The Lord of the Rings: A complaint
Ok, since Karen’s interesting Bottomless Hole post turned into a discussion of the merits of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, I’ll give my take here and you can discuss below.
I was disappointed in the Lord of the Rings films. Some major complaints:
The score and soundtrack were utterly pathetic. The books are filled with music. Much of the mythology is developed in song, and songs provide some of the comic relief as well. One thing that the Rankin-Bass animated version of the Hobbit got right was the songs — they simply took the text as given and set it to music. As it was, we got a whole bunch of utterly forgettable New Age crap. Best Song? How did “Into the West” beat “Belleville Rendevous”? for Best Song? No nods at all to Tolkien’s verse.
As mentioned in the Bottomles Hole thread, the changes to Faramir’s character are inexcusable. Sure, let him have his moment of crisis, but don’t have him fail it. It ruins the whole Boromir/Faramir/Denethor dynamic, and leads to the one of the weakest scenes in the movie, the fight at Osgiliath.
Playing Gimli as the fool is a big mistake. Merry and Pippin are the clowns. And one dwarf-tossing joke is enough — using it twice is insulting. The friendship between Gimli and Legolas is just as important and significant as the one between Sam and Frodo, even moreso in some respects given our current concern with tolerance, respect, and multi-culturalism. Cut out the Arwyn stuff and give me more Legolas and Gimli learning to trust each other.
The Ents were weak, but excusable. No one was going to get that one right. Almost better to leave them out entirely.
The pacing of The Fellowship of the Ring was all wrong. If you’re going to clock in at three hours, take some of that time to properly depict the passage of time. The action of the first movie is non-stop, giving the impression that the action takes place over the course of a few days, when the actual time frame is more like months. The foundations of many of the crucial relationships in the story are developed in this act. Take some time to pay attention to them. (I realize that the first movie was the big test for the whole series, so there are some commercial considerations in how the movie was put together). I haven’t seen the extended version — possibly this is taken care of in the longer cut.
The Arwyn/Aragorn relationship — way too much time spent on this. I realize that without it, there are no female parts of note other than Galadriel and Eowyn, but that’s how the story goes. The relationship works much better with the Beren/Luthien myth to inform it. Too much effort is made to imbue Arwyn’s choice with great meaning — the payoff isn’t worth the effort. I would have much rather seen a development of the Faramir/Eowyn relationship instead in the theatrical release.
There were good things about the movies, of course: Gollum/Smeagol was fantastic, Helm’s Deep was just as I had hoped for (The Two Towers was not surprisingly the best of the three movies, as it is the most cinematic of the three books. However, I was puzzled here by the decision not to end the film in Shelob’s lair as the books do — it worked for Star Wars (Han Solo encased in carbonite).) Overall, though, the movies are merely good, never finding a space of their own. They are so similar to the books in the story they try to tell that they suffer by comparison, and the differences are magnified. It might have been better if Jackson had tried to tell a different story entirely than the books — I would have accepted more changes if they contributed to a larger reimagining of the story (although I suspect this would have been anathema to the Tolkien estate).
Wow. Nice analysis. Lots of things I never bothered to even notice.
Does everyone like Smeagol/Gollum? I enjoyed the character but I have a friend whose father hates Gollum. For Thanksgiving they (the family) spliced out as many Gollum parts of the movies as they could and put them all together. Sounded like an interesting little editing exercise.
Comment by danithew — November 30, 2004 @ 2:44 pm
I agree substantively with a fair number of your criticisms Bryce (especially in regards to the pacing), but I think their sum is far less than their parts. In particular moments, Jackson & Co. often failed us (as fans of film as well as fans of Tolkien); in the whole sweep, however, my affection and respect for the movies (again, both as a movie-goer and as a Tolkien-geek) is immense. I will refrain, however, from mounting a defense; I’ve already got plans to absorb the whole trilogy of extended edition films when the ROTK dvd is out, so perhaps I’ll wait to have my say until then.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — November 30, 2004 @ 2:45 pm
Bryce, to a certain extent your criticisms rely on the assumption that to be a successful adaptation, a movie must adhere fairly closely to the content and pacing of a novel. I’m not sure that’s the case. Book-to-screen adaptation is a tricky business, and I think there are different approaches to doing it, with equal success. Jackson & crew made decisions early on not to strictly adhere to the text, but to try and be faithful to its spirit wherever possible. In this respect, LOTR is a vast success.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 30, 2004 @ 2:57 pm
Steve –
I have no problems with adapatation that tell a different story than the book. About A Boy was a great book, but an even better film, IMO, because the film chooses to tell the story of Will, while the book focuses on the story of Marcus.
My problem is that while there are some deviations from the text in LOTR, it’s essentially the same story, so the differences are magnified, and many of the decisions are ones I disagree with. If Jackson wanted to take even more liberties, so that it was clear that the basic outline and spirit of the books was being followed, but with significant differences, I would not have complained so much (if the new version of the story made sense).
As it is, the movies follow the books quite closely, so any deviations make me think quite a lot about why Jackson (and friends) would choose to make that particular change.
An example of a good change — the Rohan segment of the film, with the young chlldren. Relatively unobtrusive, but very effective.
I don’t think the movies are awful, just not as great as 11 Oscars and the undying devotion of fans worldwide.
And did I mention the music was abominable?
Comment by Bryce I — November 30, 2004 @ 3:15 pm
Russell–
My opinions of these films are based on a single viewing of each, spaced out over a few years. I will probably take the time to watch the extended DVD versions some time, and undoubtedly my opinions will change.
Right now, however, I’m having a hard time getting myself excited to sit through all of these movies again when my movie-watching time is so limited.
Comment by Bryce I — November 30, 2004 @ 3:17 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve. Almost all these complaints are complaints fans of the books have been echoing for the past three years. Film is a different medium, and as such, it should change certain elements to better accomodate the story.
I disagree that the Faramir/Boromir/Denethor dynamic was ruined. In fact, I’ve always praised Peter Jackson’s adaptation for its ability to keep what was essential, and change what needed to be changed. What works for the books, works; what works for the films, works.
Although it’s a matter of personal preference, I love the music. I think the score is stirring and quite well done, and thank goodness they left those stupid songs out of the movie. They are overused in the book, IMO.
The few things I agree with (such as using Gimli as comic relief) are such minor points I’ve never thought of them as affecting my enjoyment of the series. In some ways, it’s why I like Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban the best of the films, even though it is least faithful to the books. Cuaron, a master filmmaker, took ownership of the film and made it his own. I could be nitpicking everything that was left out or changed from the book, but the film works so well when you stop comparing it to the book that it’s hard to complain.
Comment by John H — November 30, 2004 @ 3:18 pm
Well, I will concede that I don’t like the way Gimli is made into a clown — not because of some issue of character sanctity or anything, but because the humor was awfully pedestrian for Tolkien.
And I’ll agree that Cuaron’s Harry Potter is the best in the bunch. Rumor has it that he’s willing to do more of them, too….
Comment by Steve Evans — November 30, 2004 @ 3:33 pm
I’m considering watching the third HP movie after falling asleep through the first, vowing not to see the second, giving in and falling asleep through the second. Slavish devotion to a book is generally not a good thing.
All the reports of the third movie seem promising. Maybe I’ll give it a shot.
Comment by Bryce I — November 30, 2004 @ 3:47 pm
Thinking a bit more about it, I realize that my problem with the movies is that the story told is that of Aragorn — Hollywood demands its heroes, and by and large they are tall, dark, and handsome. There’s nothing wrong with this — as I said, I don’t think the movies are awful. However, if I had to pick a character to focus my story on, I would choose Merry and/or Pippin. (Frodo/Sam automatically get top billing, but they’re out of the picture for much of the film). In the books, the character of Aragorn follows a traditional narrative — the lost king returns. This is a nice story, but there’s nothing especially compelling or interesting in the way that it is told in LOTR. It’s a conventional genre film in that respect.
The development of the friendships between Legolas and Gimli, Merry and Theoden, Pippen and Treebeard, and other unlikely pairings are more interesting to me (the unlikely buddy movie — The Odd Couple, Shanghai Noon, and the Rescuers come immediately to mind). Also, the coming of age story as the Hobbits grow in confidence and abilities is of particular interest to me (to do this properly requires the Scouring of the Shire).
I guess that utlimately, Aragorn doesn’t do it for me as the focus of the films. He’s merely heroic in the Hollywood sense, without any of the mythic hero sense about him. There’s just not much interesting going on inside him. Do we ever get the sense that he might fail? Or that he doubts himself? (serious questions, since I haven’t seen these movies in a while). My memory says no, but maybe I’m wrong.
Spielberg would have been certain to play up the hobbits in their relationships to various father figures: Theoden, Denethor, Gandalf. I’m not saying that Spielberg would have been a better choice (he wouldn’t) but in this case, at least, his obession with children looking for fathers wouldn’t have been completely out of place.
Comment by Bryce I — November 30, 2004 @ 4:35 pm
Although I’ve seen the extended versions far more often than the theatrical releases, and that’s probably why I remember, there are definitely sequences where Aragorn doubts himself. Probably not as thoroughly as in the book, but in The Two Towers there’s a flashback to conversation with Arwen about his future, where she reassures him about his abilities. In the extended Fellowship film, there’s a small segment where Aragorn is brooding around the statue of his mother and falls into conversation with Elrond about his uncertain future. Not necessarily much compared to the book, but I think Jackson did try to include this element.
Comment by Christa Baxter — December 1, 2004 @ 3:48 pm
One could say my criticisms are a result of the medium, but the concept of the returning King did not play well because it lacked the depth that Tolkein gave it. It’s definitely not PC, but the whole idea of a half-elf race of Kings that live a long time is important to Aragorn’s story. Its important that Theoden was his contemporary and that they new each other. It is important that the rangers were of the same race and that there were also those who stayed in Gondor. It was important the Ring wraith be struck with a blade made by the Numenoreans expressly for that purpose.
Comment by J. Stapley — December 1, 2004 @ 7:12 pm
I see both sides here—while I recognize some valid critiques of the movies, they remain my favorite moviegoing experience. They’re just great films. And, in my opinion, that includes the music.
Also, Bryce, you mentioned you hadn’t seen the extended editions- you would like FOTR extended. There’s a scene there where Aragorn explains to Frodo that the song he’s singing is about Beren and Luthien. This solves your specific gripe about their omission, and the general gripe that the depth of the mythology and history and whole universe of middle earth are not included enough. I understand that the world is simply not as deep on film as in the book, but it’s clear that Jackson made some good faith efforts to avoid that problem.
My biggest complaint with the movies was the mistreatment of Faramir, and I can’t agree that this was necessary for pacing or plot, or whatever. I recognize the need for drama and conflict in the Frodo/Sam half of the Two Towers story, but we need to realize that the screenwriters had more than enough conflict in that story if they would only have put Shelob where she belonged. If they’d done this, Faramir would have been introduced, he would have passed his test (shown his quality?) helped them on their way, and they would have spent the second half of TTT dealing with Shelob, which sets up a fantastic cliffhanger for ROTK.
This also solves my biggest problem with ROTK– the fact that it takes roughly a day to get from Ithilien to Mount Doom. I think the agonizing, long trek from Shelob’s lair to the middle of Mordor is completely necessary to the story, and it was completely left out of the movie, unnecessarily. Cut out Faramir’s evil turn, throw Shelob in as the main conflict for Frodo and Sam in TTT, and then you’ve got all of ROTK to focus on getting Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom, through the horrors of Mordor– and let’s not forget, there’s plenty that happens along the way to keep the busy.
Man, I really wish they’d done it that way. And also made a lot more of Gandalf’s ride to save Faramir and his men. Oh well, maybe ROTK EE will help me forget my grievances.
Comment by Ryan Bell — December 2, 2004 @ 3:59 pm
Speaking of ROTK EE, I have it in my house, two weeks early.
Comment by D. Fletcher — December 2, 2004 @ 4:03 pm
Sweet, D. So when’s the party?
Comment by Logan — December 2, 2004 @ 4:34 pm
Mmm… well, I’m sure everyone’s pretty busy. It would have to be on a Saturday, because it will take about 11 hours to watch all the movies back to back, without extras or … breaks of any kind.
Next Saturday, the 11th?
Comment by D. Fletcher — December 2, 2004 @ 4:39 pm
Perfect. The 11th sounds good to me.
Comment by Logan — December 2, 2004 @ 4:49 pm
Where’d you get it, D.? If you don’t feel comfortable saying online, email me at john@sunstoneonline.com *immediately*. Must get copy!
Comment by John H — December 2, 2004 @ 6:58 pm
So sad, John H., your precious is in D.’s hands. Come out to NYC on the 11th for party time!!
Comment by Steve Evans — December 2, 2004 @ 7:02 pm
You have no idea how there I would be if I could afford the plane ticket. Emily and I have been dying to get back to Manhattan - it’s been three long, long years. Find me a job and I’m there in a heartbeat - no kidding.
Comment by John H — December 2, 2004 @ 7:08 pm
Funny, John, I’m trying to get a job in Salt Lake! Anything at Sunstone?
I bought the DVD at a store in town that sells them early (illegally) because it’s the only way they can make money — when Virgin or Tower starts selling these things, it’s all over for the Mom and Pop porn shop.
Comment by D. Fletcher — December 2, 2004 @ 7:52 pm
Ok, the entire running time of the 3 EE versions together is 11 hours, 20 minutes.
We’re starting at 11 AM on December 11.
Comment by D. Fletcher — December 2, 2004 @ 8:22 pm
Hmmm… My last day at Sunstone is on the 10th. Maybe, just maybe I can swing it
Comment by John H — December 2, 2004 @ 9:01 pm
I saw “The Fellowship of the Rings” before I had read any of the books and even then it was a disappointment. The one good thing that came from seeing the movies was that the basic story elements (though poorly handled) were so compelling that they caused me to finally read the trilogy. I’m now a full-on Tolkien fan.
Peter Jackson sells out (no pun intended) from begining to end - whether it’s via the camera (which by the way never stops moving!) overly interpreting the scene so as to insure the desired reaction rather than simply providing the proper context wherein the characters may convey themselves with a sense of agency - or via the direction of the characters themselves which almost invariably tends toward capturing a momentary desire without regard for the irrational ripples sent thoughout the story (such as an inscrutable Strider thowing around a Hobbit in order to convey a sense of power without calculating the cost to the rational of a more seasoned Aragorn)- or giving unnecessary weight to tangential material (such as importing Arwin into the chase scene and utterly robbing Frodo of his moment of glory when he raises his little sword and defies the “Nine”)- or what have you.
As for the score, with a few exceptions, I thought I was hearing something from “The Legend of Zelda”.
Comment by Jack — December 2, 2004 @ 11:45 pm
Sorry, everybody, but I have to cancel/postpone the LOTR marathon watching for Saturday December 11.
There are too many activities scheduled for that day, including our own ward devotional.
We’ll have to reschedule for sometime in January, but by then, you’ll all have your own copies. C’est the guerre.
Comment by D. Fletcher — December 4, 2004 @ 1:10 pm
Well, I started reading the trilogy the year it came out in paperback (I was in fifth grade) and it has been dear to me, along with many other books I’ve read.
I have to agree that the changes to Faramir’s character are inexcusable but the score was generally well received (and flowed into the movie) and I’m part of the great mass who just was swallowed up by most of the showings and emerged without a hard feeling of lost time. (Usually I’m more aware of having spent three hours watching a movie).
The dwarf tossing and similar riffs reminded me of a bad joke that throws off the pacing of an otherwise excellent talk. The same with the watcher in the deep encounter and the hobbits zipping around in the air and some of the ent moments.
But, overall, it was as well done as sales would indicate.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — December 11, 2004 @ 1:04 am
“But, overall, it was as well done as sales would indicate.”
C’mon Stephen, shall we assume that “Titanic” is great because it currently holds the box-office record?
Comment by Jack — December 15, 2004 @ 11:28 am