films that are better than the books they are based on

pwd

In my opinion:

Fight Club
The Lord of the Rings trilogy
Stand by Me
The Shawshank Redemption (close)

FionnMatthew

pwd wrote: »

The Lord of the Rings trilogy

The Lord of the Rings wasn't based on a book. To say so is to do a disservice to the book on which it purports to be based.

It simply helped itself liberally and unabashedly to content from a textual work its creators utterly failed to understand.

The Peter Jackson trilogy is, in just about every way possible, utterly trivial and inferior to the saga Tolkien wrought. It is a banalization of Tolkien's work on an unforgivable scale.

There isn't one thing wrong, not one thing wrong, with Tolkien's work. There is not a feature of the work you can name which, supplied with the correct context, there isn't a damn good reason it was written that way.

The largest injustice about the adaptation is the damage it has done in the form of preconception to the experience of the written work. Many people have come to read Tolkien after they see the film, and, expecting things there that they should not, hold the book inferior on completely inappropriate criteria with respect to the intentions and achievements of the written work. It supplies completely the wrong hermeneutic for successful appraisal and appreciation of the book.

Whereas, even on the basis of the proper hermeneutic for appreciation and appraisal of the cinematic adaptation - that is, as an epic cinematic trilogy with mass appeal, which observes the formulaic generic staples - Jackson's trilogy falls rather short of the mark, with some very obvious integral flaws that have nothing to do with how it was adapted.

I cannot think of a more lauded, more successful artistic failure in cinematic history than Jackson's trilogy.

bluto63

pwd wrote: »

In my opinion:

Fight Club

The movie doesn't make as much sense as the book. While it remains one of my favorite films, I preferred the book (read the book after seeing the film)

I can't think of any adaptations which are better than the book. Books can give much more detail than movies, make you feel like you're there instead of watching someone else. They're so much more vivid

Pigman II

Clockwork Orange, Jurassic Park.

Vic Vinegar

FionnMatthew wrote: »

The Lord of the Rings wasn't based on a book. To say so is to do a disservice to the book on which it purports to be based.

It simply helped itself liberally and unabashedly to content from a textual work its creators utterly failed to understand.

The Peter Jackson trilogy is, in just about every way possible, utterly trivial and inferior to the saga Tolkien wrought. It is a banalization of Tolkien's work on an unforgivable scale.

There isn't one thing wrong, not one thing wrong, with Tolkien's work. There is not a feature of the work you can name which, supplied with the correct context, there isn't a damn good reason it was written that way.

The largest injustice about the adaptation is the damage it has done in the form of preconception to the experience of the written work. Many people have come to read Tolkien after they see the film, and, expecting things there that they should not, hold the book inferior on completely inappropriate criteria with respect to the intentions and achievements of the written work. It supplies completely the wrong hermeneutic for successful appraisal and appreciation of the book.

Whereas, even on the basis of the proper hermeneutic for appreciation and appraisal of the cinematic adaptation - that is, as an epic cinematic trilogy with mass appeal, which observes the formulaic generic staples - Jackson's trilogy falls rather short of the mark, with some very obvious integral flaws that have nothing to do with how it was adapted.

I cannot think of a more lauded, more successful artistic failure in cinematic history than Jackson's trilogy.

So you're not a fan of the films then?

FionnMatthew

Pigman II wrote: »

Clockwork Orange, Jurassic Park.

Yes, to the first. Yes, actually to most of Kubrick's adaptations, although I can't say I've read Barry Lindon.

I'm not sure about the second one there though. JP was among Crichton's better novels, imo.

What about Lawrence of Arabia? Anyone read the TH Lawrence autobiog it's based on?

DirkVoodoo

Itchy and Scratchy:The Movie.

The novelisation by Norman Mailer just wasn't the same

pwd

I preferred the novel for A Clockwork Orange myself

bluto63

Pigman II wrote: »

Clockwork Orange,

I was thinkin someone might suggest this, but I much prefer the book. It's a lot more graphic and horrifying because if they made the scenes in the movie like they are in the book it would've recieved much more heat than it got before. It's more sickening which I think is what Anthony Burgess was trying to go for, to contrast more with his "redemption"

pwd

bluto63 wrote: »

I was thinkin someone might suggest this, but I much prefer the book. It's a lot more graphic and horrifying because if they made the scenes in the movie like they are in the book it would've recieved much more heat than it got before. It's more sickening which I think is what Anthony Burgess was trying to go for, to contrast more with his "redemption"

Yeah I don't remember them that well, but as far as I remember the film didn't seem to put across the same point as the book.

pwd

i'd say a lot of james bond films would be improvements on the books too - though I only read a few of them 15 years ago so I can't remember specific examples.

robby^5

American Pyscho.

I adore both the book and the film, but seeing Christian Bale bring Patrick Bateman to the big screen was just so amazing. It enhanced my enjoyment of the book, imagining Bale as Bateman being able to put a voice and a face to this amazing character.

I think I prefer the film simply because for me it made re-reading the book even more enjoyable.

Frankie Lee

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, you wouldn't have thought it was possible but Terry Gilliam proved his genius here.

genericgoon

The Godfather. The book is fairly average, the film is a cinematic masterpiece.

Valmont

FionnMatthew wrote: »

It simply helped itself liberally and unabashedly to content from a textual work its creators utterly failed to understand.

The Peter Jackson trilogy is, in just about every way possible, utterly trivial and inferior to the saga Tolkien wrought. It is a banalization of Tolkien's work on an unforgivable scale.

My issues with that god damn saga were Legolas' gayness (really he was too camp), Gimli being a joke, Elijah Wood being wayyyyyy to moany, and that god awful scene we all try to forget "No man can kill me!" chick - " I am no man". I still cringe when I think of it. Goodness the saga was god awful.

MooseJam

FionnMatthew wrote: »

The Lord of the Rings wasn't based on a book. To say so is to do a disservice to the book on which it purports to be based.

what are you talking about of course it was , it was based on the lord of the rings. The film is a few hours you can sit back and enjoy, it takes the best ideas from the book and discardes the 1000 odd pages of garbage

Wacker

Re theGodfather: I very much agree with this. All the changes that the film makes are good, in my opinion. I mean, who really wants to read about Lucy Mancini's vagina?

FionnMatthew

Valmont wrote: »

My issues with that god damn saga were Legolas' gayness (really he was too camp),

He was one of the biggest disappointments for me. It wasn't just that he was too camp. He seemed the most innocent and youngest of the bunch, when he is actually in the region of thousands of years old, and many references to this are made in the book, where he is a youthful character who is wise and mysterious, and mutely intimidating. Bloom's Legolas was the village idiot. He constantly looks slightly confused about what's going on, never seems to have anything useful to say, and is little more than the witless foil to Gimli's comic relief. I still wince at many of his inclusions in the film, which range from skating down a staircase in the middle of a battle on the back of a shield of armour, somehow deriving from the colour of the morning sky that blood was spilled the previous evening (!!) and completely missing the patently obvious (and really foolish) plan made at Gondor to create a last minute diversion by riding to Morannon. His sole purpose in that scene is to sum up the simplex dialogue for anyone stupid enough not to have copped on already that the remaning members of the fellowship are going to create "a diversion!!!"

Gimli being a joke,

Yes. Such a sad, tiresome, cliched approach, and such a miserably wasteful misuse of Rhys-Davies, whose lovely RSC accent would have been entirely more appropriate for Gimli. Gimli's character is far more grim in Tolkien, and far more deserving of respect - an insight into the ancient culture of the dwarves, rather than being a funny little man with a Scottish accent (oh, that's just so genre fantasy. How knowing!).

Elijah Wood being wayyyyyy to moany,

Another f*ck up. The transformation is from an eloquent, earnest man of letters in the book - a young gentleman cast far out of his depth but bearing up by dint of resolve and good solid virtue - to a wide-eyed, petulant little ignoramus with neat line in unintentionally condescending high-mindedness when he talks to his "friend" Sam. Oh, how I wanted to claw his useless, weepy wretched eyes out.

and that god awful scene we all try to forget "No man can kill me!" chick - " I am no man". I still cringe when I think of it. Goodness the saga was god awful.

It was certainly badly handled. Especially because of the fact that we already knew who she was. I missed Dernhelm, and the dialogue from that scene.

Tolkien wrote:

Merry crawled on all fours like a dazed beast, and such a horror was on him that he was blind and sick.
"King's man! King's man!" his heart cried within him. "You must stay by him. As a father you shall be to me, you said." But his will made no answer and his body shook. He dared not open his eyes or look up.
Then out of the blackness in his mind he thought that he heard Dernhelm speaking; yet now the voice seemed strange, recalling some other voice that he had known.
"Become, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"
A cold voice answered: "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."
A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."
"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."

This scene, of course, and the story behind it, alludes liberally to Elizabethan imagery and literary allusion, in particular the Spenserian story of Britomart in the Faerie Queen, whose suit of armour hides the fact of her femininity.

One thing I really sorely missed from this scene was the dying speech of Theoden. "A grim morn and a glad day, and a golden sunset."

I could write ( have written ) thousands of words on what was wrong with this adaptation. Highlights include the sabotage of the character of Aragorn so as to make him a hillman with a lineage, rather than the true King in exile. The spoiling of the narratival pacing and structure of the Fellowship of the Ring, the insertion of superfluous new material at the expense of integral book content (Aragorn's wet dreams or the unabridged Council of Elrond? I know which one I would have chosen. I would have chosen the one that got that fat faced b*tch out of the movie as much as possible.), the completely misjudged casting (tbf, not completely, though. Ian Holm, Ian McKellen and Bernard Hill were perfect, imo, and Andy Serkhis did a good job with a bad script) the utter failure of the Frodo-Sam relationship, the failure to appreciate the themes of classical epic and tragic heroism latent in the book, and the feudal mythology of chivalry, kingship and Christian virtue, the insertion of wildly disparate and inappropriate thematic content, the reduction of the plot to bare allegory, when that is the mode of literary endeavour Tolkien most looked down upon, etc etc etc.

They spoiled it completely.

FionnMatthew

MooseJam wrote: »

what are you talking about of course it was , it was based on the lord of the rings. The film is a few hours you can sit back and enjoy, it takes the best ideas from the book and discardes the 1000 odd pages of garbage

It purports to be based on the Lord of the Rings.

Qualitatively speaking, it bears little resemblance to the actual book, beyond the formulaic imitation of plot points, scenery, names and staples.

The actual substance of the book was excised in the adaptation. What you get is a parody of the mythological saga that Tolkien wrote.

It takes the key scenes of the book and makes them garbage.

MooseJam

FionnMatthew wrote: »

They spoiled it completely.

wow you seem so learned , you must be right lol

FionnMatthew

MooseJam wrote: »

wow you seem so learned , you must be right lol

With respect, MooseJam, I have had a close relationship with that book since I was very young, and I have devoted much of my academic career to working out precisely what it is about it that I like so much.

I'm pretty well acquainted with it at this stage, and well acquainted enough with the premises and objectives of its fashioning to make an educated guess as to how it ought to be read. And in my reading, Peter Jackson's trilogy is not a very faithful adaptation.

I would have preferred he cut out far more of the film if he had only kept the book's themes, if he had only done justice to the characters in the way they were written. Those, in fact, are the thrills the book has to offer. Those were lost.

Galvasean

Jaws is one.

Id half agree on Jurassic Park. Some parts were better, some not as good.

pickarooney

FionnMatthew wrote: »

With respect, MooseJam, I have had a close relationship with that book since I was very young, and I have devoted much of my academic career to working out precisely what it is about it that I like so much.

Pff, we did like six books just one year. And that was in primary school.

mwnger

All the James Bond films except Moonraker.

Goodfellas.

LA Confidential.

Blade Runner.

The Prestige.

The Shining.

There isn't one thing wrong, not one thing wrong, with Tolkien's work

I got three words for you: Tom f*cking Bombadil.

FionnMatthew

pickarooney wrote: »

Pff, we did like six books just one year. And that was in primary school.

I have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to say.

FionnMatthew

mwnger wrote: »

I got three words for you: Tom f*cking Bombadil.

Excuse me for pointing this out, but just indicating a character from the book doesn't really specify what is you find wrong with the book. Am I to understand that you didn't like this character? Where lies the flaw, precisely, in your opinion?

mwnger

Excuse me for pointing this out, but just indicating a character from the book doesn't really specify what is you find wrong with the book. Am I to understand that you didn't like this character? Where lies the flaw, precisely, in your opinion?

You said "there isn't one thing wrong, not one thing wrong, with Tolkien's work" - and I was merely pointing out that I believe Tom Bombadil condicts this assertion.

Tom Bombadil is quite simply the worst character in literary history.

Dave147

genericgoon wrote: »

The Godfather. The book is fairly average, the film is a cinematic masterpiece.

Read the Godfather while I was on holidays last year, best book I've ever read along with Iceman Richard Kuklinsky. Not taking anything away from the film which was amazing but the book is far above average.

Frankie Lee

Does Raging Bull count?
Jake La Motta's just above average autobiography (which tbh i've not read) with the resulting film one of the greatest ever made.

genericgoon

Dave147 wrote: »

Read the Godfather while I was on holidays last year, best book I've ever read along with Iceman Richard Kuklinsky. Not taking anything away from the film which was amazing but the book is far above average.

I was probably was a bit harsh on it. However, I still think the film is a far better version of the story and relative to other works in their respective mediums and genres, the film is far greater.

Fall_Guy

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Excuse me for pointing this out, but just indicating a character from the book doesn't really specify what is you find wrong with the book. Am I to understand that you didn't like this character? Where lies the flaw, precisely, in your opinion?

Tom Bombadil, brilliant! I remember a few years ago I spent hours reading through different articles trying to explain who/what Tom Bombadil might be. By the end of it I was none the wiser. All Tom Bombadil really adds to the story is that when you're finished the book and someone mentions Tom Bombadil you think "oh yeah, him, who/what the **** was he?" Still don't know what his purpose was in the grand scheme of the narraitive, but I have to say I did like the chap!

*edit*** in an attempt to make it look like I have SOME desire to keep this on topic, I'm going to echo the Godfather comments. Enjoyed the book but LOVED the film (and I had read the book before I saw the film).

FionnMatthew

mwnger wrote: »

You said "there isn't one thing wrong, not one thing wrong, with Tolkien's work" - and I was merely pointing out that I believe Tom Bombadil condicts this assertion.

Tom Bombadil is quite simply the worst character in literary history.

I said that there isn't one thing wrong with it that couldn't be explained away as a misconception about how to read it, that couldn't, with a little context setting, become something that isn't "wrong" with it.

I'll try to explain my predicament. You haven't said why you don't like Bombadil. You've simply said you don't.

I am left with only one option - to disagree with you - to say, "I like TB."

Since my point was that there any perceived flaws in the book are the fruit of misconceptions by inexpert readers, and that deeper understanding will assuage such "flaws," simply, flatly, disagreeing with you would be a tacit denial of my whole point.

But I can't honour my intention if you don't explain why you don't like Tom Bombadil, because from where I sit, he simply isn't the worst character in literary history, and I'd like to know what unfortunate and comprehensive hermeneutic ineptitudes led you to the hyberbolic belief that he was.

FionnMatthew

Fall_Guy wrote: »

Tom Bombadil, brilliant! I remember a few years ago I spent hours reading through different articles trying to explain who/what Tom Bombadil might be. By the end of it I was none the wiser. All Tom Bombadil really adds to the story is that when you're finished the book and someone mentions Tom Bombadil you think "oh yeah, him, who/what the **** was he?" Still don't know what his purpose was in the grand scheme of the narraitive, but I have to say I did like the chap!

*edit*** in an attempt to make it look like I have SOME desire to keep this on topic, I'm going to echo the Godfather comments. Enjoyed the book but LOVED the film (and I had read the book before I saw the film).

Was it this one you read? http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil.html

I'm given to the belief that he's a pretty cool character. The fact that the Ring does not affect him, that he was the First, and would be the Last, if Sauron swept the earth.

I like the ambiguity in his exact characterisation, too because it allows all of the suggestions in that essay to be at least somewhat true.

Podge_irl

FionnMatthew wrote: »

There isn't one thing wrong, not one thing wrong, with Tolkien's work. There is not a feature of the work you can name which, supplied with the correct context, there isn't a damn good reason it was written that way.

Tolkien's work is quite laborious to read, which is my main problem with it. Whether or not the films were appropriate adaptations or "better", I certainly consider them infinitely more enjoyable. While I can appreciate Tolkien's work, it simply is not written in such a style that attracts my interest for long. The books are epic and I don't think cinema as a medium was ever going to be able to recreate it and to attempt to compare them on this basis is frivolous.

pwd

One that's on tonight: AI: Artificial Intelligence

I've started reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I agree that Blade Runner is an excellent film, but so far the vision of the future conjured up in the book is very different to the one I perceived in the film.

Jack Sheehan

I honestly cant think of one that hasnt already been said. A Scanner Darkly was every bit as good as the book, and as good as a movie adaptation can hope to be, but it wasn't better.

FionnMatthew

Podge_irl wrote: »

Tolkien's work is quite laborious to read, which is my main problem with it. Whether or not the films were appropriate adaptations or "better", I certainly consider them infinitely more enjoyable. While I can appreciate Tolkien's work, it simply is not written in such a style that attracts my interest for long. The books are epic and I don't think cinema as a medium was ever going to be able to recreate it and to attempt to compare them on this basis is frivolous.

I have to disagree with you, because I think that cinema is potentially one of the most epic media in our repertoire. Think of some of Kubrick's or Malick's epic movies, or the HUGE scope and significance of every moment of Lawrence of Arabia.

One of the things that confused me so much was that certain elements of the structure of the book seem tailor-made for the demands of exposition and development of a screenplay - but they rearranged those elements to make the story more linear. Why did they do that?

I should mention that I wasn't the first here to compare the two. You were. You said that Lord of the Rings was a better film than it was a book.

I don't just compare them on this basis, though. It's my contention that there was an entirely better sequence of films to be made using the material of LOTR than the films Jackson made.

If you dislike Tolkien's prose, perhaps you are one of those people who is more inclined to enjoy the cinematic version than the written one, but I still contend that there are elements of the written work which, had they been faithfully adapted in the films, would have made for a more compelling experience for both you and I.

What do you mean, "laborious" anyway? Is that simply an admission that you found it laborious, or are you pointing to specific flaws in Tokien's prose?

Podge_irl

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I have to disagree with you, because I think that cinema is potentially one of the most epic media in our repertoire. Think of some of Kubrick's or Malick's epic movies, or the HUGE scope and significance of every moment of Lawrence of Arabia.

I suppose I meant epic in a different fashion as I agree with regards the potential of the cinematic experience. Tolkien has crafted an entire universe in his LOTR (and other similar) books with a hugely rich array of characters and "worlds" - its simply an easier accomplishment to have so many and such involving characters in prose then in film, which has obvious restrictions placed upon it.

I should mention that I wasn't the first here to compare the two. You were. You said that Lord of the Rings was a better film than it was a book.

The above was my first post on the issue, I've somewhat waded into the middle of this. I said I wasn't going to compare which was "better", but rather stated I just enjoyed the films more.

If you dislike Tolkien's prose, perhaps you are one of those people who is more inclined to enjoy the cinematic version than the written one, but I still contend that there are elements of the written work which, had they been faithfully adapted in the films, would have made for a more compelling experience for both you and I.

What do you mean, "laborious" anyway? Is that simply an admission that you found it laborious, or are you pointing to specific flaws in Tokien's prose?

Its an admission that I found it laborious and I am fully ready to say that I thoroughly dislike Tolkien's writing style which will of course have a major impact on this. I think the story of the books is much better and obviously more fully fleshed out. Basically, while I think Tolkien had a great gift for story composition, I don't rank his storytelling skills all that highly. I often felt his writing was too cluttered with detail and scenery exposition - something which I normally prefer to be left to the imagination somewhat I guess.

MissHoneyBun

FionnMatthew wrote: »

With respect, MooseJam, I have had a close relationship with that book since I was very young, and I have devoted much of my academic career to working out precisely what it is about it that I like so much.

You crack me up

kowloon

I think the world portrayed in the Peter Jackson fails to convey the richness of Tolkien. The movie adaptation would certainly have benefitted from the inclusion of more hardcore eXtreme action, explosions, gratuitous nudity, fast cars and even faster women.
On all accounts the film trilogy doesn't deliver to the extent of such masterpieces as 2 fast 2 furious and Stealth; the Lord of the Rings didn't even an have extreme sports or Kung Fu segment with a metal soundtrack, and don't get me started on the obvious lack of a bar fight in a strip club.

Nobody invests hundreds of millions into producing films that appeal only to the avid reader; lets face it, most of the people who even get as far as picking up anything with print on it have nothing but contempt for anything more cerebral than Mills and Boon or the TV guide.
As far as something so expensive to produce goes, LOTR is about as good as you can expect. Maybe if the film board can be persuaded to issue a grant of the €200 million plus needed to make it properly nobody will have to worry about finding the audience to turn a profit.

cabrwab

Is it really a problem that a blockbuster movie gave way to people reading books that maybe would not appeal to them?
I love the LOTR movies (extended editions) in particular, i think as a Movies there great fun.

Agreed lots where changed, but then telling people there is so much more in the books to discover may encourage people to read books! Its not a book you can get everything from by watching the movies.
I read the books first, there great on one level, complete pooh on another! IMO i like what jackson did most of the time, i didn't like the way he killed off sauroman (sorry if i spelt that wrong). I thought there was too much on the "love story" element.

Back on topic movies better then the books, Agree with JAWS, Jurassic Park. I know there is more but with these being high up on my list.

The shining falls into the same category as LOTR the movies and book with so much being left out and to discover by reading the books.

Shacklebolt

Main problems with Jacksons "Lord of the Rings":

The Hobbit:Should have been filmed first-otherwise the whole structure of Tolkiens work is gone.

Gimli: In the books was a hardy brave and respected warrior-in the film he becomes a comic relief character. Complete sabotage of Tolkiens characterisation.

Merry and Pippin: Changed from the somewhat naive but immensely brave characters of the books who eventually become respected warriors into complete idiots who bumble from scene to scene. Also the actors who portrayed them had all the talent of a wooden log.

Legolas: As already noted he was far too feminine in the films.

Sauron: Its implied fairly strongly in the books that he CAN take physical form especially when you consider he returned to Middle Earth 2000 years before the vents of the novels take place.

Elves fighting at Helms Deep: What was Jackson smoking when he came up with this?

The Shire: Looked like feckin Tele-Tubbie land.

Sam: Made him out to be a total jackass in the film not really like the character in the book.

Come to think of it most of the faults come from that idiot Jackson trying to add humour to a book that didnt have any and was all the better for it.

On a similar note the Harry Potter films are atrocious.

FionnMatthew

kowloon wrote: »

lets face it, most of the people who even get as far as picking up anything with print on it have nothing but contempt for anything more cerebral than Mills and Boon or the TV guide

Notwithstanding your tone, this has pretty much been my point. Conversely, the adaptation of the LOTR, from the POV of someone who appreciates the novel, owing to its treatment of the material, is deserving of nothing less than a like portion of contempt, such as it is.

Let's disabuse ourselves therefore of the notion that the "success" (read gross) of PJ's LOTR is anything to do with merit.

For my part, though, I can't help but wish that the adaptation of LOTR had been taken up by the sort of cinematic practitioner whose work serves as countervailing evidence to your claim that the ONLY operative factor in the content and artistry of a movie is its bankability. I should think films like Barry Lindon and/or Days of Heaven are entirely less compromising, pragmatic accomplishments than the sorts of movies you've adduced as examples, and than PJ's markedly compromised trilogy. That such movies get made at all, and that such TV adaptations as Tinker Tailor, et al. get produced, is all the proof I need that there are vestiges of integrity in this (mostly cynical) industry.

FionnMatthew

cabrwab wrote: »

Is it really a problem that a blockbuster movie gave way to people reading books that maybe would not appeal to them?

The problem, I think, is that it was construed as a blockbuster to begin with. The precedent of Star Wars stretched out its long arm and bent out of shape what should have been the intention to put the work on screen while preserving its core spirit. Changes, of course, are necessitated by the medium. But the necessary changes are the requirements of brevity, of coherence and dramatic clarity. Instead, arbitrary changes were made to make the content comply more faithfully to Hollywood formulae than to the source material. As a result, the vital spirit of the books, the real content of the works, which includes the mythic sensibility of Tolkien and the general mood he evokes: these things were lost.

I contend that a more faithful adaptation (not a perfectly faithful one, but one which preserved its spirit at the expense of the formulaic Hollywood demands of 1) comic relief, 2) sex appeal, 3) romantic subplot, 4) contemporary stereotypes (rather than Tolkien's culturally specific ones) and 5) structural simplicity ) could have had expectations of making a tidy profit on the backs of a Tolkien fanbase which was already existent. But why aim for a tidy profit when you can have a disgustingly bloated one? As things were, compromises were made to maximise appeal in the service of maximal greed. And what we got was a sickening blockbuster treatment with all the typical trappings.

It shouldn't have been a blockbuster at all. If it had just done its own thing it would still have been a bankable endeavour, and far more respectable.

kowloon

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Notwithstanding your tone, this has pretty much been my point. Conversely, the adaptation of the LOTR, from the POV of someone who appreciates the novel, owing to its treatment of the material, is deserving of nothing less than a like portion of contempt, such as it is.

My tone was entirely in jest, cynical maybe.
There are always exceptions to general trends but it's indisputable that the vast majority of movies made are guided by focus groups and the marketeers rather than any notions of artistry.
Movies are compromised from the go by all the interference, my point is that Lord of the Rings could have been worse, they could have put an altogether different spin on things.

FionnMatthew

Shacklebolt wrote: »

Main problems with Jacksons "Lord of the Rings":

The Hobbit:Should have been filmed first-otherwise the whole structure of Tolkiens work is gone.

Gimli: In the books was a hardy brave and respected warrior-in the film he becomes a comic relief character. Complete sabotage of Tolkiens characterisation.

Merry and Pippin: Changed from the somewhat naive but immensely brave characters of the books who eventually become respected warriors into complete idiots who bumble from scene to scene. Also the actors who portrayed them had all the talent of a wooden log.

Legolas: As already noted he was far too feminine in the films.

Sauron: Its implied fairly strongly in the books that he CAN take physical form especially when you consider he returned to Middle Earth 2000 years before the vents of the novels take place.

Elves fighting at Helms Deep: What was Jackson smoking when he came up with this?

The Shire: Looked like feckin Tele-Tubbie land.

Sam: Made him out to be a total jackass in the film not really like the character in the book.

Come to think of it most of the faults come from that idiot Jackson trying to add humour to a book that didnt have any and was all the better for it.

On a similar note the Harry Potter films are atrocious.

Since you're listing characters, I'll bite.

Blanchett's Galadriel took the light hearted but ambivalent character from the book and bleached out any character at all. It was like she was on Prozac. I realize she was trying to be mystical, but she ended up just sounding stoned. Instead of the immortal Galadriel we got a post-mortem one. For such a wonderful character to get given, she was so boring and flat. It's a far, far cry from the eventually likeable character of Galadriel in the books.

Weaving's Elrond is another cardboard cut-out of a character. He has one constant expression, an offended frown, which renders him utterly unappealing and repellent to look at, rather than the grandiose yet warm character of the text. He doesn't come across as wise so much as resentful of something! He has no emotional range in the film at all, and no there is little indication for what an important character he is.

Denethor is supposed to be the image of a once great and noble king now come upon ruin. The painfulness of the events at Minas Tirith is supposed to derive from the great asset he might have been had he not been bent astray by Sauron via the Palantir. We don't see any of that with Noble's Denethor. He's just a horrible guy. A contemptuous old fool. Why on earth would Pippin pledge his allegiance to this man? It is actually a gratifying moment when he kills himself in the film, rather than being the tragedy that it is supposed to be.

The same goes for his offspring. Faramir is just useless, mostly because of changes in the script, but also because of the casting of Wenham, whose lack of noble features and bearing make him nothing more than a lackey. In the book, the tragedy of Denethor's favouring of Boromir is that Faramir is the more virtuous of his sons, is a microcosm of Aragorn (gold, but does not glitter). Denethor cannot see Faramir's true virtue. But Wenham's Faramir is actually worthy of Denethor's contempt. All he does is feel sorry for himself. His refusal of the ring in the book is supposed to be the redemption of the house of the Stewards, in that Boromir and Denethor gave in to temptation, but the Jackson/Wenham Faramir actually goes so far as to try to bring the hobbits home, and pulls them miles off path, almost utterly compromising the quest.

And Bean's Boromir. What a waste of this actor. What inexplicable choices for him to make. He overplays just about every line he has, making the words sound like a crude parody of the movie he's supposed to be in. The character just isn't credible - he is an uncomfortable reminder that PJ's LOTR rarely raises above the level of genre fantasy.

Urban's Eomer goes from a righteous and defiant exiled prince to a dirty, low browed brute whose only virtue is his ferocity. While much of the scenery and costume for Rohan alluded well to the heroic code of the England of Beowulf, only Bernard Hill managed to capture it in a character.

Otto's Eowyn is far too dainty and pretty, and lacking in the arrant backbone that makes it believable that she might ride out with the Rohirrim. For her characterisation, leaves should have been taken out of Spenser's Faerie Queene, and from the literary portrayals and allusions to the Queenship of Elizabeth I, instead of trying to create out of her some diverting eye candy for a now lonely Aragorn.

Mortensen's Aragorn epitomises everything that's wrong with the psychological acting tradition of the Western film industry. The character was doomed from the inception of the script to be but a shadow of the textual Aragorn, but Mortensen pushed him over the edge. The character goes from being an heroic/romantic symbol of ideal kingship and virtue (a once secret majesty stepping up to the exigency of his situation, like Shakespeare's Henry V) to just a dull, ugly man grappling with his own flaws. He's changed from the embodiment of an ideal to an aspirant to that ideal. The appropriate dramatic approach to such a character is the sort of approach taken with Shakespearean characters, the sort of approach McKellen took to his - it is a purely craft-driven approach where artistic truth is something that grows organically out of the staples and ideals of the forces the character represents, and the surrender to these by the actor. The psychology of the character comes as a by-product of this.

Mortensen reverses this, choosing to "become" Aragorn by building his psychology from the ground up, in the manner of the psychologistic acting tradition of the popular 20th century cinema. This is just wrong-minded. It works for naturalistic drama, but is misapplied to material such as this. A mistake.

And the things they made him do! Does anyone remember the restraint exercised in the book in front of the Black Gates, when the Mouth of Sauron rides out to taunt the fellowship? It is the prerogative of the upstanding and the virtuous to never break a confidence, even with the enemy. Accordingly, the emissary, the Black Lieutenant, is allowed to return, albeit in fear, to the safety of his fortress. But in the film, Aragorn loses the rag and bellowing uncontrollably lops off the guy's head!! And we're supposed to respect this character? What a dishonourable, brutish, churlish fool! A completely inappropriate characterisation for this central character of the books.

FionnMatthew

Podge_irl wrote: »

I suppose I meant epic in a different fashion as I agree with regards the potential of the cinematic experience. Tolkien has crafted an entire universe in his LOTR (and other similar) books with a hugely rich array of characters and "worlds" - its simply an easier accomplishment to have so many and such involving characters in prose then in film, which has obvious restrictions placed upon it.

I don't really dispute this. What I should like to mean by "epic", or even "heroic", or "romance", is the themes and ideals espoused by the material. There is an invocation in the book of classical and feudal ideals of kingship and heroism, and of Christian ideals of virtue.
For the most part, these themes and ideals survive in the film in much maligned form, mostly, I expect, because of neglect due to ignorance, rather than due to deliberate tampering. I can't help but think that the screenwriters just didn't understand why the character of Aragorn was in there, because of what they did with him. He's supposed to be a moral exemplar, not the subject of a fictional biopic. We're supposed to look up to him, heroise him, not sympathise or empathise with him. He's not a perspective character, but a symbolic one.

It's stuff like this, which I consider an integral part of epic, where characters aren't "characters", that is "personalities" in the psychological sense of modern day drama, but instead figures intended to embody or represent certain forces. This sort of thing is present in the classical tragedies, and in the epic mythological cycles, and in the Arthurian sagas. It is also used quite powerfully, perhaps most powerfully, in the Elizabethan poetry and drama as a vehicle for the propagation of orthodox attitudes to the Queen. (It's also very much the sort of thing that is at work in the comics of the 20th century. Batman, for instance, isn't compelling because he's a psychological portrait, like Hedda Gabler or Stanley Kowalski, but because he's a figure of epic/tragic proportions, who embodies certain ideals, and acts for certain forces.) This is the meat of epic.

I don't see why this stuff couldn't have been more faithfully rendered. I'm not at all so precious about certain plot points and certain great bits of the books. What offended me so much about the films is how the meaning of so many of the characters, and what they represent, was so maligned, misunderstood, and utterly altered. See above for examples.

Actually, for an example of what I'm talking about pared down to its simplest form, Tartakovsy's Samurai Jack is an excellent epyllion on the epic style of characterisation. What I would envision for an adaptation of LOTR would be something that would be a bit more sophisticated than SJ, of course, but which have a certain sensitivity to what it is that makes heroes heroes, so to speak.

The above was my first post on the issue, I've somewhat waded into the middle of this. I said I wasn't going to compare which was "better", but rather stated I just enjoyed the films more.

I'm sorry. I misread your name as the OP's name. My bad.

Its an admission that I found it laborious and I am fully ready to say that I thoroughly dislike Tolkien's writing style which will of course have a major impact on this. I think the story of the books is much better and obviously more fully fleshed out. Basically, while I think Tolkien had a great gift for story composition, I don't rank his storytelling skills all that highly. I often felt his writing was too cluttered with detail and scenery exposition - something which I normally prefer to be left to the imagination somewhat I guess.

Fair enough, I suppose. I didn't find his style markedly divergent from most epic/mythological literature, which is what he wanted to imitate. There's also the travelogues of the Romantics, and the writings of HR Haggard, which are similarly descriptive.

bluto63

Do you think the title of this thread should be changed to "things wrong with Peter Jacksons adaptation of Lord Of The Rings"?

pwd

funny i was just trying to do that

pwd

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I don't really dispute this. What I should like to mean by "epic", or even "heroic", or "romance", is the themes and ideals espoused by the material. There is an invocation in the book of classical and feudal ideals of kingship and heroism, and of Christian ideals of virtue.
For the most part, these themes and ideals survive in the film in much maligned form, mostly, I expect, because of neglect due to ignorance, rather than due to deliberate tampering. I can't help but think that the screenwriters just didn't understand why the character of Aragorn was in there, because of what they did with him. He's supposed to be a moral exemplar, not the subject of a fictional biopic. We're supposed to look up to him, heroise him, not sympathise or empathise with him. He's not a perspective character, but a symbolic one.

It's stuff like this, which I consider an integral part of epic, where characters aren't "characters", that is "personalities" in the psychological sense of modern day drama, but instead figures intended to embody or represent certain forces. This sort of thing is present in the classical tragedies, and in the epic mythological cycles, and in the Arthurian sagas. It is also used quite powerfully, perhaps most powerfully, in the Elizabethan poetry and drama as a vehicle for the propagation of orthodox attitudes to the Queen. (It's also very much the sort of thing that is at work in the comics of the 20th century. Batman, for instance, isn't compelling because he's a psychological portrait, like Hedda Gabler or Stanley Kowalski, but because he's a figure of epic/tragic proportions, who embodies certain ideals, and acts for certain forces.) This is the meat of epic.

I don't see why this stuff couldn't have been more faithfully rendered. I'm not at all so precious about certain plot points and certain great bits of the books. What offended me so much about the films is how the meaning of so many of the characters, and what they represent, was so maligned, misunderstood, and utterly altered. See above for examples.

Actually, for an example of what I'm talking about pared down to its simplest form, Tartakovsy's Samurai Jack is an excellent epyllion on the epic style of characterisation. What I would envision for an adaptation of LOTR would be something that would be a bit more sophisticated than SJ, of course, but which have a certain sensitivity to what it is that makes heroes heroes, so to speak.



I'm sorry. I misread your name as the OP's name. My bad.


Fair enough, I suppose. I didn't find his style markedly divergent from most epic/mythological literature, which is what he wanted to imitate. There's also the travelogues of the Romantics, and the writings of HR Haggard, which are similarly descriptive.

post reported for boringness

Galvasean

bluto63 wrote: »

Do you think the title of this thread should be changed to "things wrong with Peter Jacksons adaptation of Lord Of The Rings"?

Might I suggest 'LotR Fanboy Won't Give It A Rest'?