|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROD BAGGINS
Registered User
May 7 2008, 11:32pm
Post #1 of 19
(549 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Two Lord of the Rings - Book/Film Comparison
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm new to the forums here and am glad to have finally joined my fellow Tolkien fans of both the books and the films. The purpose of this thread is to bring to attention and discuss the differences between the books and the films.
My ulterior motive is research for a project and I thought that the best way to gather data would be to post a discussion thread on these forums. But I would also like to see what things others notice that I may not.
Here are some points that may get the ball rolling:
First I will say that there are many pieces of dialogue from the book that are said by certain characters in the book, but are given to different characters in the film.
For those who take issue with this I can understand why. However I feel that the dialogue was still relevant to the spirit of Tolkien and was given to that character for valid reasons.
The passing of time in the books is very different to the passing of time in the films but this is due to the limited running time of a movie.
A huge difference is the removal of characters from the movie that appeared in the book. There are also characters added to certain scenes that weren't present in the books. The battle of Helm's Deep for example.
They are a few of the many issues that we may bring up and discuss. So let the discussion begin!
|
|
|
Finding Frodo
Tol Eressea
May 8 2008, 2:11am
Post #2 of 19
(310 views)
Shortcut
|
This is a huge topic! One difference between book and film that springs to mind immediately is the explicit interpretation of book-Frodo's dream (used as movie-Gandalf dialogue) and the final journey leaving the Grey Havens as metaphors for death. The book is nowhere near as overt but rather is open to interpretation. Books generally are more open to interpretation than movies, I suppose.
Where's Frodo?
|
|
|
smoff
Bree
May 8 2008, 1:19pm
Post #3 of 19
(292 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't mind the differences....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... for a couple of reasons.
1. There will always be The Book. The movies can (and probably will) be re-made some down the line - it happens all the time. I often long for some originality out of Hollywood, instead of remakes & comic-book adaptaions. A few generations from now they'll re-make LOTR with the latest cutting edge technology, instead of that old-fashioned, clunky Massive software!! However, no-one would re-write a book. Or would they?? Let me know if I'm wrong - it wouldn't be the first time!!
2. The differences come about because of the differences in story-teller, not just the medium they choose. If you ask two people to tell the same story, they will be basically the same but with differences in dialog, a name-change here & there, maybe a new character, etc. Now if these two people tell the story 50 years apart, about something which happened thousands of years ago... well I'm just thankful that ANY of it is similar!
If at first you don't succeed, try again.
If you still don't succeed, give up - there's no point making yourself look stupid!
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Immortal
May 8 2008, 4:38pm
Post #4 of 19
(283 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was impressed with how the writers
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
knew the text so well that they COULD move the dialogue from one character to another, and often in a different context, and still make it work. My old books are riddled with highlightings of text taken directly from the book and put into the films. I agree they keep with the spirit of Tolkien's story, so I don't mind the differences at all... and rather love having little treasures in honour of the books pop up here and there, including titles of chapters. I hope they do the same thing in The Hobbit and film2.
You've addressed the time/chronology yourself. It simply wasn't possible to do the length of time justice in the film adaptation. Again, I don't mind.
For me, moving around the characters is the same as the text. So long as it paid homage to the book, I didn't mind. In fact, some of the changes enhanced the story; like the Elves/Haldir appearing at Helm's Deep; seeing the Storming of Isengard instead of a narrative; Arwen and Aragorn moments; etc. Then again, I did take issue with moments that were changed that I particularly love in the book; Frodo riding Asfaloth to the Ford of Rivendell alone; Merry making his way into Minas Tirith after Pelennor and being discovered by Pippin; more of Faramir and Eowyn in the Houses of Healing, etc. ;)
All in all, as a book lover for over 37 years with 50+ readings... I completely embrace the films.
If you want more tidbits from the host of geeks found here on TORn, check out the Observations Lists in my footer. That'll keep ya busy ;)
Welcome! It's great to have you here!!
 
Trust him... The Hobbit is coming!
"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
TORn's Observations Lists
|
|
|
Arwen's daughter
Half-elven
May 8 2008, 7:56pm
Post #5 of 19
(293 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My biggest complaint was always Denethor
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I know some people are most angry about Faramir's changes, but it's always been about Denethor for me. In the books, Denethor was a noble man who had grown weary and gone mad with grief (helped along by Sauron). But he was still a functioning leader almost until the end. He evacuated the city and lit the beacons before Gandalf and Pippin ever arrived. In the movies, he's a melodramatic buffoon. A wizard and a hobbit are the only two people left in the city who can do anything?! There's not one thread of the original nobility of the character left, IMHO.
Welcome to the boards Rod. I hope you won't be disheartened by the low turnout to this discussion. Most of us have argued about the changes to the film so many times, we've either made our peace with them or have just argued them into the ground. It's interesting, actually. My first post on this board 3 or 4 years ago was for a very similar discussion. Back then it became a very long thread with people still very ...passionate about some of the changes. I'll have to see if I still have that link saved somewhere. 
My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
Screencap of the Day Schedule for May
See my Photos from Japan!!
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
May 8 2008, 8:58pm
Post #6 of 19
(267 views)
Shortcut
|
|
so much Hobbit talk here I missed this!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What you really need are links to the old scene discussions we did, when the films first came out, where the merits or demerits of changes were thoroughly analyzed. You could try checking the TORn old links site and see if you can access them. I'm not sure how far back you can go, though!
The commentaries are also wonderful for explaining why the film makers made some of the choices they did. Here's a link to the transcriptions of the Directors and Writers commentaries for the first two films, done by a TORn member named Aragorn Elessar, which may help you.
http://aragorn-elessar1.tripod.com/
For some general feedback, though, from hanging around here for awhile, I would say that there's a mixed reactions to the changes -- some, like Boromir's character development are well received.
Others, are partly well received -- the inclusion of Arwen is liked, but not all of her scenes (particularly not the Arwen is dying bit). It's a mixed reaction on Aragorn -- some of us like the character arc he got, feeling the book version would have come across as arrogant in the films, others do not like the "doubting" aspect of his heritage.
And some are highly criticized -- Faramir and Denethor fall in this category a lot. Elrond's lack of faith in men, and Isuldur becoming the big bad guy who screwed up in the past are mentioned from time to time as well.
Moving things -- like Shelob's Lair to TTT -- is better accepted than adding things -- like Faramir taking the Ring to Osgliath.
For me, I have appreciated how the changes have helped me to look at a story I thought I knew well in a new light -- they shone a light into dark corners, where I had overlooked things, and helped me appreciate parts of the story I had come to take for granted in new ways. And I enjoyed the way they explored various book themes in ways suited to our times -- the issue of leadership, for one, which they did by pairing up Theoden and Aragorn, which is an improvisation on the books, but one I really like. Tolkien attempted to modernize old legends for new audiences, and I don't feel the films are that far afield by attempting to bring Tolkien to the non-reader audience who would probably never have been exposed to the story otherwise.
Finally, I'm a more visual person by nature, and seeing the story, even if not through my eyes or Tolkien's, really helped me, I guess. I see the films as one interpretation of the story, and enjoy them for that.
You would probably get more feedback if you asked specific questions for people to respond to, rather than just leaving it open ended. We don't do homework around here, but we do share thoughts, so stick around and see how it goes!
And we have several regular features going right now that focus on the LOTR films-- GOLD, MISC, SCOD, QTNA, Trivia, Did you ever notice (costuming) -- so check those as well. You might also be interested in going back to the start of these new boards, when we did a discussion of Bakshi's LOTR, as that surfaced comments on how well a more loyal following of the tale worked or didn't work on screen. You can easily search this board for that by typing in Bakshi, I would think!
Feel free to join in in all of our talking as well -- and welcome!
Weaver
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
May 8 2008, 10:14pm
Post #7 of 19
(250 views)
Shortcut
|
|
replying to myself with better link...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I checked the link I posted and realized I had posted it wrong and so it does not work!
Here's the address:
http//aragorn-elessar1.tripod.com/
You'll have to cut and paste it into your browser though as for some reason I can never get the TORn web tool thing to work for me.
Weaver
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
May 8 2008, 10:28pm
Post #8 of 19
(258 views)
Shortcut
|
|
this is a pretty dull conversation...but the link info is now here!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I still couldn't get the link to work, but if you go to Aragorn_Elessar's profile in the list of members, you can get the link to his website there!
Weaver
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
May 9 2008, 6:13am
Post #9 of 19
(268 views)
Shortcut
|
"It is a comfort not to be mistaken on all points" - Gandalf
|
|
|
Timbo_mbadil
Rivendell
May 9 2008, 7:41am
Post #10 of 19
(241 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The most important stuff has been said above…
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
…which has never kept me from adding my thoughts :-) Of a more general kind.
I find it hard to put the three films in one pot and call it "The film". In terms of book to film transfers they work very differently.
In FOTR, the film-makers' most prominent task was to appease the book-loving crowd. Hence, film 1 is the one most directly attached to the book, although it does deviate (especially leaving out a whole chapter, which is good for the film), whereas TTT and ROTK take a larger number of smaller "liberties". But by the time TTT came out, most of us had accepted the fact that certain changes needed to be done.
As for the dialogue: I remember working on a Stephen King adaptation once, with one fanzine stating that much of the dialogue from the book was in the film, therefore it was a good adaptation. Which it wasn't. At least not for this reason. Quite the contrary – the book dialogue sounded "wooden" and awkward in the film.
With LOTR, it's hard to say, sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they didn't. I could never make much sense of Éowyn's Frodo line ("I dreamt I saw a great wave"), which is a beautiful line nevertheless. Gríma's little "Ode to Éowyn" on the other hand works perfectly for me.
Keeping with "The Spirit" is always the ultimate goal, but how do you do that? What is "The Spirit"? Will your "Spirit" be the same as mine? Who are we to say what the "Spirit" of Tolkien is? We only have our own interpretation of the book, therefore what we get to see is PJ's (and to a certain degree Fran's and Philippa's, and very likely, the studio's) interpretation of what the book is about.
Oups, I've got to go to work…
If you're working on book to film transfers you might find this book useful (and it's from an Aussie prof, too): Brian McFarlane, "Novel to Film", Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996. Although I guess it might come from a different publishing house in down under.
Cheers
t
Otherness represents that which bourgeois ideology cannot recognize or accept but must deal with (…)
Robin Wood 2003, p. 49. "Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan – and beyond". Columbia University Press, New York, Chichester, West Sussex.
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
May 9 2008, 7:56am
Post #11 of 19
(246 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You won't find that in one thread
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The subject his huge, and requires a long series of dicussions. I'm sure such discussions were had here aplenty, but not in the six months since I've joined in. And I'd welcome such a series.
Comparsisons like that are made frequently, mainly in the Movie Discussion forum, and often in Main and Reading Room as well. But nowhere enough to make a project for you.
I would divide the differences into three prototypes:
1. Differences due to constraints based on the different media.
i. Some things are simply too good to be missed: the Gandalf-Saruman confrontation, the flooding of Isengard.
ii. Some chapters are just one (or more) long dialogue(s), which wouldn't work on film: 'The Shadow of the Past' (which was moved to the prologues), 'The Window on the West'.
iii. Similar to the last consideration, a few things were assumed to work better. A major diffirence is showing the several plots (in TTT and ROTK) together, and not one in a time (as in the books). A few other changes were made, based on similar considerations. Frodo's age, for instance.
iv. Whole parts of the books were sacrificed, because they were felt to be distracting or difficult for movie goers. The two obviuos cases are the whole Crickhollow - Old Forest - Barrow-downs sequence, and the last six chapters of the books, of which only three episodes were left: The Return of the King, Sam's marriage, and the Grey Havens. Another case is Saruman's identity as a double traitor, which was no more than hinted at in the movies. Maybe they felt it would be to difficult for a cinema-goer to follow that subject as well.
v. The last consideration (combined with the one before) caused a sort of a chain-reaction: the removal of six chapters from ROTK meant that some parts from TTT were to be added to the last film, and the whole balancing of Frodo's and Aragorn's storylines had to be different, both coming to a climax towards the end of TTT. That necessarily led to the augmenting of the Rohan sequence, and possibly the way Gollum's decision to betray Frodo was presented.
vi. A totally different thing, was the need to bring things into focus. The Aragorn-Arwen-Elrond dilemma was one which surely had happened, although once the book starts, it has been resolved. I think it must have been brought into the movies (unless they knew in advance GDT will make the 'bridge' film in the future...), and that added a lot of screen-time and changes to the three characters.
2. Differences due to shifting of values.
Remember, Tolkien was a conservative British Roman Catholic, and a philologist to boot. His values were different than those of PJ and crew, and of the average movie-goer (or average fan of the books, to be fair).
i. For instance, ordinary folk are given far more screen-time: in the Dark Years, Rohan, Gondor (even Dunland, in the EE); even the shire-folk are treated differently.
ii. The major differences in Aragorn's and Frodo's portayals, are due to this shifting. Aragorn is shown as more self-doubting, and Frodo as more responsive to the allure of the Ring (to the point of addiction) - both more 'modern' portrayals. I can argue that once you analyse both the characters in the books and the movies, you find the differences are not so great: Tolkien does drop subtle hints in those directions, and seeing the movies a second time (after recovering from the initial shock from the surface changes), you notice the actors did understand the characters pretty well, and a movie-firster will probvably get the 'correct' feeling about them. In less central characters, the person is sometimes actually changed: in Theoden's case, I think it was done well; in Denethor's, not at all.
iii. A clear case of that is the scene at Mount Doom. In the book, Gollum falls into the Fire by chance, or as a result of some Higher Power intervention. I see it as a powerful religious message: a person cannot by himself save the world (or even his own soul), but by making the right choices on the way, and by not taking convinient (but morally compromising) shortcuts, at last, Providence will subtly help him. But however I think Tolkien might have seen it that way, many modern people don't, or won't. And in a way, the alternative message of the way that scene was filmed - that struggling for power (or other desired objects) often leads to the destruction of the desired, and of those struggling for it; and that Human friendship and love offer salvation even for those who have already begun to fall - is not that bad, as a message for people who grew up in our world.
iv. A major theme with Tolkien, is the loss of the world which once was, and the futile attempt to recapture its glory and splendour - as expressed and symbolised by the Departure of the Elves. It took me a few readings to realise that, but the movies seem to show this theme very well - even at the expense of overplaying it. But I'm happy with what they did, because one can't really expect every movie-goer to watch the films again and again, untill he actually catches the message.
v. Another theme is chosing with one's heart - assuming everyone has got a true consciense, an inner voice which if clearly heard could ultimately lead to the right decision, even if cold Logic alone seems to say differently. It's not that logic has no place, but that it should start working after the 'leap of faith', rather than before (and consequently, against) it. I feel the movies captured this theme well.
vi. And in a way - one might say that's what they did while making the films. I've once heard the commentaries, and it seems that PJ, Ph. & F. did a lot of things because they 'felt' right. Most of what they did is open to criticism, but eventually they did succeed in making this world real for us, in another way.
3. A third source of diffirences, is misinterpretations.
Of course, once put like that - it sounds really bad; but I actually meant to reiterate FindingFrodo's answer to you above.
Books are far more open to interpretation than movies (although I would refer you to hobbitlove's series of QTNA's on this board) - and quite often, the vision the directors, or actors had of a character or a scene - conflicts with mine, to the extent I feel they got it wrong. I remember at least two times I felt extremely annoyed with PJ while hearing his commentaries (his confessing to not understand Gorbag and Shagrat's fight at all, and I felt he didn't understand Denethor) - and there are other cases, in which you could easily argue the misinterpretation is mine. And even slight differences in intepretation might subtly lead to really jarring things in the movies - scenes too long or cut too soon, things sacrificed which shouldn't have, subjects grossly overplayed.
And sometimes, it's not even misinterpretations, but a matter of taste - even accepting all the points mentioned in sources 1 and 2, a certain change might seem obviously necessary to one, and to entirely ruin the fabric of the film for another (for instance, Ainuolorin is often complaining about the Gandalf-Witchking confrontation, in various threads on the Main board; and while I agree the scene could have been improved a bit, I definitely wouldn't have done it his way, and I feel so from different reason than he does).
Of course, there are changes to characters, scenes, and even the plot itself. But I think these stem from the three sources I've listed above.
And I would love it if anyone could take it upon himself to organised a detailed discussion of the various differences. At the moment, such a task would be way too much for me - but I'd be eager to read such a discussion, and happy to join in whenever I'll have what to say, and the time to say it.
"It is a comfort not to be mistaken on all points" - Gandalf
(This post was edited by sador on May 9 2008, 8:03am)
|
|
|
ROD BAGGINS
Registered User
May 9 2008, 10:23am
Post #12 of 19
(252 views)
Shortcut
|
My apologies for not participating in this discussion. I appreciate all the input that has been given and the information provided. So thanks to everyone who has contributed :)
This project I'm working on will take quite some time so I have no deadline for release. It's due to the wealth of information that I will need to go through. I am reading through the books again as well and will soon look at the films more in depth.
My goal is to be a filmmaker, one of my biggest influences is Peter Jackson and I believe that he and his writing team, and all the other members of every department did a brilliant job in adapting The Lord of the Rings.
So this is a personal, passion project that I intend to complete without rushing and is something I do not want to be presented poorly.
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
May 9 2008, 4:42pm
Post #14 of 19
(247 views)
Shortcut
|
|
what a great thread that was -- thanks!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Interesting to see a few old familiar names on there as well -- thanks!
Wow, what a rousing welcome you got!
Weaver
|
|
|
Timbo_mbadil
Rivendell
May 11 2008, 12:15am
Post #16 of 19
(203 views)
Shortcut
|
…I do miss them. Despite all the "Legs so sooo hot" :-)
Otherness represents that which bourgeois ideology cannot recognize or accept but must deal with (…)
Robin Wood 2003, p. 49. "Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan – and beyond". Columbia University Press, New York, Chichester, West Sussex.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 13 2008, 3:23am
Post #17 of 19
(204 views)
Shortcut
|
First I will say that there are many pieces of dialogue from the book that are said by certain characters in the book, but are given to different characters in the film.
Tolkien did the same thing. For example, many of Merry's speeches during the Scouring were said by Frodo in early drafts.
For those who take issue with this I can understand why. However I feel that the dialogue was still relevant to the spirit of Tolkien and was given to that character for valid reasons.
You should have read the dialogue from the original screenplay:
Arwen (to Aragorn): Oh, you...you... Man!"
Gimli (to Nazgul): Pick on somebody yer own size, ya over-stuffed buzzard!
(I am not making this up.)
Stinkeroo!
The passing of time in the books is very different to the passing of time in the films but this is due to the limited running time of a movie.
How much time *does* Gandalf take before he returns to the Shire? The movie is a bit indefinite. It could be 17 years!
A huge difference is the removal of characters from the movie that appeared in the book.
And the addition of those that weren't, like Lurtz, Haleth son of Hama, and Irolas.
There are also characters added to certain scenes that weren't present in the books. The battle of Helm's Deep for example.
Well, in the proposed one movie Disney version, Gondor and Rohan were composited into one, as were Eomer and Faramir, Eowyn and Arwen, Theoden and Denethor, and Helm's Deep and the Pelennor. Not good. So Jackson told Weinstein to stuff it and the rest is history.
******************************************
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.”
|
|
|
ROD BAGGINS
Registered User
May 13 2008, 8:29am
Post #18 of 19
(195 views)
Shortcut
|
...that I haven't read the drafts of the screenplay for the Lord of the Rings movies, will have to get onto that.
I read about the one film version in Peter Jackson: A Filmmaker's Journey and that would not have been any good at all if that is how the adaptation was done.
|
|
|
blacksmoke
Registered User
Jun 7 2008, 8:49am
Post #19 of 19
(183 views)
Shortcut
|
Most of the changes I liked but the bad ones:
- Denethor being crazy for no real reason. Without the backstory it all seems useless, and it only would've taken a few seconds to explain why he was unstable.
- The ring causing Arwen to die. That went no where and was a cheap excuse to overglorify her. Plus the warrior bit.
- The "I am no man!" line. It was used as a cheap "Girl Power" moment. Like a final blow to evil and a shout to feminism. It was better in the books because it was it was only part of a line that revealled the couragous character to the adversary and started the speach that struck hesitation in the enemy before the battle commenced.
- Gollum framing Sam for stealing the bread (STEALING BREAD! Come on, couldn't they come up with something better...?) Frodo taking Gollum's word so fast and telling Sam to bugger off, then Sam just leaves him crying like a baby. That whole thing was poorly handled. They could have separated them a different way for Shelob's Lair, but that was just bad writing.
- No Tom.
|
|
|
|
|
