Jeff and I saw The Return of the King, and it was great except for several glaring mistakes that ruined my suspension of disbelief. For example, the sword of Isildur was fragmented so badly that if it were repaired, it would be ugly as hell, not the shiny perfect blade shown in the movie. The most glaring mistake was the lava flow at the end; Frodo and Sam should have been baked by the heat. The overflowing lava was a change from Tolkein's version, and I wish that Jackson had left it alone.
The problem with changing bits of someone else's work is that the stuff you put back in doesn't have the same voice as the original bits. I cringed every time Liv Tyler made an appearance (damn actors' contracts). I also hated the soppy happily-ever-after
scenes at the end; while I could accept cutting out the battle of the Shire, the replacement ending was so saccharine and meaningless that I wish I had left before the movie finished.
The saddest thing, I think, is that many people (both children and adults) will see the movie without ever having read the books. Maybe they'll read the books afterward, but if they do, they'll hate the books for the same reason I hate the movie: it's not the same. The shallowness of the movie will have corrupted their ability to appreciate the depth and complexity of the setting, characters, and plot in the book. On the other hand, maybe some of them will still like the books better. I certainly hope so.
Maggie says:
Still others will see the movie after reading the book, and prefer the movie ;-P
Laurabelle says:
Devil's advocate!
Laurabelle says:
I'm not concerned so much with as consistency. For example, I don't mind magic and strange creatures as long as they follow rules and patterns. But making molten rock suddenly not hot enough to bake hobbits within 10 feet is just insane.
I agree that Jackson did a good job of adapting, since the books are just that, not movies. The problems with his movie version are the problems that plague any movie adaptation; changes must be made, and whatever you do, they just don't have the original author's voice.
My counter-example is The Princess Bride, for which both the book and the screenplay were written by the same man, William Goldman. I happen to enjoy the book more because it includes wonderful details about the histories of Fezzik and Inigo as well as much more characterization and plot development, but the movie has approximately the same plot. Moreover, it feels the same. It's the same voice telling the story. That wouldn't have happened if anyone else had written it.
I guess I enjoy books more than movies in the first place. I prefer the written word, filtered through my own imagination and under my own control, to someone else's audio and visual. I guess I also always prefer the of everything, and I won't read adaptations or translations or any kind of second version if I can help it. Maybe I need to stop thinking of derivative works (oops, the catalog geek comes out!) as an imitation of the original and start seeing them as works in their own right.
Michael Hanscom says:
Not knowing diddly about swords or forging, I didn't question the look of the finished sword at all. They did say that the new sword had a new name, and was forged from the shards of Isildur's sword, so (okay, if you ignore the shots of them "assembling" two pieces like a jigsaw puzzle) it could be argued that they melted down the original and created a new sword from the metal. Talk about willing suspension of disbelief! ;)
The lava bugged me a bit, but not enough to ruin the film for me. Hey, after using the lava as an impromptu tanning bed they got picked up by some giant eagles, so I'm not terribly concerned with a slight lack of realism here and there.
I read the books years ago, re-read them after seeing Fellowship, and enjoy both immensely. It'd be ridiculously impossible to film the books exactly as written, and for me, Jackson did an incredible job of adapting them to the screen. Of course, that's not at all to say that I didn't have some nitpicks of my own! Still, for me, all three movies quite well done.
(On an unrelated note, in Safari, unvisited links are white, as is the page background — this nearly made me completely miss the comment link, as unvisited links effectively disappear against the background. Just thought you should know!)
Alita says:
Re: Narsil - you forget who re-forged the sword. Eleven smiths can make just about anything look perfect, I would imagine, no matter what the extent of previous damage.
However, I was annoyed at Elrond becoming Mr. Messenger; my only consolation was that it wasn't ARWEN who delivered the sword.
Re: the End - the final words to ROTK are "I'm back," or "I'm home" (@ work and don't have book here), so I thought it very nice that PJ included that at the end. Sure, Sam's marriage was a wee bit sappy, but what the heck. You know, happy endings and all that. I was a bit disappointed at not seeing the whole Elf-host departing for Valinor as in the books, but ce la vie. I was afraid PJ might omit Frodo's departure altogether, so I was thankful it was there (with Bilbo) at the very least.
Remind me to talk with you about LOTR and YA reading. The films are having an impact on at least one English class of 11th graders.
Laurabelle says:
Personally, I absolutely hate the explanation of or That's a really cheap way to get out of having to be responsible for one's plot mechanisms.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the ending. It really seemed to me that PJ just rearranged Tolkein's ending so that it fit with conventional happily-ever-after expectations. To me, one of the greatest things about Tolkein's ending is that it isn't happily-ever-after. The hobbits have to fight their way back into the Shire, for example. Take that out, and you have to add something back in its place. Real endings are hard.
coreychewning says:
completely agree...the movies really left me empty...actually i take that back...the last two movies left me empty...the first was in my mind almost perfect, less tom bombadill who bugged me anyway...but let's face it PJ has sacrificed story and plot development in the last two and focused on the battles and spectacle...in fellowship he did not have those types of distractions and could therefore focus on the actual tolkien lore...much like lucas did in the two new star wars...jackson became a victim of CGI