From: mike.scott.rohan@asgardpublishing.co.uk   
      
   On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:45:10 AM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:   
       
   >    
   > Well, it's not a matter of either/or. You can have a "bit more brain" and   
   enjoy   
   >    
   > both the movies and the books. :)   
      
   But one enjoys the films on a much shallower level, simply because the depth   
   of the books isn't there. To some extent its place is taken by visual   
   spectacle, but even more so by slam-bang action, often added for the sake of   
   video-gaming.   
      
       
   >    
   > As is expected, with *any* movie adaptation of a book   
      
   No, although one could be forgiven for thinking that. Some adaptations   
   diminish the source, but others enhance it. The Prisoner of Zenda made much   
   better films than the original book; Ben-Hur likewise -- but without wilfully   
   distorting it. The TV version    
   of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was at least as good as the book, and Alec   
   Guinness added an almost mystical dimension to Le Carre's protagonist; but it   
   took away nothing. And I've seen a truly stunning Russian TV adaptation of   
   Bulgakov's The Master &    
   Margarita which went to enormous lengths to remain absolutely true to the book   
   -- and was all the more successful as a result, far more so than earlier   
   versions which tried to popularize it.    
       
   > > -- you could almost say contaminated -- by the inbuilt cliches of lesser   
   >    
   > > fantasies, comics and video games.   
   >     
   >    
   > Well, this is how stories are made. Nothing is unique, not even Tolkien   
   books,   
   >    
   > who was influenced by religion, cultures and both mythological and linguistic   
   >    
   > influences.   
      
   There's a hell of a value difference between what influenced Tolkien and the   
   third-rate influences on Jackson -- video games, for one, which are leeches on   
   better fantasies.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > I think a problem is that many that prefer the books over the movies make it   
   >    
   > seem like the books were some sort of perfection in themselves that can be   
   >    
   > "sullied" by the movies. Both the movies and the books are landmark   
   achievements   
   >    
   > in popular culture, and both were influenced by what came before   
      
   True, there are areas where the books might be improved. But the changes in   
   the film are not those, and transparently were not made for that purpose.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > > The way, for example, that Jackson loves having combatants stand around and   
   >    
   > > square off, snarling macho fashion at one another. That destroys the   
   sweeping   
   >    
   > > element of surprise in -- for example -- the confrontation with the orcs in   
   >    
   > > Moria, the ride of the Rohirrim, or Aragorn's arrival at the siege of Minas   
   >    
   > > Tirith.   
       
   > I think I know what you mean, but it's not like the books in these cases   
   didn't have a similar stand-off (I'm not sure I agree with the "macho" thing   
   in either   
      
   Then you don't know what I mean, because they don't. Take the moment in the   
   film where the Moria orcs encircle the entire Fellowship; doesn't happen at   
   all in the book.    
       
   >    
   > This has always bothered me. I mean, sure making an adaptation will make some   
   >    
   > characters different, but this idea that someone has "misunderstood", and how   
   >    
   > there is a "correct" way to understand their character is something I   
   dislike.   
      
   Why you should dislike it you leave unexplained, but there *is* a right way to   
   depict a character, which is the way the author wrote him; and there is   
   certainly a wrong one, which is to turn him into somebody different, or even a   
   total caricature. If you    
   make Bill Sykes heroic, or even sympathetic, you destroy Oliver Twist   
   completely. A truly foul case of this in the LOTR movies is Merry and Pippin.   
   In Tolkien's original they're young adults, light-hearted but intelligent and   
   capable characters; in the    
   films they're irritating morons,  more like Moxie and Pepsi from "Bored of the   
   Rings". Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as summer".    
      
   And Jackson/Boyens play equally fast and loose with other characters, just to   
   milk the action a bit more. Like making Aragorn a needless ditherer. Like the   
   Ents, refusing to help after their council, then having a sudden change of   
   heart when they see    
   trees cut down, as if they'd only just found out Orcs were doing this. Like   
   playing Theoden's decay as some kind of crude possession which Gandalf   
   exorcises, rather than subtle poisoning under the guise of medical care. Like   
   playing Wormtongue as a    
   drooling melodrama villain; he's much cleverer and more plausible than that.   
   Like sending Elves to Helm's Deep -- by teleportation? it makes nonsense of   
   times and distances. Like Faramir, dragging the hobbits off to Osgiliath for   
   no purpose. Like Beorn    
   chasing the dwarves...and so much, much more.   
      
       
   > For all we know, the moviemakers understood this perfectly and *choose* to   
   take a different approach for a number of reasons.   
      
   Then they're bad reasons. You don't have to invoke some mystical insight to   
   explain their alterations; they're adequately accounted for by second-rate   
   talents. Let them write something original and let it stand or fall on its   
   own; they shouldn't try to    
   piggyback their own cheesy ideas on the back of a greater achievement. Anyhow,   
   I've heard them talk at length about their approach, and their understanding   
   didn't seem impressive.    
      
   >Or they understood it and this is their version of that understanding.    
      
   Then they'd be even bigger berks than I think they are.    
      
   >I always dislike the approach of "I understand Tolkien's texts better than   
   the movie makers" approach   
      
   Again you say you dislike something, without saying why. And it's something   
   that demands to be justified, because it's wrong. If the author doesn't know   
   best, then what is he?    
      
   And if Jackson/Boyens do understand Tolkien's books better than I do, then   
   their mucking about with them is still less defensible --- the equivalent of   
   scrawling on a great painting. But I doubt they do. I know the books at least   
   as well as any, and    
   probably better than most -- and much of their source material. The   
   Jackson/Boyens alterations come from no such knowledge, nor from any of the   
   improvements that could be made in their narrative. Except perhaps one, the   
   use of the sword instead of the    
   banner of the Dunedain. That's neater, but it detracts from the sense of   
   background.   
      
      
      
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > Not "a bit like"; it very much is an alternative version of an epic, seeing   
   how it is *impossible* to make the same version as the book as a movie. This   
   is not a weakness of the ones doing the adaptation, it is impossible to do   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)