What did PJ do Perfectly?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:40 pm

I agree, Wampus. Boromir worked better in the film than in the book, partly because he necessarily had to be a real presence when he was on screen; he couldn't be "mentioned in passing" as he was in the text.

I don't think PJ improved on Tolkien, though; I think he conveyed what was already there in the story, though told with little emphasis or drama, or even reconstructed later by other characters (Boromir's death). And quite possibly in the book at that point, that was exactly the right choice; Boromir's death playing out in full might have overshadowed Frodo's departure, which was hugely more important. The film had other tools to keep the emphasis where it belonged.

Post by **Impenitent** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:28 am

The set design.

The great plain of Gorgoroth.

The Shire.

The first glimpse of Strider.

The Short Cut to Mushrooms segue into the Black Rider.

"Where is the horse and the rider" - beautiful!

Moria.

Gollum.

Rivendell, and the Library, and the valley, and the bridge and...well, the whole of Rivendell.

Mountains!

The ripping down of the trees of Isengard (made me cry! "The trees are strong, lord" "Rip them all down!")

The gates of the Argonath...the rush of the river, the grandeur of the ancient carvings and, mostly, Aragorn's face.

And, while I'm at it, Aragorn. And Boromir (except for the "My King" speech), and Gandalf. And the hobbits - all of them.

Moria and the drums in the deep.

Geez. Sounds like I loved it all, doesn't it? I didn't, though. Faramir. Denethor the crazy cruel boorish tyrant. Osgiliath!! Arrrgh!!

(And I'm sorry...I must say it...Frodo's smile at the Havens was the cheesiest thing I ever saw...it lasted too long and made him look like an imbecile IMO. I know...I'm a barbarian.)

I'll reactivate my "nice" switch, now.

Post by **WampusCat** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:29 am

Barbarians have "nice" switches?

Post by **Impenitent** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:43 am

That's a euphemism for "I will refrain from freely expressing my opinions any further."

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:03 am

Impy, what good is a messageboard where people won't express their opinions freely? I ask you.

I think after all these years we can have differing opinions about PJ's movies without coming to blows. Why, I hardly ever hit vison any more, no matter how mean she gets.

Post by **solicitr** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:42 pm

Impy, what good is a messageboard where people won't express their opinions freely?

Indeed.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:20 pm

Strong disagreement, civilly expressed, makes for a much more interesting board for everyone.

Post by **Frelga** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:39 pm

Count Rushdie into the Jackson worshipper clan.

“I would suggest that Peter Jackson’s films were better than Tolkien’s books,” Rushdie said of the “Lord of the Rings” series. “Jackson directs better than Tolkien writes.”

From Rushdie speech on book adaptation. No link, they are a pain on Treo, and Google works.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:49 pm

Frelga - here is a link for the Rushdie LOTR comments

http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26650

Post by **Frelga** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:12 pm

Thanks, sf, that's where I saw it.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:16 pm

Some Harry Potter fans keep on telling me how more they enjoyed Peter Jackson's films than Tolkien's book.

Peasants.

They found LotR 'boring' and it was a struggle for them to get through it, as compared with the Bestest Fantasy Series Evah.

And I'm, like:

Rowling better than Tolkien? Yeah, right. She has more deux ex machina in her secondary world than Landroval and his feathery mates could shake a stick at.

Actually, I often defend her from her detractors.

I like HP!

But she ain't better than the Granddaddy.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:32 pm

Tolkien was more interested in exposition and creation than entertainment. His novels are certainly entertaining at times, but his rhythm and narrative style are not geared toward keeping the reader on the edge of his seat wondering what will happen next, and he often introduces characters and events that are designed to serve the setting rather than the plot. Most people can't conceive of any purpose for stories other than entertainment, which I think explains the disconnect that often occurs. It also explains some of the changes made for the films; if people expect entertainment in novels, they really expect it in movies.

Post by **Elentári** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:38 pm

Hear, Hear, you tell 'em, Di!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:07 pm

They're such different media, and people have different sensibilities. Some things can be told almost instantly in a book that take several minutes in a film ("He grew up working hard on his father's farm"); some things a film can establish almost instantly, such as a character's appearance or a setting, that might take several pages in a book. The tools being so different means the result of an adaptation just can't be the same as the source, and those differences may seem like improvements to one person and desecrations to another.

Over the years, discussing LotR book and film from all these different perspectives has taught me a lot about both. I've been in online discussions where everyone agrees, and it is boring. It is not a good thing at all.

Post by **WampusCat** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:58 pm

I don't read "Lord of the Rings" to be entertained. I read it to live in Middle-Earth.

That's the difference, at least for me.

Post by **solicitr** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:17 am

Mind you, Rusdie has been a Tolkien basher from way back. "Nobody reads Tolkien for the writing."

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:59 am

I'd assumed it was out of literary snobbery, but I would certainly then have expected him to dismiss the films as well.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:13 pm

WampusCat wrote:I don't read "Lord of the Rings" to be entertained. I read it to live in Middle-Earth.

That's the difference, at least for me.

Maybe for me it's both ...

LotR is much deeper than mere entertainment, certainly.

But it did keep me reading until the early hours, that first time! I found the story thrilling and involving.

As for HP, it can't compare with the richness of Arda. But the Potter books do have a strong, driving narrative and I like that sort of fiction.

Post by **Siberian** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:36 pm

Frelga wrote:Count Rushdie into the Jackson worshipper clan.

“I would suggest that Peter Jackson’s films were better than Tolkien’s books,” Rushdie said of the “Lord of the Rings” series. “Jackson directs better than Tolkien writes.”
From Rushdie speech on book adaptation. No link, they are a pain on Treo, and Google works.

And now I've been told time and again that movies and books are different media and you can't compare them

Post by **Siberian** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:41 pm

solicitr wrote:Mind you, Rusdie has been a Tolkien basher from way back. "Nobody reads Tolkien for the writing."

I strongly disagree. There're some beautiful passages in The Hobbit, LOTR and even Silmarillion. Besides, what does he mean? That we enjoy the story, character and the world in spite of the writing? I hate this modern tendency to separate style from content.