XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies   
      
   In message    
     Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   > In message    
   > Lewis  spoke these staves:   
      
   > Out of curiosity, how do you think Jackson's version works?   
      
   I think it works pretty well for the movie it was in.   
      
   > The difference, of course, is that Jackson's Frodo fights desperately   
   > for the Ring even after Gollum has bitten off the finger with the   
   > Ring, whereas in Tolkien's version Frodo seems to more or less   
   > collapse at that point.   
      
   Which is more visual and not really different in terms of intent. In the   
   movie the proximity of the ring still holds Frodo and it is the   
   destruction of it that breaks that hold. I think, all things considered,   
   this is an extremely minor point.   
      
   On the other hand, I've seen the movie twice (one in the theatre, once   
   the home SEE version, whereas I've read the book... I'm not sure how   
   many times. a dozen? More?   
      
   > Given what Jackson did with the Ring as such, I do think the scene   
   > makes sense (though I think his portrayal of the Ring's active agency   
   > is very different from Tolkien's, but that is not the issue here) --   
   > in Jackson's version, Frodo does seem to be corrupted -- and perhaps   
   > even controlled -- by the Ring (a corruption that, like all the other   
   > works of the Ring, is unmade when the Ring is destroyed).   
      
   That's certainly how I remember it.   
      
   At a certain level I understand many people's frustrations with the   
   movies, they are not the book translated to film. But mostly, I don't   
   get it, the movies are very good in and of themselves and if you follow   
   *their* story it all seems to work very well. Not perfectly, but well   
   enough and better than most. No, it is not *exactly* the same story. Yes   
   there were something I would have cut (the horrible *horrible*   
   dwarf-tossing joke), but then again, I would not have made as good a   
   movie, and the dwarf-tossing joke certainly appealed to the audience I   
   saw it with.   
      
   And a movie that satisfied the hard-core fans of the books would have   
   been *terrible*.   
      
   Before the movies came out I was talking to a friend who is a huge fan   
   of the book and has the complete collection of books with Tolkien's name   
   listed anywhere on the title page (so all of Lost Tales, the letters,   
   the Green Knight, Farmer Ham, The Father Christmas Letters, etc etc) and   
   he said something about being really excited to see how Jackson handled   
   Tom and the Old Forest.   
      
   I said, "I know exactly how he'll handle it, he'll cut it before they   
   even go into pre-production."   
      
   "No way, Tom is *critical* to the story, and you can't have the barrows   
   without Tom and without the barrows Merry can't kill the Witch King."   
      
   "Yes, but there is *no chance* Tom will be in the movies."   
      
   Of course you can't have Tom in a movie of Lord of the Rings, not if you   
   want to appeal to an audience that includes anyone who's not read the   
   book five or more times. For good or ill, Tom, and any representation of   
   Tom, has been spoilt for any population of people that can remember the   
   1960s, or have ever heard of the 1960s. There is no way to put Tom into   
   a movie without him coming off as a dope-addled hippie. Fair? No, but   
   anyone who thinks a movie could work with Tom in it is deluding   
   themselves. The only way to do it would be to completely change the   
   character of Tom, and what point does that serve?   
      
   On the other hand, we both agree that it was Merry who killed the Witch   
   King, with a little help, so he can't be completely wrong! :)   
      
   > As we all bring our own experiences and history to our reading of the   
   > text -- based on this, our readings will inevitably differ in many   
   > ways, small and great.  In order to facilitate discussions of the   
   > text, it is normal to set up Tolkien's intention and Tolkien's   
   > interpretation as the golden standard -- not because 'my   
   > interpretation is' is necessarily wrong (it may be -- there are such   
   > things as plain misunderstandings of the text), but because we need   
   > to have a common standard in order to be able to discuss things   
   > intelligently.   
      
   For me, that standard is what made it into the books.   
      
   --   
   Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax an   
   get used to the idea.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)