marvin]

i have to say at this point that i enjoyed both the films and the books. the films are, in parts, needlessly cheesy. but then so are the books. i love how language is used in the books to make the non-hobbit parts more declamatory and historical, making Frodo's journey more intensely personal. at the same time i love the epic scope of the films, and i burst into tears every time the beacons are lit - something the books will never do for me.
ursa's point that the two mediums (media??) are completely different is exactly the point i would have made myself. making the film with Tolkien's dialogue represented word for word would have resulted in some of the most stilted, archaic dialogue known to mankind. it would have been offputtingly boring and po-faced, and would quite possibly have been unintentionally hilarious.
yep, it's unfortunate that modern popular culture (surfboarding elves) had to creep in, but popular culture does that. remember that had the films been made 30 years ago, they would have all worn bad flares and the camera effects would have been psyche-hippy-delic. hey nonny nonny.

Personally I have no issue with Legolas 'shield-surfing' - although notspecifically mentioned in the book , he is meant to be 'different' and 'other-worldly' in many respects , so it isnt out of character. If it had been any of the other heroes - yes , but Legolas - no.

 

[Ursa major]

The Inquistion....

*collapses into a comfy chair*

Not quite the Spanish Inquisition to which I was referring....

So... aside from my snobbish comments (something about the unwashed and illiterate masses) you are the target audience for the films.

No offence taken. (After all, here in the UK, we know how to do snobbishness properly. )

I doubt I'm in the target audience: even when the first film came out, I'd have been almost three times the target audience's age. I watched the films at the cinema because I believed that they would be more than a cut above the usual fantasy film fayre; and they were: truly epic in all the usual senses of that word; but I did not go into the cinema expecting them to match the books (in either sense). To put it bluntly, I do not expect that more than a handful of films can capture the poetry of a really good book, if only because the book's poetry is aimed at a reader and the temporal effects are very different: what is beautiful on the page (or pages) can drag - or, as chooper said, be risible - on the screen, unless it's done really well**. I think Theatre is better at this than film: the situation is not as "realistic" and the mind - my mind, at least - will accept stretching of time in a way that films find difficult to put across.

You've heard something, but were really uninformed as to the characters and their motivations. Thus for you, the films are The Lord of the Rings. And you enjoyed them... that's great. I'm just saying that the movies were not made for die hard, freakishly devoted fanatics like me.

Again... if I'd never read Tolkien, then I'd confess the films to be among the best I've ever seen.

Having heard the radio series, I had a pretty good idea what to expect (but luckily, there was a lot less singing ). But even if i'd come to the films with no pre-knowledge, I would've known that it was going to be a reimagining of the story, at a pace set by the director (and not, obviously, a reader).


But I'll say it again: different media bring out different aspects of a work. So when I hear Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique played by an orchestra it is wonderful; but so is, in its own way, the same piece played by a pianist on a concert grand. (If anything, the piano version highlights just how strange - in a good way - Berlioz's imagination really was, something often hidden behind the glittering orchestral effects.) So it is with films and books.




** - Which it most often isn't.

 

[The Procrastinator]

I take this to mean, Large Bear, that because you had not read the books, none of the scriptwriting struck you as "bad"?

 

[Siberian]

The thing is, the worst lines are bad without comparing them to books (this only makes them worse). So the difference from the books is not an excuse.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, I think I am a pretty die-hard fan of the books, which I have loved for more than forty years and have reread numerous times. But while I am well aware of the movie version's shortcomings, I still loved the films. I'm usually very picky when it comes to movies based on my favorite books (don't get me going on the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice), but this time, for some reason, I was willing to forgive a lot.

I've probably said this somewhere around these forums before (I know that I've said it elsewhere): When I saw the Bakshi animated version I left the theater feeling absolutely nothing, it was so flat and dull and uninspiring. After I saw FOTR for the first time, I didn't know what I felt, but there was no doubt in my mind that I felt something. I was on the edge of my seat for the whole movie.

Just because of the changes I wasn't always sure that I knew what was coming next -- which, for instance, made the Nazgûl a lot more terrifying. They might catch Frodo before he left the Shire! Of course I would have been outraged later if they actually had, but while I was watching the movie I was in genuine terror that they would. When Frodo came home from the tavern and it was clear that somebody had been in his house, I never even thought of Gandalf. I was convinced that a Ringwraith would jump out at him. The same thing happened when Gandalf heard something outside the window -- and really, that time I should have known it was Sam -- again I held my breath, because I expected something horrible out of Mordor to burst in through the door the next minute.

So with one thing and another, I knew that whatever it was I had felt, I had felt it very strongly. And I already knew that I much preferred that to the drabness of the animated version.

Of course after subsequent viewings there was no longer that suspense. Yet still to this day, every time I see Boromir start swinging his sword again during his last battle, part of me believes that he can somehow hold out and keep on fighting until Aragorn gets there to save Merry and Pippin.

So even though there were many disappointments, I am still grateful that I was able to see the Shire more beautiful than I had ever imagined it, and quail before the Nazgûl as I never did when reading the books, and experience so many other moments that I never would have experienced without the movies.

And perhaps I am overly optimistic (particularly at my age and in my state of health) but I am not at all convinced that there will never be another version during my lifetime. Quite the contrary. They've given the lie to the idea that the story was unfilmable. Remakes of successful movies are not that uncommon. And the special effects get cheaper and cheaper.

I've seen so many versions of some of the classics, and some of those only a few years apart. I see no reason at all why there shouldn't be another LOTR, possibly as a BBC mini-series. I would have said fifteen years or so between the Jackson movies and a mini-series (twenty for a movie), if it hadn't been for the Hobbit movies screwing up that time-frame.

 

[Boaz]

No offence taken. (After all, here in the UK, we know how to do snobbishness properly. )

Aha! But as an American I reserve the right to just label people with little or no information.

Having heard the radio series, I had a pretty good idea what to expect (but luckily, there was a lot less singing ).

Well, maybe they should have hired Mel Brooks...

He rode a blazing saddle,
He wore a shining star,
He came to offer battle,
To Goblins near and far.

He shot down Eowyn and he hacked up Orcs,
He rode the Paths of the Dead,
Then he let old Gandalf,
Put the crown upon his head.

Ursa, you're right. Different mediums bring out different aspects... but that does not mean that I want them to... I'd rather stick to my tunnel vision.

Teresa, I'm glad you're optimistic... I need more optimism.

 

[chopper]

Chopper,

You mean like this... you'll never look at Spock the same way again.

YouTube - The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins

exactly that. a perennial bestseller from the easy listening section, by the way.....

 

[Dozmonic]

Having heard the radio series, I had a pretty good idea what to expect (but luckily, there was a lot less singing )

The singing made the bbc radio play so special though! Radio-Treebeard would kick Film-Treebeard's arse all over the shop. "To Isengaaaard we coooome, with dooooooooom, we coooooome" ;-)

 

[Siberian]

Well, I think I am a pretty die-hard fan of the books, which I have loved for more than forty years and have reread numerous times. But while I am well aware of the movie version's shortcomings, I still loved the films. I'm usually very picky when it comes to movies based on my favorite books (don't get me going on the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice),

I heard the director didn't even read the book prior to filming. Well, it shows
Now the BBC Colin Firth version is a true classic that's unlikely to be surpassed any time soon

but this time, for some reason, I was willing to forgive a lot.

So was I with FOTR. Yes, there were some flaws and deviations but I was able to overlook them because on the whole, they stayed fairly close to the books and made a very enjoyable movie. However, with TTT and ROTK my patience ran out.

Just because of the changes I wasn't always sure that I knew what was coming next -- which, for instance, made the Nazgûl a lot more terrifying. They might catch Frodo before he left the Shire! Of course I would have been outraged later if they actually had, but while I was watching the movie I was in genuine terror that they would. When Frodo came home from the tavern and it was clear that somebody had been in his house, I never even thought of Gandalf. I was convinced that a Ringwraith would jump out at him. The same thing happened when Gandalf heard something outside the window -- and really, that time I should have known it was Sam -- again I held my breath, because I expected something horrible out of Mordor to burst in through the door the next minute.

I didn't mind any changes to up the suspence or for other cinematic purposes. Even if they didn't work for me, I could live with them. I was more far more concerned with unnecessary plot alterations and character assassinations.

Of course after subsequent viewings there was no longer that suspense. Yet still to this day, every time I see Boromir start swinging his sword again during his last battle, part of me believes that he can somehow hold out and keep on fighting until Aragorn gets there to save Merry and Pippin.

The kudos must go to Sean Bean. He is a good actor and has a screen presence (more than Viggo). He managed to play Boromir as conflicted rather than inconsistent and made him likable enough that we felt sorry for his fall.

So even though there were many disappointments, I am still grateful that I was able to see the Shire more beautiful than I had ever imagined it, and quail before the Nazgûl as I never did when reading the books, and experience so many other moments that I never would have experienced without the movies.

I noticed that all your examples from FOTR, the most faithful to the books. Did you feel the same way about the other two? Any particular likes or dislikes?

And perhaps I am overly optimistic (particularly at my age and in my state of health) but I am not at all convinced that there will never be another version during my lifetime. Quite the contrary. They've given the lie to the idea that the story was unfilmable. Remakes of successful movies are not that uncommon. And the special effects get cheaper and cheaper.

I've seen so many versions of some of the classics, and some of those only a few years apart. I see no reason at all why there shouldn't be another LOTR, possibly as a BBC mini-series. I would have said fifteen years or so between the Jackson movies and a mini-series (twenty for a movie), if it hadn't been for the Hobbit movies screwing up that time-frame.

I'd love to see a 30-hour miniseries one day. I think TV is better suited to LOTR's leisurely pace and nuanced characterization. Shows like Rome prove that it's possible to have big budget historical dramas with some quality acting. Not sure how they're going to handle all the poetry though

 

[Boaz]

Siberian, I second your post.