Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and Studies in Adaptation

[Catullus64]

Recently, Dan Olson's fine video essay on Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings prompted me to watch that film, which prompted my millionth-odd rewatch of Peter Jackson's film trilogy, which prompted my billionth-odd reread of Tolkien's books. I find that a lot of criticism of the films as adaptations tends to stop at the fairly shallow level of the individual elements that are perceived as inferior to the source material, without questioning the overall demands and questions which may have motivated such changes. I wanted to start a discussion about how the Jackson trilogy approached the task of adapting these books; where did they succeed, where did they err, and where, like the Company entering Moria, was there simply no right answer? If anything, maybe having these discussions can help justify spending almost a week getting nothing productive done in my free time as I marinate in Middle Earth.

This may come off as pompous, but there are four general premises that I think are a good starting place:


The Jackson trilogy is a set of three films that range from truly sublime to at least pretty good. If you think that these films are overall bad and can't root your criticisms in a place of love, we can't have very productive talk here.
As a corollary to the above, JRR Tolkien's books are not perfect. There are things in those books that would never work if faithfully adapted to the screen, and there are even some things that are bad on their own merits.
The Theatrical and Extended cuts of the films are both valid texts for this analysis. Both have their own problems (there are a lot of "yeah I see why that was cut" moments), but no argument about the theatrical cut can be dismissed because of something in the extended cut, nor vice versa. In a similar vein, I think that references to supplementary Tolkien materials should be kept to a minimum.
(This is the big one): There exists a difference between problems of adaptation and simple problems of filmmaking. Some problems have their roots in the demands of adapting a book into a feature film, while some are simply poor choices in any contexts (unforced errors, if you like). My main intellectual aim in starting this discussion thread is to try to sift one from the other.


So, with my aims and guiding principles laid out, I'm going to take a swing at analyzing what I consider one of the movie's weaker points, and how I think it stems from a fundamental problem of adaptation. Oh, and spoiler here, if for some unfathomable reason you've decided to partake in this thread despite having not read or watched The Lord of the Rings.

I hardly think I'm alone in being offput by the way that Faramir behaves in these films; he is shown giving in fairly easily to the temptation of the Ring, treats Frodo, Sam and Gollum rather cruelly, and takes a long while to come to his senses. But at various other times, he acts like the wise and sensitive Faramir of the books. I've always thought this was one of PJ's biggest mistakes in these films, but a little reflection has convinced me that it was the product of very big adaptational problems, maybe unavoidable ones.

See, the filmmakers have it easy in Fellowship, when the perspective of almost the entire narrative is with Frodo and the Quest. Two Towers, of course, marks the splitting of the story into two primary narratives, one which continues with Frodo on the Quest of the Ring, and one which covers the Wars of the Ring from various perspectives. (I will henceforth simply refer to these storylines as simply the Quest and the War.) The filmmakers necessarily had to intercut these storylines rather than separate them as Tolkien does; time in a film passes differently, and a sense of parallel events is more important. But this of course creates a new problem when you get to Return of the King.

In Return of the King, the War reaches its climax at the Black Gates over the course of ten chapters, the Quest over the course of three. This needs to be dealt with, because events have to sync up over the course of the films: Frodo and Sam need to meet Faramir before he enters the War storyline, need to see the Witch King's host depart Minas Morgul before it besieges Minas Tirith, need to reach the Cracks of Doom at roughly the same time that the War reaches the Black Gates. The narrative climaxes need to be timed together in a way they didn't need to be when Tolkien was telling them sequentially.

(As an aside, I think this is the case whether or not you decide to leave in all the denouement after the Ring's destruction, and the Scouring of the Shire, but that deserves its own post.)

So either you need to vastly truncate the War storyline, or you need to extend the Quest storyline in Movie 3. They address this by moving the Pass of Cirith Ungol and Shelob into Return of the King, but that of course leaves the Quest with missing material, and no real climax, in Movie 2; they've only shifted the problem. Here's where Faramir meets the business end of all this structural difficulty. Frodo and Sam need to be delayed in reaching Cirith Ungol, so conflict needs to be added to one of their major episodes. I can see the logic; why not create a conflict out of the established family/political drama that Movie 1 sets up with Boromir, which will then pay off in Movie 3 with Denethor (I'll talk about Denethor some other time, but I think the problems with him definitely stem from this same source.)

Hence, Faramir acts like a jerk. I definitely think this wasn't an unforced error; they were responding to very real demands of the script. Now, learning from the example, how might I have done it better?

What I would probably do is drastically reduce the time and emphasis placed on Helm's Deep. Have the battle be more of a mid-movie extended action sequence, like Moria was in Fellowship. Move as many elements as you can from the early War sequences of Return back into Two Towers (Saruman, the Palantir, maybe the muster of the Rohirrim and setup for the Paths of the Dead). The main action climax of Movie 2 is now in Cirith Ungol with Frodo and Sam. That leaves you at the start of Movie 3 with greatly reduced stuff do do in the War storyline, so it can sync up with the remainder of the Quest.

Would that have been better? Probably not; I can already see new problems that would create. But I still have a strong feeling that the relative pacing of the two storylines didn't quite strike the right balance, and Faramir was one of the most hard done by that fact.

Some other topics that I am eager to address, and am sure you will have excellent opinions on:


Aragorn's adaptational angst upgrade, complete with Racist Elrond.
Arwen starts dying for... some reason?
Denethor is (more of a) jerk.
No, really, what happened to Saruman? (Theatrical)
You did what to Saruman? (Extended)
Tom Bombadil (Does anyone really think that Bombadil could have possibly worked in these movies?)
Helm's Deep takes way too long.
The hobbits (especially Frodo) tend to be far less capable than their book selves.
Gimli has been stripped of all his dignity, especially his moving admiration for Galadriel.
They probably should've included at least something from the Scouring of the Shire.
The fact that Gollum doesn't fall into the Cracks of Doom on his own, but instead Frodo fights and pushes him, seems to really muddle what is perhaps Tolkien's most important thematic throughline in the entire book.


For the sake of not letting it creep into my more serious analysis, here's stuff I think is dumb or just bothers me, but doesn't actually seem to represent any serious flaw of adaptation:

The effects and props have aged great, but the ones that haven't really stick out because of it (The army of the dead, some of Legolas' action scenes, some of the CGI from the prologue, the Witch King's comically large flail).
The eye of Sauron is overly literal, and consequently kind of goofy (especially in Return of the King, where it seems to literally work like a searchlight.
Sam doesn't look into the mirror of Galadriel. This really bugs me and I don't know why.
Not enough songs and poems. I know they're hard to work in, but I think it's still a poor showing.
The elves who show up at Helm's Deep are silly and pointless.
Most of my favorite Legolas dialogue has been cut, and replaced with other characters' dialogue.
Merry's Barrow-Blade never has its backstory set up for why it can wound the Witch-King.
The whole "Gollum frames Sam for stealing food" subplot is a dumb contrivance that makes both Frodo and Sam look worse.

[Palanan]

Just a couple of brief thoughts here:


Originally Posted by Catullus64
What I would probably do is drastically reduce the time and emphasis placed on Helm's Deep.

I might cut it down a little, but overall I think this section really benefits from the cinematic format. I would definitely cut the sillier moments, such as Legolas shield-surfing and the overlong exchange about tossing the dwarf. And the elves can certainly go.

But I do like the expanded focus, because it helps set up Theoden’s charge, which is a truly epic moment in the movie.

Also, Huorns. Needs more Huorns.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
Gimli has been stripped of all his dignity, especially his moving admiration for Galadriel.

Gimli was reduced to a joke character in the second and third movies, which is one of my primary gripes with them, since he was always a favorite of mine. His friendship with Legolas is an afterthought tacked on near the end, rather than the sustained note that develops in the books.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
They probably should've included at least something from the Scouring of the Shire.

That would have taken additional time to set up and resolve, and the resolution would be yet another ending amid a rather famous series of endings. It does feel like the Shire was a little too shielded from the great tumults of the world, but that fits in the context of the movie, and it would be too much extra time to include it in any meaningful way.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
Helm's Deep takes way too long.

And yet, despite the time devoted to this sequence, Erkenbrand is barely visible and certainly not in command. That always seemed a major omission to me.


Originally Posted by Catullus64
The elves who show up at Helm's Deep are silly and pointless.

This may be a little harsh, but they did seem somewhat out of place.

My personal gripe with the elves here, and most other places in the trilogy, is that they act more like Vulcans, grave and unsmiling and rather wooden overall. Tolkien’s elves had a lightness to them, a touch of unearthly gaiety, and that dimension of their being was completely lost in translation.

[J-H]

I don't think Bombadil would work in the movie. He's pretty disruptive to the flow of the narrative, and, with the exception of setting up the barrow-blades, completely irrelevant to the rest of the story.

My biggest beefs are with the adaptations of Faramir and Aragorn, followed by the comic-reliefing of Gimli and (to an extent) Merry and Pippin. At this point, I mostly chalk it up to "Hollywood, as a socio-cultural power structure, doesn't understand Good people and Heroes any more due to a cultural disconnect and values dissonance versus the source material," as well as versus traditional Anglo/Western culture. Given what we've learned about abusive and exploitative behavior being normalized in Hollywood, I think there's a good case to be made for this. Culture matters, and the American movie-making culture is fundamentally different from and often opposed to the sort of culture and belief system that JRR Tolkein held and that informed his writing. When you're adapting works from someone with a different value set and cultural background, it's hard to get nuances right that don't ring true in your view of the world.

I'm not saying Peter Jackson in particular is bad or holds to all of the Hollywood Values, but the surrounding culture that writers, directors, producers, etc. marinate in impact their worldviews. This is quite likely a sub-topic that could grow outside of the thread, and that could easily start exceeding the Forum Rules, so we probably can't pursue it much farther than simply saying that this exists.


I recently listened to a lecture series by Ryan Reeves on Lewis & Tolkein (it's free on Youtube but is about about 20 hours long). One thing he pointed out - and this is something I had never noticed before - is that JRR Tolkein does not focus on evil. It's certainly there, but nowhere in any of the LOTR trilogy do we get a viewpoint chapter from the perspective of Sauron, Saruman, Snaga the Orc, the Nazgul, or even Gollum or Grima. The story is not about evil; evil is just the opponent and the challenge. JRR wasn't interested in making it sympathetic or focusing on the nature or motivations of evil.

The movie adaptations stepped away from this some, but not a lot. I think most of the time spent with "team evil" was with Gollum/Smeagol (who they adapted pretty well) and with Saruman. I think the spent focused on the forces of Mordor was mostly spent with establishing shots of "Look how scary they are, look at the Witch King's helmet and their troops." Sauron remains voiceless, a malicious driving intelligence lacking any personal presence aside from some creepy whispers in a few scenes. I think they got this right.

[Keltest]

As far as Faramir goes, i believe it was actually explicit that they made him more of a jerk in the movies to show that he isnt above the power of the ring any more than Boromir was, he just has better judgement. He's just as human and vulnerable as his brother, but because he is ultimately a bit wiser, he recognizes the need to destroy the ring rather than wield it in the end. In the books, there isnt really a lot of soul searching about what to do with it.


The movie adaptations stepped away from this some, but not a lot. I think most of the time spent with "team evil" was with Gollum/Smeagol (who they adapted pretty well) and with Saruman. I think the spent focused on the forces of Mordor was mostly spent with establishing shots of "Look how scary they are, look at the Witch King's helmet and their troops." Sauron remains voiceless, a malicious driving intelligence lacking any personal presence aside from some creepy whispers in a few scenes. I think they got this right.

Its worth pointing out that the focus on Gollum in particular is very much framing him as a victim in all this, as much as Frodo is. Much of what he does is based in the context of being hurt and abandoned by people he places value in, up to and especially the Ring. I think this is very much keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's works and intent.

[Catullus64]

And yet, despite the time devoted to this sequence, Erkenbrand is barely visible and certainly not in command. That always seemed a major omission to me.

My personal gripe with the elves here, and most other places in the trilogy, is that they act more like Vulcans, grave and unsmiling and rather wooden overall. Tolkien’s elves had a lightness to them, a touch of unearthly gaiety, and that dimension of their being was completely lost in translation.

Definitely agree that the balance between "grave and terrible, like kings" and "some of them merry as children" definitely got shifted a few too many notches to the right. I think Legolas was your primary chance to show us the softer side, a more carefree Elf, since he's fairly young and not terribly wise, at least not in comparison to Elrond or Galadriel. That's why it's weird that a lot of his more lighthearted dialogue was cut, much of it replaced with much more portentous dialogue from other characters or scenes.

Personally, I think that merging the roles of Eomer and Erkenbrand is smart moviemaking, because of economy of characters. It's the same reason I don't mind Arwen replacing Glorfindel at the ford. Gandalf showing up with reinforcements is more meaningful because it's with a character we've already met, and who will continue to play an important role in Return of the King. It also makes the conflict of Eomer's estrangement from the king tie more directly into the central conflict, whereas in the book it gets pretty instantly resolved when Gandalf shows up to heal Theoden. (On which subject, I find the decision to have Theoden literally being mentally influenced by Saruman, rather than simply being misled and manipulated, to be a much more dynamic setup for a film sequence.)

[Catullus64]

My biggest beefs are with the adaptations of Faramir and Aragorn, followed by the comic-reliefing of Gimli and (to an extent) Merry and Pippin. At this point, I mostly chalk it up to "Hollywood, as a socio-cultural power structure, doesn't understand Good people and Heroes any more due to a cultural disconnect and values dissonance versus the source material," as well as versus traditional Anglo/Western culture. Given what we've learned about abusive and exploitative behavior being normalized in Hollywood, I think there's a good case to be made for this. Culture matters, and the American movie-making culture is fundamentally different from and often opposed to the sort of culture and belief system that JRR Tolkein held and that informed his writing. When you're adapting works from someone with a different value set and cultural background, it's hard to get nuances right that don't ring true in your view of the world.


I think this kind of disconnect in ethos may be why the film seems to trip a little bit (if you'll pardon the pun) at the Cracks of Doom. Modern moviemaking wisdom demands that you have your protagonist play a clear and active part in the climactic action, but that's at odds with the central point of the scene and what's gone before, which is that Frodo fails. He does everything needed to get to that point, above and beyond what anyone could have expected, but his strength fails, as all human strength does at some point in these books. What saves him, saves Middle-Earth, was his decision to show mercy to Gollum even when every ounce of logic said not to. The moral forces which govern Middle-Earth ultimately reward good actions, even when they seem foolish. The filmmakers clearly understand this on some level, because they put so much emphasis
on preserving this exchange:

"Pity? It's a pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."

"I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened"

"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought."

But the decision to have Frodo get up and wrassle Gollum into the fire, making him an active participant in the final victory, makes it seem that they didn't have faith that such a message, with its belief in a universe that is ultimately good, would be accepted by modern audiences, and it's hard to say that they were wrong. Heck, when I first read The Lord of the Rings as a teenager, I was furious that Frodo didn't triumph over the Ring in the end; but I needed to grow up a bit (so that I could complain about other LOTR stuff on the internet).

[PontificatusRex]

I agree with a lot of what's said before, but no one has yet mentioned what I regard as the movie trilogy's greatest failing. But first, a prelude:

In his amazing collection of essays Science Fiction in the Real World, Norman Spinrad writes about the adaptation of PK ****'s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep into the the movie Blade Runner. He made the point that even though the book and the movie are vastly different in almost every way, the movie is a true, artistically successful adaptation of the book because it communicates the book's essential message - that the true measure of humanity is not a matter of biology, but empathy. The most important part of the story is when a dying android saves the life of the enemy who he has every reason to hate, because at his own life's end he can't let another being die if he has the power to save them.

This has had a huge influence on how I view adaptations of books to movies - did the get the essence of the story right, even if they messed with the details for cinematic reasons?

And I'm afraid I think that in the end Jackson totally blew it. In the book, Gollum destroys the Ring and saves the world. He wasn't pushed by Frodo, there was no fight where he loses his balance, he falls into Mount Doom all on his own. Yes it was an "accident", and yet what other ending could he have that would have been better or more triumphant? If he hadn't fallen in while dancing with joy, Sauron would have come and taken the Ring from him again and probably torture him worse than ever before, for as long as his body could survive.

Frodo got as far as he could but the Ring was too powerful even for his resolute spirit. It had to be his dark other half Gollum, to borrow some Jungian symbology, who could complete the Quest. BUT - Gollum would not have been there to save the world if every major character in the story had not shown Gollum mercy and pity at some point. Frodo , Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, back to Bilbo - all of them at one point or another had had Gollum completely helpless and vulnerable before them. It owuld have been totally practical, prudent, and just to put the miserable little murdering creature out of his misery and eliminate the threat he could be, but each character felt pity for his wretchedness and let him live instead. Mercy and compassion are what defeated Sauron in the the end - I really believe that that's the overarching theme of Lord of the Rings, and I think Peter Jackson totally failed to communicate that.

Even if Jackson thought he had to have Frodo show more agency in the Ring's destruction than he did in the book (after taking away a huge amount of Frodo's ability and agency for most of the movie, as was pointed out above), Tolkien gave him a scene to explain it all for the folks who didn't get it. When Frodo and Sam are waiting for the lava to rise and engulf them, Frodo tells Sam very explicitly so no one misses the point that it was Gollum who completed the Quest, and so they should forgive him. And for some reason I cannot fathom, Jackson cut that insanely crucial bit of explanation from the film.

So in my view, for all its many good points, the Movie Trilogy was a failed adaptation in the end.

[Mystic Muse]

So in my view, for all its many good points, the Movie Trilogy was a failed adaptation in the end.

This is probably a set of movies I have watched more than any other (despite hating the first one at the time. I was 8). And yet, I absolutely have to agree.

While I have not read the trilogy (and will not be able to for the next few years, job stuff keeping me too busy), I agree this was a needless change that makes things objectively worse, and misses the point of the books.

[Catullus64]

So in my view, for all its many good points, the Movie Trilogy was a failed adaptation in the end.

(I did read your whole post, and agreed with your analysis up to this summation. I think we were probably writing at the same time, because your pose and the one I made immediately above it seem to be largely of the same mind).

I think we should give a little more credit to the filmmakers in terms of getting the spirit of Tolkien's books right, especially the parts of that spirit that are more timeless and less wrapped up in Tolkien's particular worldview.

The strong, unironic, passionate love between the male characters would have been so easy to hammer into usual movie tough-guy banter, but they don't back away from it.

The lasting damage which the Quest does to Frodo, his inability to ever truly live in the world he helped save, but also the hope for redemption and healing, are all captured unbelievably well; the book and the film still elicit the same measure of tears at the Grey Havens for me.

And the love for Middle-Earth itself, the sorrow for the parts of it that must fade and pass away, the rich character of the land itself is undeniably a powerful presence throughout the film.

[factotum]

I think a lot of the major issues with the film adaptations all come back to an essential misunderstanding of the Ring's power. It was essentially subtle and would only take immediate effect on the weakest of minds, whereas Peter Jackson interpreted it as being like a heroin shot. So, we get situations like Gandalf picking the ring out of the fire with tongs and then dropping it into Frodo's hands telling him it's quite cool--despite the fact that he can't possibly know that, since putting it in the fire in the first place is the final test to confirm it's the One Ring! In the book he's quite happy to pick it up from the hearth immediately after pulling it from the fire. Faramir's reaction to touching the Ring is of the same nature--in the book, he says quite explicitly that if he found it by the roadside he would leave it there, whereas in the film it influences him immediately. If you watch the DVD commentary about that one of the writers says that they did this because the scene in the book would somehow diminish the danger they'd set up around the Ring, but that danger only got set up that way because of their misunderstanding of the Ring's nature.

Given that one of the major themes of the book is how subtle and patient Evil can be, having everything accelerated like this just felt all wrong.

My other big beef is the passing of the Argonath. In the books those statues are *impressive*--Frodo even cowers down in the boat as they pass because he's so in awe of the things. In the movie, he looks faintly bored as they pass them, and just in case any sense of awe still managed to linger in the audience, they killed it with the flight of birds coming out of the statue's eye.

[Saintheart]

Some other topics that I am eager to address, and am sure you will have excellent opinions on:

Aragorn's adaptational angst upgrade, complete with Racist Elrond.

A few possibilities:

(1) Racist Elrond I think is an unfair meme. However, Depressed, World-Weary Elrond was laid on too thick, which is a sort-of persistent error throughout the films, good as they are. We also got Depressed Elrond because points of sublime significance had to be conveyed in a few lines or even in wordless looks, which means they had to emote harder than might otherwise be appropriate. For example, Elrond's last shot, where he looks pretty sorry to be handing his daughter over to a bearded bro, were likely directed with the intent to convey that this is, really, the last parting of Elrond and Arwen; he's going into the West after this and will forever be parted from his daughter, even beyond death since humans proceed out of the world and elves stay on in Valinor. Such an event might even cause long-view elves to be moved to emotion or tears. Unfortunately, it's lost in the fact we've already seen Elrond emoting all-too-humanly over the place through three films, from despair to worry to grumpiness to screaming his head off at Isildur and finally delivering what was meant to be an inspiring speech but in which Hugo Weaving manages to make Elrond unintentionally terrifying.

There's other stuff that doesn't help it - awe from the defenders of Helm's Deep when the elves arrive, Théoden's entirely-unexplained coldness when he leaves Aragorn and Elrond to talk in the tent - but that's where the problem lies. Yes, Elrond's half-human. That only makes it a harder set of character traits to play. Capping it all off, I think we also got Elrond The Depressed Overprotective Dad because the character's not really that interesting and his main purpose in the films is to service expositionary dialogue.

(2) Aragorn's adaptational angst I think was a solution the writers came up with to deal with the belief that audiences wouldn't buy Jesus The Sea King ... or they thought they couldn't tell the story of Numenor without utterly confusing the audience or taking away from the movies' main driving plotline.

Don't get me wrong, FOTR's prologue is one of the most beautiful and economical pieces of exposition filmed in popular cinema. When it comes to introducing entirely unfamiliar settings from the get-go, only Star Wars' opening crawl rivals its success in building a world and setting out the principal players in less than five minutes of screentime. But even beautiful as that exposition is, it only has time to get across the absolute bare bones of the backstory: the Ring, its corrupting influence, its creator, the Nazgul, the fact the Ring was lost, the fact it was found, the fact it's Bilbo who picked it up and still has it. That's it.

The rest of the world around the Ring - Valinor, where elves go, and so on - that's all very much vague and in the background. I think the authors believed they couldn't really get the same depth and significant backstory regarding how Aragorn is basically the returned Messiah, or rather the last branch of a royal line infused with magic. Remember, they cut the scenes talking about the Dunedain. And yes, I recognise this is kind of ironic if not an idiotic situation since the name of the damn third film is The Return of the King.

So what do you then have with a character who's vaguely the last scion of a royal house, who knows he's of a royal house, but whose significance we otherwise can't really delve deeply into? Well, in cinematic terms, you have a flat character - one who doesn't really change or have a throughline in the story that's going to be interesting to an audience, he's just 'there'. Even poor old Gandalf couldn't be left entirely alone on this front, he had scenes and moments looking suspiciously like character development when I didn't read him as meant to have them in the original books (other than being surprised by Hobbit Will saves, that is.)

Point being - I think they stuck it in there because of some feeling that none of the characters were really changing, that none of them were having big cathartic moments or times when they assumed their mantles. It could be they were worried that Aragon comes across as too much of a Marty Stu without this 'humanity' to him. By the time we meet him in the books, Aragorn knows full well who he is. The reason he hasn't revealed himself or started appearing openly as the heir to the throne of Gondor is because he's been avoiding the shadow, who've been hunting him for years. He carries the frickin' shards of Narsil around with him for crying out loud, they're not left lying on a vegetable platter at Rivendell. His choice of concealment is tactical, not existential or out of hesitation in taking up his destiny. But the writers seemed to think they wouldn't be able to convey that choice to audiences.

They probably also thought it was a good idea because it made it easier, or felt it resonated with, certain other themes or storylines Aragorn comes into contact with. In FOTR they use Aragorn's doubts to emphasise the corrupting influence of the Ring - the idea being that he and Boromir are reflections of one another, but Aragorn resists the Ring's temptation while Boromir succumbs to it. In TTT they use his doubts to amp up the relative weakness if not fallen nature of men, emphasising Théoden's state. In ROTK they use his fears - in what I think is a nice storytelling tactic - to counterpoint and emphasise the fearful men of the Dimwalt Road, who will only answer to the rightful king of Gondor.

(3) In summary, though, the character storytelling in the trilogy is not terribly subtle. In some cases, for lesser characters, it's a bit overblown, which does suit the material, but doesn't quite ring true in some instances, this being one of them.


Arwen starts dying for... some reason?
I think Arwen's temporary case of dying is a screenwriting consequence of Depressed Worldweary Elrond, as set out above. Without it we'd likely be querying why the dude sitting in Rivendell doing nothing to fight the shadow and thinking it's all a lost cause suddenly is spending gold and XP on the family's +5 bastard sword and handing it over to the boyfriend and his band of merry hobbits.

This I think was a case of the writers wanting to take something that was implied and thematic and use it as an actual storytelling device. I'm hoping they didn't just do it out of a desire to give Liv Tyler something to do, bearing in mind that most of Arwen's presence in the story is a case of a massive character upgrade from near-background to near-primary cast. Arwen's impending death is what galvanises Elrond into action. It also raises the stakes for Aragorn. So they likely thought it was a good idea. And they justified it by saying 'Arwen's decision to become mortal is near-unprecedented in elven history, so it'd make sense that the decision bears outsized consequences, namely, taking the rise of the shadow harder than elves or humans normally would.'

It's not great, but given how they portrayed Elrond, I can see why they would've resorted to it.



Denethor is (more of a) jerk.
Here's my unpopular opinion: I found this Denethor more compelling, heartless, and frightening than the original, and therefore a much more successful character.

I am biased on this one. I'm the kind of guy who dug the whole 'exorcism of Theoden' scene, I thought it was seven grades of awesome from beginning to end, a distinct improvement on what was overly subtle in the books. Denethor in the books tries to bridge this sort of gap between Stoic philosopher and depressed nutcase, and he doesn't, in my memory, come across quite as clear as he does in the films.

So I don't mind Denethor's behaviour here. They do away with all balance on his Stoicism. In the film he's meant to represent all that's worst in medieval autocrats, with a solid mix of World War One follow-my-orders-to-the-letter-no-matter-how-insane general: he doesn't take any of the risks created by his own decisions, he sits safe behind lines while the light brigade makes its suicidal charge, he's contemptuous of children who don't achieve much, and he has favourite sons, i.e. he's an awful father. And we're in a film where people are overacting, or being directed to overact in some cases.

Denethor is difficult to watch, as he should be. Théoden is only being influenced to despair by Saruman, a lesser evil in Sauron's grip. Denethor may not have the One Ring, but by virtue of the Palantir, he's in direct contact, directly corrupted by Sauron himself. (Which in turn is also dictated by lore choices - the Palantir are implied as much more mind-to-mind contact than the books make them out to be. Once again, doing away with subtlety, the light touch, for the sake of film, but for Denethor, it works.) He's as ugly as they get on the inside, and that's by design. When I watch Denethor's scenes, John Noble conjures an awful, dark emptiness behind Denthor's eyes. The scenes between him and David Wenham as Faramir are some of ROTK's absolute best.

[Catullus64]

(1) Racist Elrond I think is an unfair meme.

Definitely; it's just one that I think is funny. :smallwink:


Here's my unpopular opinion: I found this Denethor more compelling, heartless, and frightening than the original, and therefore a much more successful character.

I am biased on this one. I'm the kind of guy who dug the whole 'exorcism of Theoden' scene, I thought it was seven grades of awesome from beginning to end, a distinct improvement on what was overly subtle in the books. Denethor in the books tries to bridge this sort of gap between Stoic philosopher and depressed nutcase, and he doesn't, in my memory, come across quite as clear as he does in the films.

So I don't mind Denethor's behaviour here. They do away with all balance on his Stoicism. In the film he's meant to represent all that's worst in medieval autocrats, with a solid mix of World War One follow-my-orders-to-the-letter-no-matter-how-insane general: he doesn't take any of the risks created by his own decisions, he sits safe behind lines while the light brigade makes its suicidal charge, he's contemptuous of children who don't achieve much, and he has favourite sons, i.e. he's an awful father. And we're in a film where people are overacting, or being directed to overact in some cases.

Denethor is difficult to watch, as he should be. Théoden is only being influenced to despair by Saruman, a lesser evil in Sauron's grip. Denethor may not have the One Ring, but by virtue of the Palantir, he's in direct contact, directly corrupted by Sauron himself. (Which in turn is also dictated by lore choices - the Palantir are implied as much more mind-to-mind contact than the books make them out to be. Once again, doing away with subtlety, the light touch, for the sake of film, but for Denethor, it works.) He's as ugly as they get on the inside, and that's by design. When I watch Denethor's scenes, John Noble conjures an awful, dark emptiness behind Denthor's eyes. The scenes between him and David Wenham as Faramir are some of ROTK's absolute best.

(Incidental to my main point, but yes, the healing of Theoden is a masterstroke of taking something off the page and heightening it to make it powerful on screen.)

I think that the films never really come to grips with Denethor as a person, instead of as an idea or a caricature. The Denethor of the films seems to be pretty much mad and cruel from the get-go. One wonders how Gondor has withstood the Enemy for so long with this nutter in charge. He consistently makes terrible decisions that need to be bypassed or bailed out by Gandalf. And the flashback sequence from Two Towers extended cut implies he was pretty much always this way. I'm pretty sure both cuts of the film omit his possession of the Palantir, so we're not given the humanizing angle of how Sauron pushed him into despair. His actual remorse and care for a wounded Faramir (before he truly loses his mind) are also removed.

The Denethor we meet in the books is meant to be already turning into his worst self, but he's not mad yet. We get the sense from how people speak of him that he's alway been a demanding but not truly abusive father, and that his grief for Boromir has pushed him over the edge. Even so, he takes good advice where it can be had, even from Gandalf, his conduct of the war actually makes sense, and his decision to send Faramir out on a forlorn hope comes across as callous and pragmatic, but not truly monstrous or wasteful. We're never given the sense of a great statesman, who has resisted the Enemy with all his strength and cunning and been broken by the weight of that struggle. The film is instead bitterly dismissive of Denethor.

I don't think this is a failure of acting; John Noble suits his acting to the script he's given (and, I suspect, the direction he was given). In terms of pure filmmaking, the scene of Denethor's banquet while Faramir rides to his death is brilliant in itself. And Noble does still bring across some humanity to the character, particularly in scenes with Pippin.

Again I think this decision partly comes back to the need for Faramir to be an obstacle for Frodo and Sam, in order to re-structure the pacing of the Quest narrative. In order for us to understand why Faramir might make this decision, and act so ruthlessly, we need to see it in his father, and see how much unreasonable pressure Denethor puts on the poor guy; hence that flashback sequence. In order for Faramir's behavior to make sense, Denethor need to be the bad guy from the get-go.

[J-H]

I discussed this thread with my wife last night. Two additions:

1) I don't like having Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) as Elrond. I think I nearly laughed when I first saw him in the theater. My wife says the actor had the presence to pull it off. I can't get past Agent Elrond, myself.

2) She is annoyed that they made Arwen be the one to come rescue Frodo. She would rather have some hot First Age Reborn Balrog-Slayer action with Glorfindel. I understand why they made the change (narrative conservation/one fewer character), and frankly, Glorfindel plays no greater role in the story. I don't remember if he even attends the Council.
We never, at any point, get to see what elves going to war really looked like. The faceless armored troops at Helm's Deep or the weird "we attack in a line one by one" thing from one of the prologues doesn't count.

[Catullus64]

I discussed this thread with my wife last night. Two additions:

1) I don't like having Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) as Elrond. I think I nearly laughed when I first saw him in the theater. My wife says the actor had the presence to pull it off. I can't get past Agent Elrond, myself.

2) She is annoyed that they made Arwen be the one to come rescue Frodo. She would rather have some hot First Age Reborn Balrog-Slayer action with Glorfindel. I understand why they made the change (narrative conservation/one fewer character), and frankly, Glorfindel plays no greater role in the story. I don't remember if he even attends the Council.
We never, at any point, get to see what elves going to war really looked like. The faceless armored troops at Helm's Deep or the weird "we attack in a line one by one" thing from one of the prologues doesn't count.

All the more shame that they didn't end up going with David Bowie, who they considered for Elrond.

Even though I approve the choice to fold Glorfindel's role into a character who will continue to be relevant to the story, it does create an odd disconnect in Arwen's character. We first meet her as essentially an action heroine, why does she then behave like a mostly-passive classical Lady throughout the rest of the films? This would have been more consistent, I suppose, in the shot-but-never-used footage where she personally leads the Elves to Helm's Deep.

(Let me just clarify that more consistent does not mean good; if anything, it would have made the Elves even less plausible, since that would imply they come from Rivendell rather than Lothlorien. Marching all the way from Lothlorien and across Eastfold on a few day's notice is silly; marching all the way from Imaldris, through the gap of Rohan, past Isengard and the host of Saruman, is some Season-8-Game-of-Thrones-level nonsense. And if they are from Rivendell, well, turns out Elrond does have "a host of Elves in armor of the Elder Days"!)

As for seeing the Elves go to war, here's where some cues from the books might have been well-placed. We get dialogue which makes it clear that Lothlorien and Mirkwood are both under near-constant attacks from orcs out of the Misty Mountains. Some more dialogue to that effect from Legolas, or perhaps some signs of war on the borders of Lothlorien, would have helped give a sense of Elves in the conflict, and justify why they are in no position to ride to the rescue of the world of Men.

[Keltest]

Arwen is placed in the awkward double position of being a character in her own right for the movie, and also Aragorn's motivation and love interest. We need to establish a relationship with her, and that he is motivated in part by love and concern for her, but she doesnt join the Fellowship, so it all has to happen via flashback. I think expanding on her was an admiral goal that maybe was simply too ambitious for an already ambitious project.

[Manga Shoggoth]

2) She is annoyed that they made Arwen be the one to come rescue Frodo. She would rather have some hot First Age Reborn Balrog-Slayer action with Glorfindel. I understand why they made the change (narrative conservation/one fewer character), and frankly, Glorfindel plays no greater role in the story. I don't remember if he even attends the Council.
We never, at any point, get to see what elves going to war really looked like. The faceless armored troops at Helm's Deep or the weird "we attack in a line one by one" thing from one of the prologues doesn't count.

This is - to my mind - an illustration of the films' worst sin. They weaken and lessen the characters for no good reason - and Frodo and Faramir come across the worst for it.

In the book, Glorfindel puts Frodo on his horse, tells it to run and then turns to fight the Ringwraiths. The horse runs to and across the ford, with the Ringwraiths in chase. Frodo, while the ring tries to force him to surrender, draws his dagger and says "come on if you think you are hard enough" (Only, this being Tolkein, more poetically). Elrond's magic then raises the river against the Ringwraiths.

In the Bakshi Film, pretty much the same, but Legolas is substituted for Glorfindel.

In the Jackson film, Arwen puts Frodo on her horse, rides it across the river, then turns and raises the river against the Ringwraiths.

It seems that about every time Frodo gets to show his strengths in the book or Bakshi film it is either edited out (The Barrowdowns) or removed (The Ford).

Let's be clear: Some of the scenes have to go - we can't have the Barrowdowns because we don't have Tom Bombadil (and I do agree with cutting him out - I don't think it would have worked.). I don't even object to Arwen being given the part at all - it's a sensible thing to do, and if they did what the earlier film did with Legolas it would have worked fine. But they took it too far and robbed Frodo of his agency.

It's the same with Faramir - he is supposed to be the opposite of Boromir (who I think the film nailed, by the way). Boromir is the fallen hero who redeems himself at the cost of his life, Faramir is the hero who doesn't fall because he is wise enough to avoid the trap. In the film? Nope. Just another thug who drags Frodo across the countryside and has to have his face pushed in it before he changes his mind. Worse than his brother, in fact.

Even Denathor got a raw deal - The book gave us lots of examples of him being a great man in his own right, who is moved by the actions of one of the Hobbits who saw his son die, and goes on to treat him very well while he is in hs service. The film? Yup, another thug and bully.

The films did a lot of things well (The beacon sequence is my go-to example), but sometimes I think it minced the characters very badly.

EDIT: Be aware that I have the films exactly once. I have read and reread the books many times, but the films - decent though they are overall - have never been worth watching again. Too much investment in time for too little.

[Talakeal]

So in my view, for all its many good points, the Movie Trilogy was a failed adaptation in the end.

While I disagree, I totally see where you are coming from.

(spoilers for other movies below)

IMO, the 2011 Plant of the Apes prequel was an amazing film, but by changing the cause of humanities extinction from nuclear war to trying to cure Alzheimer's, they really mess with the message.

Likewise, the 2017 adaptation of The Dark Tower (my favorite novel) got EVERYTHING wrong, but could have saved the movie thematically if the last scene had Roland shooting Jake through the portal, as that would have at least showed that they understood the meaning of the book if not the details.

[Rodin]

I feel that calling the movies a failed adaptation is a bit harsh, to say the least. They took the book that couldn't be filmed, and filmed it. They filmed three movies consecutively at a time when fantasy movies were box office poison. And they nailed the visuals and feel of the world to such a degree that the films will affect how I view the "canonical" Middle Earth for the rest of my life.

In so doing they brought the books to millions of people who would never have read a dense fantasy novel like LOTR, and millions of people who would never have read a fantasy novel period. It helped bring fantasy into the mainstream.

Yes, if you analyze the heck out of the movies you're going to find flaws. Some of the flaws you don't even have to analyze all that much. But considering the scope of the project, at that time in Hollywood? It's an amazing achievement that has yet to be matched.

The movies will eventually be a relic of their time, just like the Bakshi version. But it's going to take a hell of a long time for someone to match it. Pointing out some themes they missed and using that to file it in the bin with adaptations that totally missed the point (like the Hobbit movies) strikes me as a grave injustice.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I feel that calling the movies a failed adaptation is a bit harsh, to say the least. They took the book that couldn't be filmed, and filmed it. They filmed three movies consecutively at a time when fantasy movies were box office poison. And they nailed the visuals and feel of the world to such a degree that the films will affect how I view the "canonical" Middle Earth for the rest of my life.

The problem is that a film adaptation (any adaptation, really, but let's stick with film) has to achieve two things, whereas an original film only has to achieve one. It is the price of doing an adaptation rather than doing your own thing.

First - just like any other film - it has to be a good film in its own right.

Second, it has to be a good adaptation of the source material.

Taken as a their own right, the LOTR trilogy are very good films. They are, as you say, visually stunning and very well put together. If they weren't an adaptation they would be coming up roses.

But here's the thing - adaptations must also be good adaptations. And this is where the problems start for LOTR - I wouldn't call them a failed adaption (We have the Hobbit trilogy and the original Dune movie for that...), but they are still a weak adaptation that misses an awful lot of the beats they should be hitting.

If you can't hit both targets, what was the point of doing an adaptation in the first place?

The Bakshi film was a far more faithful adaptation, and let's be clear here, he did it first. Bakshi didn't stop because he couldn't do it, but because it was a lot of effort that he would rather spend on his own material.

[Talakeal]

But here's the thing - adaptations must also be good adaptations.

Who says they must?

There are plenty of excellent films that take only the vaguest hint from the material they are supposed to be adapting, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Who says they must?

There are plenty of excellent films that take only the vaguest hint from the material they are supposed to be adapting, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Then they are good films in their own right, but fail as adaptations. I'm not saying that a film can't be good, but that if it is an adaptation of something then it also needs to be a good adaptation.

Because that is the price of making an adaptation. You are tying yourself to something that already exists.

Otherwise what is the point of doing an adaptation? At best it is deceptive advertising. You might as well make your own thing from the very beginning and succeed or fail on your own merits.

Someone might make a very nice chicken dish with orange flavouring, but you would rightly complain if they tried to sell it to you as duck a l'orange.

[Rodin]

Who says they must?

There are plenty of excellent films that take only the vaguest hint from the material they are supposed to be adapting, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

I would argue that you should be taking more than the vaguest hint. If that's all you are doing you should just make your own IP and be done with it. . Starship Troopers is an excellent example of this - the movie doesn't represent the themes, the feel, or really anything about the novel except for "there's a big war against space bugs". You could have named the movie something else and nothing would be lost. If you're just taking some names and using it to tell your vision, you should have your hand slapped away when you try and steal another author's work for name recognition.

However, that does not mean they have to be identical. Zack Snyder's Watchmen was criticized for pulling nearly panel for panel the story from the comic books. Since comic books are a visual medium to begin with, this meant he failed to add anything new that made the adaptation worth making.

For Lord of the Rings, the point was that we hadn't had a visual representation that did Middle Earth justice. Bakshi's version missed the mark in a lot of ways and was dealing wiith 1978 special effects and animation techniques. The LOTR films brought to life the Shire, Gondor, and all the other locations in a way that hadn't been seen before. They brought an amazing soundtrack to it. And they handled the story in a way that was respectful of the original (even if they did miss the mark in places). Having Frodo struggle for the ring and accidentally knock Gollum in with it and having Gollum fall in on his own is a relatively small change compared to, say, having Frodo fight an embodied Sauron in a massive final boss battle in Mount Doom. Again, see The Hobbit for an example that didn't show due respect to the source material.

I wouldn't say it's a weak adaptation at all, because there's more to an adaptation than just story. It's about getting the look of the characters right, getting the feel of the setting right, and letting the audience live in the world they previously had to rely on their imaginations to generate. The LOTR films nailed that aspect. Flaws in the story are unfortunate, but the LOTR films are more faithful than most adaptations and we only notice so much because adapting Tolkien is like trying to adapt Shakespeare.

It's also why I'm a lot harder on the Hobbit movies than I am on the LOTR films. The Hobbit movies tried to replicate the feel of LOTR, which is wrong wrong wrong for the bedtime story that is The Hobbit. You can trace almost every problem with The Hobbit back to that one creative decision. It doesn't feel like the Hobbit, it feels like LOTR. It's a bad adaptation not because of changes to the story (which mostly would have been tolerable if annoying), but because the films forgot that Bilbo is the hero of this tale and Bilbo doesn't care about all of the Sauron prequel stuff that's going on. It spends too long on the elves (who Bilbo doesn't care about except as antagonists), it spends too long on the Laketowners (who are unimportant to the story other than Bard), and it spends too much time focusing on the Orcs/Goblins and their feud with Thorin.

You can miss the character beats and still make a fine adaptation. What matters is you should come out of the theatre saying "I enjoyed it, and that was definitely [adapted story]."

[Sapphire Guard]

Adaptations are the big weakness of Hollywood. Movies tend to follow a very specific structure, so when anything doesn't fit that structure, they try to cram it into it, no matter how unsuitable it is.

The big victory with LOTR was , they found a studio that was willing to make three three hour movies. When they were trying to pitch it to studios, nobody wanted to do anything that wasn't one two hour movie except New Line, who wanted to make 3 movies, whereas PJ had to fight hard just to make 2 with everyone else (partly because Harvey Weinstein is a (CENSORED))

That's why we have a Dark Tower that is two hours, even though that obviously makes no sense. That's why video game adaptations don't work. Hollywood knows how to make a specific kind of film, but thinks that it's the only way to make films, instead of one path among many.

By breaking out of the two hour mould Hollywood worships, they were able to make a fair stab at an adaptation.

[Catullus64]

Adaptations are the big weakness of Hollywood. Movies tend to follow a very specific structure, so when anything doesn't fit that structure, they try to cram it into it, no matter how unsuitable it is.

The big victory with LOTR was , they found a studio that was willing to make three three hour movies. When they were trying to pitch it to studios, nobody wanted to do anything that wasn't one two hour movie except New Line, who wanted to make 3 movies, whereas PJ had to fight hard just to make 2 with everyone else.

It always amazes me to think back to a time when you'd have trouble getting a big multi-part film series based on a beloved intellectual property. These days they might have to fight to keep it at three.

[The Glyphstone]

It always amazes me to think back to a time when you'd have trouble getting a big multi-part film series based on a beloved intellectual property. These days they might have to fight to keep it at three.

Let's see how well Dune holds up on that...

[factotum]

It spends too long on the elves (who Bilbo doesn't care about except as antagonists), it spends too long on the Laketowners (who are unimportant to the story other than Bard), and it spends too much time focusing on the Orcs/Goblins and their feud with Thorin.


Well, obviously the reason it spends so long on all that stuff is because it had to fill three movies' worth of runtime *somehow*, and adapting a book a quarter the size of LOTR into roughly the same airtime is going to necessitate a lot of padding. Wouldn't have been so bad if the padding in any way made sense or added anything to the story, of course.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Adaptations are the big weakness of Hollywood. Movies tend to follow a very specific structure, so when anything doesn't fit that structure, they try to cram it into it, no matter how unsuitable it is.

The big victory with LOTR was , they found a studio that was willing to make three three hour movies. When they were trying to pitch it to studios, nobody wanted to do anything that wasn't one two hour movie except New Line, who wanted to make 3 movies, whereas PJ had to fight hard just to make 2 with everyone else (partly because Harvey Weinstein is a (CENSORED))

...

By breaking out of the two hour mould Hollywood worships, they were able to make a fair stab at an adaptation.

That's one of the reasons I get annoyed when people dismiss the Bakshi film because the story wasn't completed - the only way you can sensibly do LOTR is by doing two or three films, and possibly long ones if you aren't careful with the editing. It's just that when the film was made, the mentality was to make self contained films (the days of the Republic serials being long gone).

It was quite a brave action to make part one of a two or three part film (and yes, the original plan was to make multiple films - where Jackson succeeded was that his films were made end-to-end as one big project rather than as three individual films).



It always amazes me to think back to a time when you'd have trouble getting a big multi-part film series based on a beloved intellectual property. These days they might have to fight to keep it at three.

Well, yes and no...

The only multi-part film that I can remember recently is Avengers (Age of Ultron/Endgame). The MCU is not one story, but lots of seperate films and sequels drawing from a common pot.

You could cite the Harry Potter films if you squint a bit, but the last two are the only ones that are based on a single book.

We had the Star Wars trilogy, but that was three seperate films, not one big set of three. We were told it was based on a nine-part story (or at least, the full story was nine films and the original film was pushed as part four), but how much of that was true, and how much was pushed in after the first film's success is up for debate.

Then you could cite the Republic serials (and their comtemporaries) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_film) - many of which were adaptations of comics, books and radio materials. I have many happy memories of watching Buck Rogers, King of the Rocket Men and of course Flash Gordon in my childhood. (Of course, I was watching them as reruns on TV...)



Let's see how well Dune holds up on that...

Oh gods... I remember the original Dune film. Interesting and clever in many ways, and some of the odd bits were (to my surprise) very minor details in the book. But a dire adaptation, and one where they manage to wipe out the sandworms at the end of the story.

I'm told the Si-fi serial was better, though.


Rodin: I won't quite your entire post, but...

You are right about adaptations not having to be identical - at the very least different mediums require different techniques. I also agree that the Bakshi film is not without its faults (especially visually - in fact I found much of the rotoscoping rather distracting).

I would even agree that 'What matters is you should come out of the theatre saying "I enjoyed it, and that was definitely [adapted story]."' - the LOTR trilogy is sill recognisably Lord of the Rings.

However, the characters are as much a part of the story as anything else, and LOTR made some very poor changes with the characters. That's why I regard it as a poor adaptation. As I said, doesn't necessarly make the film bad in it's own right (I did enjoy most of part 1, and largely enjoyed parts 2 and 3), but does downgrade it as an adaption.

I disagree that "we only notice so much because adapting Tolkien is like trying to adapt Shakespeare". Shakespeare wrote plays (and poetry, but I'm staying away from that...), and they are generally very easy to adapt to the big screen. I mean, the script has already been written for you. There have been many, many successful films based on Shakespeare plays.

I was thinking about this last night, and looked back at some offerings by that master of faithful adaptation: Disney.

Three animated films from my youth, all popular and well-regarded (even by me), and all adapted from stories by authors from my country. They all hit the "Good film in it's own right" button.

Robin Hood: Good adaptation- all the story beats are there, and the characters are close enough to the originals (such that they are - the various stories cover a lot of ground). Everything added works well, and the big change (the happily ever after - in the original legends Robin dies at the end) is understandable for the market.

Sword in the Stone: Borderline adaptation - many of the story beats are there, but the characters get something of a drubbing. In the original, Kay and Wart are effectively brothers and actually get on quite well. Ector is a fairly reasonable parent, and characters like Sir Pelinore are very different. A sequence is added in the film (the squirrels) which is admittedly hilarious, but several interesting stories (the boys visiting Robin HWood, Kay killing a scithian, the Questing Beast) are cut out.

The Jungle Book*: Awful adaptation - All the characters were changed, some of the characters are unrecognisable (Baloo was a fairly strict but loving teacher, Hathi was a noble warrior and wise leader of the Jungle, Kaa was one of Mowgli teachers and allies {and is the one who saves him from the Bandar-Log/Monkeys}, Shere Khan was one step away from being an outcast and had no redeeming features), most of the lore and background is stripped out and the actual stories themselves are barely there in faint outline.

Remember: All three of these are popular and well-regarded films. But they all score very differently as adaptations. For me LOTR is pretty much at the Sword in the Stone level - Good film, most of the story has come across, but fails badly with some of the characters.

And as with so many things, I much prefer the original books...



Well, obviously the reason it spends so long on all that stuff is because it had to fill three movies' worth of runtime *somehow*, and adapting a book a quarter the size of LOTR into roughly the same airtime is going to necessitate a lot of padding. Wouldn't have been so bad if the padding in any way made sense or added anything to the story, of course.

Oh... Let's not get started on padding. Do it properly, people don't notice it, do it badly and it sticks out a mile....



* - Strictly speaking, a loose adaptation of the Mowgli stories Mowgli's Brothers, Kaa's Hunting, Tiger! Tiger! and The Spring Running from the First and Second Jungle Book collections. There are lots of other stories not involving Mowgli, including the slightly less well known Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.

[The Glyphstone]

Oh gods... I remember the original Dune film. Interesting and clever in many ways, and some of the odd bits were (to my surprise) very minor details in the book. But a dire adaptation, and one where they manage to wipe out the sandworms at the end of the story.

I'm told the Si-fi serial was better, though.



The Lynch movie was definitely a controversial mess, and part of that was trying to fit the entire book into one movie like you said. But I was thinking specifically of the upcoming Villlineuve version, which is explicitly one book (Dune) split over 2 movies, which is a very ambitious gamble on the level of Bakshi. Even LotR stuck to telling roughly one book per movie.

[Manga Shoggoth]

The Lynch movie was definitely a controversial mess, and part of that was trying to fit the entire book into one movie like you said. But I was thinking specifically of the upcoming Villlineuve version, which is explicitly one book (Dune) split over 2 movies, which is a very ambitious gamble on the level of Bakshi. Even LotR stuck to telling roughly one book per movie.

We can only hope... The bits I've seen so far don't look to bad.

[The Glyphstone]

We can only hope... The bits I've seen so far don't look to bad.

Oh it looks excellent. But its got to be financially successful enough to earn its part 2, and I'm hoping it is. Its ambitious to tell half the story and hope people like it enough to wait for the rest.

[Catullus64]

The Lynch movie was definitely a controversial mess, and part of that was trying to fit the entire book into one movie like you said. But I was thinking specifically of the upcoming Villlineuve version, which is explicitly one book (Dune) split over 2 movies, which is a very ambitious gamble on the level of Bakshi. Even LotR stuck to telling roughly one book per movie.

Dune (2021) is actually going the opposite route from Bakshi, who attempted (due to all kinds of crazy outside factors) to cram 2 books worth of material into one movie. To me, the splitting of Dune into 2 films for the first book, with no concrete plans for how (and if) the subsequent books might be adapted, seems like restraint.

[Rodin]

Dune (2021) is actually going the opposite route from Bakshi, who attempted (due to all kinds of crazy outside factors) to cram 2 books worth of material into one movie. To me, the splitting of Dune into 2 films for the first book, with no concrete plans for how (and if) the subsequent books might be adapted, seems like restraint.

It's also a different situation than The Hobbit. We have proof that you can't tell the plot of Dune in one movie, and it's called the David Lynch version. I'm personally quite fond of the Lynch version, but it's undeniable that he had to ditch a lot to cram the book into one movie. And it's still a decently long movie, even if you don't count the extended edition.

Instead of trying to do a single 3 hour movie, doing it as two 2 hour movies might be better.

[Precure]

Weird thing is how Frodo's part of the book two had like the most hollywoody ending ever and they didn't use it as an ending point for the movie.

[Rodin]

Weird thing is how Frodo's part of the book two had like the most hollywoody ending ever and they didn't use it as an ending point for the movie.

Ditto the Hobbit. If you're going to break it into multiple pieces, the Hobbit has obvious places to do so following each adventure vignette. It was a children's story after all, so it makes sense that it would be represented by manageable chunks that could be read to children by their parents. This was how I was first exposed to it and Fantasy in general - my mother read a chapter a night.

As such, there are a few obvious break points. The rescue by the Eagles is an obvious one, and is the first clear demarcation between story segments. There's a big climax with the king goblin and Gollum, the party gets split up and reunites, and then you start the next movie by introducing Beorn and using Gandalf telling the story as a recap mechanism for audiences. Not doing that was honestly a bit of a headscratcher, although at least they had the sense to use the eagles as the break point. Not that breaking it into three was a good idea in the first place, mind you.

Then you have Mirkwood. There's several good drama points to break the story if you want a cliffhanger. All the dwarves getting bound up by spiders is a good "what will our hero do now?" moment. However, that happens before the climax where Bilbo fights the spiders and frees the dwarves. If you do that first, you have a nice secondary cliff hanger of "Bilbo has been heroic, but now the dwarves are spirited away by elves. Oh noes!"

If you don't want to use that one either, there's a more traditional break point. Bilbo Mission Impossible's the dwarves out of Mirkwood, and we cut straight from them floating down river to them getting out on the shores of Laketown. Pan the camera over to show the Lonely Mountain, and roll credits.

Instead, the movies did the weirdest thing possible. They covered the first part of the next story (the Dwarves and Bilbo infiltrating the Lonely Mountain), then added an action sequence that wasn't in the books at all. Smaug flies off and...roll credits. What?

The result is Smaug getting killed 5 minutes into the third movie, and the rest of the movie having to dither around waiting for the big battle at the end. It's a truly surreal decision, and I have no idea why they made it. Even as a three movie structure it doesn't make sense.

I still maintain that they could have made good movies if they simply split it in two. One movie would have felt rushed - action sequences take longer to tell on screen than they do in the book, and the Battle of Five Armies in particular would have been difficult to do justice unless they followed the book and had Bilbo get knocked out before anything interesting happens. However, two movies would have been ample if they cut out all the filler. Hire Peter Jackson an editor and cut a lot of the dead time. Cut unneccessary subplots (all the Tauriel nonsense, most of the Laketown fanfic and a good portion of the wizards mucking about) and stick closer to the story. They could easily have gotten the party into or through Mirkwood in the first movie, leaving dealing with Smaug, the Arkenstone, and the Battle of the Five Armies for the second movie.

It still wouldn't have been a good adaptation, but at least the movies would have been good.

[runeghost]

I agree with a lot of what's said before, but no one has yet mentioned what I regard as the movie trilogy's greatest failing. But first, a prelude:

In his amazing collection of essays Science Fiction in the Real World, Norman Spinrad writes about the adaptation of PK ****'s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep into the the movie Blade Runner. He made the point that even though the book and the movie are vastly different in almost every way, the movie is a true, artistically successful adaptation of the book because it communicates the book's essential message - that the true measure of humanity is not a matter of biology, but empathy. The most important part of the story is when a dying android saves the life of the enemy who he has every reason to hate, because at his own life's end he can't let another being die if he has the power to save them.

This has had a huge influence on how I view adaptations of books to movies - did the get the essence of the story right, even if they messed with the details for cinematic reasons?

And I'm afraid I think that in the end Jackson totally blew it. In the book, Gollum destroys the Ring and saves the world. He wasn't pushed by Frodo, there was no fight where he loses his balance, he falls into Mount Doom all on his own. Yes it was an "accident", and yet what other ending could he have that would have been better or more triumphant? If he hadn't fallen in while dancing with joy, Sauron would have come and taken the Ring from him again and probably torture him worse than ever before, for as long as his body could survive.

Frodo got as far as he could but the Ring was too powerful even for his resolute spirit. It had to be his dark other half Gollum, to borrow some Jungian symbology, who could complete the Quest. BUT - Gollum would not have been there to save the world if every major character in the story had not shown Gollum mercy and pity at some point. Frodo , Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, back to Bilbo - all of them at one point or another had had Gollum completely helpless and vulnerable before them. It owuld have been totally practical, prudent, and just to put the miserable little murdering creature out of his misery and eliminate the threat he could be, but each character felt pity for his wretchedness and let him live instead. Mercy and compassion are what defeated Sauron in the the end - I really believe that that's the overarching theme of Lord of the Rings, and I think Peter Jackson totally failed to communicate that.

Even if Jackson thought he had to have Frodo show more agency in the Ring's destruction than he did in the book (after taking away a huge amount of Frodo's ability and agency for most of the movie, as was pointed out above), Tolkien gave him a scene to explain it all for the folks who didn't get it. When Frodo and Sam are waiting for the lava to rise and engulf them, Frodo tells Sam very explicitly so no one misses the point that it was Gollum who completed the Quest, and so they should forgive him. And for some reason I cannot fathom, Jackson cut that insanely crucial bit of explanation from the film.

So in my view, for all its many good points, the Movie Trilogy was a failed adaptation in the end.

I get that you put "accident" in quotes, but I think the fate of Gollum and the Ring deserves a bit more focus. The Ring, like all Evil, destroys itself.

When Gollum ambushes Frodo and Sam on Sauron's Road, near the Cracks of Doom, we get this passage:

Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.

‘Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.’

My reading (and I know its not universal) is that is the Ring speaking to Gollum. It's done with him. It "knows" (insofar as it is alive or aware) that it cannot actually be cast into the Fire by anyone. It "thinks" it's about to win. From the Ring's POV, the worst that can realistically happens is that Gollum gets fingers on it and goes and hides for centuries more before it can successfully ditch him, again. And so it binds him to the worst punishment it, the Ring, can imagine - destruction in the Fire. And that swiftly comes back and destroys it. Evil both turns on itself and is incapable of self-reflection or empathy.

And yes, with so many key misses on the nature of things, Jackson's LotR is a failure at conveying the core message of book. I still think it's a fun (sometimes even great) film trilogy, and even a decent LotR movie trilogy, but a failure as a Tolkien movie in several ways. (I'm sort of splitting hairs here - I do like the movies, but I also see their flaws., particularly in this way.)

[runeghost]

As far as Faramir goes, i believe it was actually explicit that they made him more of a jerk in the movies to show that he isnt above the power of the ring any more than Boromir was, he just has better judgement. He's just as human and vulnerable as his brother, but because he is ultimately a bit wiser, he recognizes the need to destroy the ring rather than wield it in the end. In the books, there isnt really a lot of soul searching about what to do with it.

That's actually one element of the story that the films sold me on better than the books - the visceral corruptive power of the Ring, and why The Wise are so wary of it.

Consider the Ring and it's bearers in the books:

Isilidur - makes a bad call while on Mt. Doom, the decides he need to go get Elrond's help figuring out what to do with the damned thing.

Gollum - murdered his brother at the sight of it. Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, he was a bad hobbit even before he ever saw the ring. Still, managed to (accidentally) destroy it.

Bilbo - gifts it to his nephew.

Frodo - carries it for years and across the continent before finally being unable to destroy it.

Sam - carried it for a while, gave it back.

From a casual reading of the books, it's not so much that the Ring corrupts anyone in contact with it, but that you can't bring yourself to destroy it. The movies (through visual and soundtrack) made the Ring more immediately scary.

[Manga Shoggoth]

That's actually one element of the story that the films sold me on better than the books - the visceral corruptive power of the Ring, and why The Wise are so wary of it.

Consider the Ring and it's bearers in the books:

...

From a casual reading of the books, it's not so much that the Ring corrupts anyone in contact with it, but that you can't bring yourself to destroy it. The movies (through visual and soundtrack) made the Ring more immediately scary.

I get that the ring has corrupting effects, but the books also show this, also show that other things can corrupt, and manage to do so without reducing people to arrogant thugs.

Lets expand on that:

Bilbo: Gifts it to his nephew, but requires a bit of help from Gandalf. Understands fully when he sees the ring again in Rivendell, and is sorry that Frodo has had to pick up the burden.

Frodo: Carries it for years and across the continent before finally being unable to destroy it. He started showing signs of the ring taking hold right at the beginning of the book, when Gandalf was explaining what the ring was.

Sam: Carried it for a while, gave it back. This is greatly to his credit - Sam is the only character to fully resist the ring on his own, and probably then only because he carried it for the shortest time. Still managed it, though...


Now, add the effects on some of the non-bearers:

Gandalf: Knew its power and took great care to avoid it, is actively afraid when Frodo offers the ring to him.

Galadriel: Likewise, and wethers temptation when Frodo offers the ring to her.

All of these are pretty much the same in the book and the film. Then we have:

Boromir: Seduced by the ring on first sight - it is already starting to affect him in the Council meeting, but it doesn't really take over until the breaking of the fellowship, and even then Boromir immediately realises what he has done.

Faramir: Knows the rings power and takes great care around it as soon as he suspects that Frodo is the ringbearer. Doesn't want to see the ring at all.

Denethor: Interesting case, as his fall was down to Sauron via the Palantír rather than the ring (and being broken by the death of his favourite son Boromir, and later by the approaching death of Faramir). None the less, believes that Boromir would have brought him the ring and that he could have used it to defend Gondor.


And those last three?

Remember, Boromir and Faramir are foils - they are supposed to be radically different and opposite characters. The book does this, and Denethor even stresses it at some point (not to Faramir's favour - Boromir being the favourite son).

In the book, all three of them have levels of honor and nobility. All of them treat the hobbits with respect and kindness.

The film does Boromir very well: He's a brave, honourable warrior, devoted to his Country (it is part of how the ring gets him). He is pretty much as per the book.

Book Faramir mixes honor with wisdom (it is probably fair to say he is one of the most honourable of the men in the book). He notes that he has to take captive anyone in Gondor without leave, but is prepared to listen to Sam and Frodo, very quickly earns Sam's trust and then doesn't betray it when Sam accidentally blurts out the truth. The film wipes all that out and portrays him more as a thug, in fact actually a worse character than Boromir.

Book Denethor is somewhat more cynical in his approach (as per his position), but he is still honourable (he told Boromir that there should never be a time when the Steward supplanted the (missing) King), and it is said that if Aragon had come at a time of peace without Sauron muddying the waters that he might well have done so. He is proud and arrogant (for good reason - we have Gandalf's word for that), none the less he is moved by Pippin's offer of fealty, and doesn't treat him unkindly at any time. Again, the film replaces this character with an arrogant bully. The film scene of him forcing Pippin to sing while he eats does not exist in the book.

[Keltest]

The film scene of him forcing Pippin to sing while he eats does not exist in the book.

That scene is literally in the movie because Billy Boyd wanted to have a small singing moment, and the writers liked his singing so much they made some room for him.

[hamishspence]

Book Denethor tells Pippin he'd like to hear a song from him at some point - Pippin thinks he'd rather not - and the song never gets sung.


'What would you do in my service?'

'I thought, sir, that you would tell me my duties.'

'I will, when I learn what you are fit for,' said Denethor. 'But that I shall learn soonest, maybe, if I keep you beside me. The esquire of my chamber has begged leave to go to the out-garrison, so you shall take his place for a while. You shall wait on me, bear errands, and talk to me, if war and council leave me any leisure. Can you sing?'

'Yes,' said Pippin. 'Well, yes, well enough for my own people. But we have no songs fit for great halls and evil times, lord. We seldom sing of anything more terrible than wind or rain. And most of my songs are about things that make us laugh; or about food and drink, of course.'

'And why should such songs be unfit for my halls, or for such hours as these? We who have lived long under the Shadow may surely listen to echoes from a land untroubled by it? Then we may feel that our vigil was not fruitless, though it may have been thankless.'

Pippin’s heart sank. He did not relish the idea of singing any song of the Shire to the Lord of Minas Tirith, certainly not the comic ones that he knew best; they were too, well, rustic for such an occasion. He was however spared the ordeal for the present. He was not commanded to sing. Denethor turned to Gandalf, asking questions about the Rohirrim and their policies, and the position of Éomer, the king’s nephew. Pippin marvelled at the amount that the Lord seemed to know about a people that lived far away, though it must, he thought, be many years since Denethor himself had ridden abroad.

[Manga Shoggoth]

That scene is literally in the movie because Billy Boyd wanted to have a small singing moment, and the writers liked his singing so much they made some room for him.

Thank you - I did not actually know that. I just assumed it was extrapolated from the scene hamishspence mentioned.

[Psyren]

Frodo got as far as he could but the Ring was too powerful even for his resolute spirit. It had to be his dark other half Gollum, to borrow some Jungian symbology, who could complete the Quest. BUT - Gollum would not have been there to save the world if every major character in the story had not shown Gollum mercy and pity at some point. Frodo , Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, back to Bilbo - all of them at one point or another had had Gollum completely helpless and vulnerable before them. It owuld have been totally practical, prudent, and just to put the miserable little murdering creature out of his misery and eliminate the threat he could be, but each character felt pity for his wretchedness and let him live instead. Mercy and compassion are what defeated Sauron in the the end - I really believe that that's the overarching theme of Lord of the Rings, and I think Peter Jackson totally failed to communicate that.

I think "totally failed" is a bit harsh. The key theme-stater speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrOqnZdvI6M) ("many that die deserve life") was included after all, even if only Extended. Could he have made it more explicit, sure, and could he have used "mercy" in addition to "pity", also sure, but it's not nothing.

[Catullus64]

I think "totally failed" is a bit harsh. The key theme-stater speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrOqnZdvI6M) ("many that die deserve life") was included after all, even if only Extended. Could he have made it more explicit, sure, and could he have used "mercy" in addition to "pity", also sure, but it's not nothing.

It's in theatrical and extended, and they have a voice-over repeat it towards the end of Fellowship. The filmmakers definitely got the thematic importance behind it, which makes it more disappointing that they stumbled a bit in the final execution.

[Velaryon]

Tom Bombadil (Does anyone really think that Bombadil could have possibly worked in these movies?)

I don't think Tom Bombadil worked in the book, much less that he could work in the movies. Frankly, I think the single greatest editorial decision that Peter Jackson made was in taking the step Tolkien's editor should have done before the books were even published and excising that waste of a character. Bombadil adds nothing useful, breaks story's tone, and feels like a silly cartoon intermission in an otherwise serious epic. The story is better off without him.



It's also why I'm a lot harder on the Hobbit movies than I am on the LOTR films. The Hobbit movies tried to replicate the feel of LOTR, which is wrong wrong wrong for the bedtime story that is The Hobbit. You can trace almost every problem with The Hobbit back to that one creative decision. It doesn't feel like the Hobbit, it feels like LOTR.

If only. Honestly the Hobbit movies feel mostly like bad LotR fanfiction.

[Psyren]

I don't think Tom Bombadil worked in the book, much less that he could work in the movies. Frankly, I think the single greatest editorial decision that Peter Jackson made was in taking the step Tolkien's editor should have done before the books were even published and excising that waste of a character. Bombadil adds nothing useful, breaks story's tone, and feels like a silly cartoon intermission in an otherwise serious epic. The story is better off without him.

Not only does the book grind to a halt when we get to him, they then need awkward exposition later about how he's totally powerful and all but just can't help in any way with the quest, guys, so sorry.

I'm curious whether the Amazon series will also skip him.

[DavidSh]

Re: Bombadil, Forn, Orald, Iarwain Ben-adar


I'm curious whether the Amazon series will also skip him.
Do you mean the Amazon series that will be set in the Second Age? Other than Elrond implying that Bombadil once roved a more extensive forest, there isn't anything to say about him in those days, is there?

[factotum]

Re: Bombadil, Forn, Orald, Iarwain Ben-adar

Do you mean the Amazon series that will be set in the Second Age? Other than Elrond implying that Bombadil once roved a more extensive forest, there isn't anything to say about him in those days, is there?

Well, he will still be around somewhere--after all, the Elves call him Oldest because he was already there when they awoke next to Cuivienen. Really don't see that adding him in would offer anything, though.

[Psyren]

Re: Bombadil, Forn, Orald, Iarwain Ben-adar

Do you mean the Amazon series that will be set in the Second Age? Other than Elrond implying that Bombadil once roved a more extensive forest, there isn't anything to say about him in those days, is there?

I genuinely didn't know the premise/timeline of it. Given that it's in the past, it's actually more likely that he'll show up since they'll want some recognizable names.

[Rodin]

If only. Honestly the Hobbit movies feel mostly like bad LotR fanfiction.

Well, yes. In many respects they are. That's not actually what I was getting at though.

If you try to stay faithful to the tone and fail the execution (like LOTR did in places), I'm forgiving because at least they got the tone right. If you tell fanfiction but make it good fanfiction like The Witcher Netflix series did, I'm wholly on board as long as you keep the feel of the original.

If the Hobbit was just bad fanfiction that felt like it belonged in the Hobbit I wouldn't have taken as much issue with it. Some of the bits with Radagast kind of fall under this in the first movie.

The biggest problem I had with the Hobbit movies is that even the decent fanfiction (like Gandalf and Elrond discussing the Necromancer) is totally wrong for the movie they were supposed to be making. They wanted to make LOTR again rather than actually tell the tale in front of them.

I can forgive a lot of plot flaws if they manage to get the right feel. The Hobbit movies completely whiffed on the feel because they weren't trying to make a Hobbit movie.

[Divayth Fyr]

Re: Bombadil, Forn, Orald, Iarwain Ben-adar

Do you mean the Amazon series that will be set in the Second Age? Other than Elrond implying that Bombadil once roved a more extensive forest, there isn't anything to say about him in those days, is there?
Nope. Also, the single shot we saw so far of the series is set way, way before the Second Age... Though I guess it could have most of the action during the SA...

[Dewin Dwl]

It's also why I'm a lot harder on the Hobbit movies than I am on the LOTR films. The Hobbit movies tried to replicate the feel of LOTR, which is wrong wrong wrong for the bedtime story that is The Hobbit. You can trace almost every problem with The Hobbit back to that one creative decision. It doesn't feel like the Hobbit, it feels like LOTR.

As well as not representing the feel of the original material, I also thought that stretching one book into three films would spread it a little thin. (In fairness, that set me against the films a bit before I'd even seen them.) To my mind, two films was the natural choice for "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again".

On the plus side, the Hobbit films did help me gain some insight to my mother's reaction to the Fellowship of the Ring. She came to the cinema to watch the film at the insistence of me and my brother. This was the first time I'd ever gone to see a film more than once at the cinema: that's how good I thought it was! But her reaction was more measured: it didn't match her impressions from reading the original books some decades previously.

In the same way, the Hobbit films (particularly the second and third) didn't meet with my recollections of the book. The first film started out well in my eye, but then seemed to lose direction, with the result that I've not had any desire to re-watch them since.

[Spacewolf]

Nope. Also, the single shot we saw so far of the series is set way, way before the Second Age... Though I guess it could have most of the action during the SA...

Personally I think it'd make sense to start with a quick break down of the creation of the world, the first war against morgoth before the awakening of the elves, creation of the trees etc then start the series plot proper with the birth of Feanor then as the series continues we branch down his family line.