|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jazmine
Tol Eressea
May 22 2008, 9:41pm
Post #26 of 81
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
And the choice not to have Samwise carry the ring (and consequently not travel across the sea) not to mention the changing to the ending is heartbreaking.
I don't understand? Samwise did carry the Ring, in both the movie and the book? And, they didn't show him travel over the sea because it didn't happen til much much later, when he was old. That's not mentioned in the text of RoTK, its told in the Appendices. The ending wasn't that different. Sure, they cut out the Scouring of the Shire, but, considering the length of the movie by this point, they had no choice. Plus, from a movie script perspective, having another climax after the main climax of the whole trilogy would have been ridiculous. For those viewers who have only watched the movies, well, you've just got them to sit through 3 separate movies, more than 3 hours of RoTK, satisfy them with a nailbiting finish and the destruction of the Ring... well the last thing they're going to want is another skirmish back home. So I can see why they cut it out.
*Jazminatar the Brown*
|
|
|
Changeitminimally
Registered User
May 23 2008, 1:10am
Post #27 of 81
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
Samwise did carry the Ring, in both the movie and the book? and Plus, from a movie script perspective, having another climax after the main climax of the whole trilogy would have been ridiculous.
Samwise does not put on the ring in the movie as he does in the book, thus he does not go across the sea in the film. That is the difference I'm referring to.
As for removing the Scouring of the Shire, the argument that these films would be too long doesn't quite work... they could have added it to the extended versions.
Tolkein didn't write the scouring because he felt like throwing in a "second climax" as you refer to it. The Scouring of the Shire is a culmination of themes found throughout his entire work. The script writers decision to eliminate the Scouring from the movie shows a lack of respect for the audience. Sure, some people would not understand why, after the huge battle at the gates of Mordor and the destruction of Sauron and his armies, that they have to sit through the hobbits returning to find their home threatened. But for the people that don't understand it, it might make them think, and for the rest of us, it reveals the depth and beauty of Tolkein's writing; that this novel is more than just a fantasy, but is making statements on challenges faced by society.
I'm not being a purist here; I can't quote lines or remember every character's name, I just feel that the Scouring was an integral part of the book and should not have been stricken from the movie.
|
|
|
merklynn
Lorien
May 23 2008, 1:49am
Post #28 of 81
(657 views)
Shortcut
|
First off, I'm someone who does not mind the subtleties in difference between the books and the films. I'm sure I would mind them had they derailed the feel and purpose that Tolkien had in his storytelling. However, I think they did the story justice and are an admirable interpretation. In response to the scouring not being in the ROTK, along with many other smaller scenes...
Film is film. In LOTR's case it was a 3 movie deal. Would you have preferred the two movie deal that LOTR nearly was before PJ got it to New Line? If Shaye had known that LOTR would be received so well (make so much money) then he would probably have approved 6 films. As it stood, the films were allowed to be inflated to 3 hours plus each. That still was not enough time to fit the scouring of the shire in. When you have the sort of time limitations you have to abridge the material, there's no other way. But you can't abridge it to the point that the rest of the film becomes choppy and other scenes suffer.
The multiple endings and protracted denoument had to be something mainstream audiences could swallow whether purist fans accept that or not. We wouldn't have gotten these movies if the sort of sensibility that understands the differences between film as opposed to book structure was not there. The films had to work for the mass market to even get off the ground. Is that selling out, or is that just practicality? How else are you going to justify spending $300 million to a guy in a suit unless you can tell an adaption that will work on film? So with 3 movies (not 4, 5 or 6) can anyone tell me how you would shoehorn a second ending into a 3 hour film? What gets cut? You get a different film altogether. Maybe one day we might get that "other film" as fabled as it seems, in which it follows the book exactly, even to the point of have a 4th and final wrapping up movie to fit in the scouring of the Shire. For now, I say what we got was a very good job in the LOTR trilogy because despite everything that might have made it fail as just another Hollywood cop-out, we got something that took what it had time to develop and did it well. I'm really tired of the incessant complaining without consideration being taken on the part of what the filmmakers had to work with in terms of number of films, length of the films, and the unusual structure of ROTK which in itself is gigantic conclusion to an epic with many storylines. How do you do that with three 3 hour films?
I guess essentially, I'm asking people to look at the films in context of the medium of film and of Hollywood films (ie films made as a business to earn back their production and marketing costs and then some). Ie, no LOTR film will ever be made simply for art's sake. Not unless some uber rich Oil Tycoon decides they want to foot the bill. So any LOTR adaptation is going to be subject to certain conventions that are simply inescapable. One of these is that a film has to have a clear structure to its story. It ROTK had two or three dramatic climaxes it would fall flat on its face for mainstream mass audiences. A lot of viewers and critics to this day complain about the almost hour long denoument after Aragorn is crowned. For most, his crowning would have been enough, followed by Frodo finishing Bilbo's book. Instead we got a lot of endings, and they pushed the envelope with how much additional time they spent. An adaptations job is to interpret the original material and filter it into celluloid in the most appealing way. Until fans make up the majority of human beings on the planet, we aren't going to get the perfect LOTR. So for me, I can live without the Scouring of the Shire. Its not like the LOTR films are canon with Tolkien.
|
|
|
Changeitminimally
Registered User
May 23 2008, 2:30am
Post #29 of 81
(630 views)
Shortcut
|
Merklynn, I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I totally agree that it is impossible and even pointless to attempt to fit every aspect of this epic into three films, much less one. Please understand, for me the Scouring of the Shire is one of the aspects of the book that is crucial to the story. For me, I deeply enjoyed the first film despite not agreeing with all the changes and the characterizations of a couple characters. The Two Towers I also enjoyed, although again there were some decisions that I disagreed with. The final film, however, failed for me because of the absence of the Scouring. That is why I would be happy with some writers and I'm entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.
I reiterate that I'm not a purist. I am in awe of the visual accomplishment of the films. I just did not like how portions of it were written. While some of my previous posts might have come off as heavy handed I'm trying to regulate my tone here. I'd appreciate it if you do the same (e.g. your subject line).
|
|
|
merklynn
Lorien
May 23 2008, 2:33am
Post #30 of 81
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No problem, just like to give a counter argument - NT
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
May 23 2008, 4:13am
Post #31 of 81
(634 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Scouring balanced the first five chapters of Fellowship
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've argued before that the films cut almost all of the extended intro to FotR that takes place in the peaceful Shire. They cut as well the emphasis that Tolkien put on Frodo's love/loathe relationship with his homeland and his fellow hobbits. Given this, adding the Scouring by itself at the end of RotK would have made no structural sense.
It's funny to me that I have heard so much over the years about "why was the Scouring cut?" but I never hear "Where was the Gaffer's dustup with the Miller about Bilbo's impact on Shire society? Where was Sam and Ted's argument about whether the Shire was magical? Where was Frodo's angsty confession to Gandalf about wanting the Shire to be invaded? Where was Lotho Pimple (I had especially counted on the film to make him more prominent in the early parts, so that the Boss would make more sense at the end)? Where was 'shall I ever look back, etc'? Where was Gildor and his lesson that 'it is not your Shire'? Where was Farmer Maggot, and the house at Crickhollow?
People who gladly acknowledge "Well, of course Tom Bombadil had to be cut - he just wouldn't work in a film" don't even bother to excuse the radical cutting of the early Shire parts of the story. The Scouring, as Tolkien wrote in a letter, was something he expected to include from the beginning, as soon as he had completed the early chapters, where he joyfully expanded The Hobbit's "Country Round" into The Shire. He knew that the War of the Ring would have to end on the steps of Bag End - but only after he had laid the ground work for such an ending.
If you watch the three movies as they are, you realize the Scouring - by itself, without the context of the extended Shire sections in the book's opening - would have been a disaster dramatically and structurally, and not just because conventional Hollywood rules dictate that you not drag an ending out the way Tolkien did.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
merklynn
Lorien
May 23 2008, 4:47am
Post #32 of 81
(620 views)
Shortcut
|
The direction of the films was determined very early on. If they had not been reworking the films all the way through then they might have been able to structure them in a way that would have followed the book more closely so as to start and end in the Shire the way Tolkien had written. But I believe they revised their plans several times during the production of the films, and ultimately ended up giving up on the whole scouring section in order to keep it on track with the way their interpretation had developed. The end result is still a good one for anyone who doesn't know any better, and it still managed to entertain me well enough (probably because the Shire was secondary for me as a fan). But thinking about it, the film ended up giving more and more focus on Aragorn's story to the loss of Frodo. So in the end, I think they went with the big action-centric storyline (Gondor/Mordor) over the little guys learning to stand up for themselves in the end at the Shire.
So yes, its not just convention. By the time they were working on the last film I don't think they had a choice to include the scouring without committing storytelling suicide as it would have been unbalanced.
|
|
|
Peredhil lover
Valinor
May 23 2008, 5:30am
Post #33 of 81
(621 views)
Shortcut
|
Only one more thought: Maybe things would have been different when the second and third movies would have been filmed after the first one was this huge success. But as they were filming them back to back, and nobody knew how well they would do, there was no way New Line would have paid for filming another climax.
Btw, I've watched people leave the cinema after the coronation because they thought it was over ... no patience for many endings, much less another, lesser climax.
I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
May 23 2008, 10:49am
Post #34 of 81
(606 views)
Shortcut
|
If you watch the three movies as they are, you realize the Scouring - by itself, without the context of the extended Shire sections in the book's opening - would have been a disaster dramatically and structurally...
Jackson's Shire at the start of Fellowship is a harmless, simple land, with very little emphasis on the smugness and small-mindedness that makes book-Frodo so ambivalent about his fellow-countrymen. Mr. Proudfoot's disapproval of Gandalf's fireworks is treated as a harmless joke, and Ted Sandyman's pronouncements (and the Sackville-Bagginses) are relegated to the EE version - where they are pretty much throwaway jokes too.
Ironically, it's only at the end of RotK that the movie-hobbits become aware of that smugness and small-mindedness in their fellow-countymen (as they watch the performance with the pumpkin at the Green Dragon). Tolkien presents the smugness first, and then, in the Scouring, shows us what lies beneath it. Jackson's Shire darkens at the end, and is not redeemed. It's a different and more pessimistic message - despite the achievements of individual heroes, most of us live in oblivion of what others suffer on our behalf.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Mirabella_Bunce
Rivendell
May 23 2008, 1:03pm
Post #35 of 81
(608 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't know, the LOTR team did a fantastic job of enlarging Arwen's part without in the least making me feel that the original story had been violated in any way. I have often said that I sincerely feel that even Tolkien would have approved, in fact I think he would have smacked himself in the forehead and said "Of course! I have been wrestling with how to do that the whole time I've been writing this thing, and there it is!" So I am confident the current team can do the same sort of thing with Bard. I have little to no clue HOW they would do it but, hey, that's why I'm not a rich and famous director/producer/screenplay writer, isn't it? :)
Remember that Faramir also appears late in LOTR but is quickly and efficiently developed into a memorable and important character. Well, ok, "late" in a 9 - 13 hour epic is not as problematic as "late" in a single 3-hour movie, but still... all told, Bard has more column-inches in The Hobbit than Faramir has in LOTR, so the Bard Thing should be a challenge that a good writing team can overcome.
It helps to understand that Bard appears earlier in the story than he actually appears. Meaning that, the "grim-voiced fellow" that Tolkien keeps going on about when the Dwarves first arrive in Laketown, eventually turns out to be Bard. It took me about three readings to realize this - even though the book actually comes right out and says it in plain English at one point. I missed it the first few times because the grim-voiced fellow and Bard were so completely different. On film, though, we will be actually seeing the face, hearing the voice, and being imprinted by the body language of the actor, and we won't need a subtle blip of narration to clue us in that this is the same character. By the time Bard shows up in the Battle of Five Armies, we will already be very familiar with him. So.... I'm not really worried about the movie having to be too unfaithful to the story in order to pull this off.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 23 2008, 1:39pm
Post #36 of 81
(596 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It wasn't (just) a lack of patience.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Btw, I've watched people leave the cinema after the coronation because they thought it was over ... no patience for many endings, much less another, lesser climax.
I blame the filmmakers, as I have for more than four years: they present a series of scenes that feel like endings, complete with fade at the end. Reading a book, you can see that there are pages left. Viewing a film, you have no such guide.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 23 2008, 1:42pm
Post #37 of 81
(605 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"no LOTR film will ever be made simply for art's sake"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A reasonable statement and a good reminder that a film of LotR is almost certainly going to be an inferior work.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
merklynn
Lorien
May 23 2008, 2:57pm
Post #39 of 81
(593 views)
Shortcut
|
Though I generally have to agree with with N.E. Brigands interpretation of my comment. When it comes to LOTR, the books will always be as sacred as the Bible. The books are the source and as literature they allow each individual reader to paint the images in their own mind as grand, charming and personal as our imaginations and Tolkien's words allow. That's pretty hard to beat.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 3:07pm
Post #40 of 81
(589 views)
Shortcut
|
Too bad Michelangelo, Bernini and Holbein weren't working for "art's sake". They might have done something superior after all, instead of this second-rate stuff!
Yeah. It's ike the difference between Arthur Sullivan's purely-for-profit contractually required scores of The Mikado, Pirates of Penzance, and HMS Pinafore versus his purely-for-art grand opera Ivanhoe. His "ars gratia artis" work has long been assigned to oblivion. The purely commerical stuff is immortal. Silly critics.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 3:14pm
Post #41 of 81
(585 views)
Shortcut
|
Any LOTR film made purely for art's sake would be absolutely abysmal. Look at, say, Heaven's Gate, Battlefield Earth, or Waterworld. If only those guys had said "Hey! Let's make it a good movie instead!"
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 3:20pm
Post #42 of 81
(596 views)
Shortcut
|
Though I generally have to agree with with N.E. Brigands interpretation of my comment. When it comes to LOTR, the books will always be as sacred as the Bible. The books are the source and as literature they allow each individual reader to paint the images in their own mind as grand, charming and personal as our imaginations and Tolkien's words allow. That's pretty hard to beat.
Absolutely true. Which is why whenever I go see a film adaptation I try to toss all preconceptions out the window. Same with a play. (Especially Shakespeare.) Personally I find it fun seeing the images from other people's imaginations. And frankly if they matched mine I'd be bored. I don't see much point in seeing a rerun of one's own interpretation.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
May 23 2008, 4:00pm
Post #43 of 81
(582 views)
Shortcut
|
that you also think that Michelangelo's depiction of David is compromised because it represents just one artist's vision of a sacred text?
When it comes to LOTR, the books will always be as sacred as the Bible. The books are the source and as literature they allow each individual reader to paint the images in their own mind
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
merklynn
Lorien
May 23 2008, 4:04pm
Post #44 of 81
(567 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nope I was treating Tolkien's work as an exception :-) -NT
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
May 23 2008, 4:05pm
Post #45 of 81
(574 views)
Shortcut
|
It's like the difference between Arthur Sullivan's purely-for-profit contractually required scores of The Mikado, Pirates of Penzance, and HMS Pinafore versus his purely-for-art grand opera Ivanhoe.
I'm sure there's lots of bad art on both sides of the art/profit divide. But there's some magnificent art on the profit side, that's for sure. And sometimes it seems as if the constraints are part of what makes an artist reach their greatest heights.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
May 23 2008, 4:08pm
Post #46 of 81
(578 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien's an exception and the Bible isn't?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You did say that "When it comes to LOTR, the books will always be as sacred as the Bible."
Yet you don't object to artistic interpretations of the Bible? How does that work?
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Lunamoth
Rohan
May 23 2008, 4:11pm
Post #47 of 81
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Which translation, to start off with...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...cause they're not all the same. That would be the first "interpretation" to cover before getting into "artistic" anything.
|
|
|
merklynn
Lorien
May 23 2008, 4:15pm
Post #48 of 81
(564 views)
Shortcut
|
At the risk of being pedantic, lets rephrase what I said to be "a bible" instead of "the bible". I can stand by that a little better.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 4:17pm
Post #49 of 81
(581 views)
Shortcut
|
Arguably the most poetic, and unquestionably the most influential in Western literature.
But yeah, definitely a lot of problems with its adaptation from the original.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
May 23 2008, 4:23pm
Post #50 of 81
(570 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Which translation would Michelangelo have used, do you mean?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Does it matter? I expect he read the Bible in Latin, although I don't know for sure.
But his David is quite different from Bernini's, for example:
The are both interpretations of the story of David and Goliath from the Bible, but they emphasise different things. They are both considered masterpieces, but they can't really both be "accurate" representations of the Biblical story (whatever that may mean).
That's my only point - no matter how "sacred" a text is, people will interpret it. Each interpretation adds new layers of meaning, some of them from the artist's own imagination and not necessarily what the author of the original text had in mind.
Still, I guess it's true that some Christian sects don't approve of visual representations of Biblical events, and Islam (as I understand it) doesn't permit such representations at all. So perhaps there's a similar schism between Tolkien purists and non-purists on this issue.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
|
|
