Tolkien's Version of LOTR vs. Jackson's Version of LOTR
For those of you who are fans of the books and have seen FOTR and TTT, what are your thoughts about the differences between the movies and the books. Do you think Jackson veered too far from the books, or do you think that he's done a good job of carrying Tolkien's legacy to a whole new generation that bases entertainment on multi-media?
I think Peter Jackson did exactly the right thing in not sticking to closely to the books. In a series such as Lord of the Rings, everyone has different ideas and images of Middle Earth - he could not possibly have hoped to come close. This movie is sufficiently alike that it is the same story, but it's also different enough to stand out oon its own. If he had tried to follow tolkien as near as possible, I think the movie would have been atrocious.
The good thing that Jackson did was I believe he had some of Tolkien's family who knew the books pretty well and he would ask what J.R.R. thought a particular landscape should look like or how he had described it to them. Remember, before the hobbit was printed, Tolkien made it up as a bed time story for his kids🙂 But the bad thing in FOTR, Jackson left our Tom Bombadil! Man that dude was one of the coolest people in that book.
Well like phoenix said, so many people have there own images of what middle earth is like it would be impossible to make everyone happy. So pj just went out and made a film that started the way it is supposed to, hit some of the important points in the middle, and i am sure it will end right, it was just a difference of how he got to the end.
Well i may get shot for saying this, but i am glad that they left him out. he is a character that probably everybody has a different image of and it would have been very dificult for pj to make everyone happy. plus isnt it nice to have parts of the books that you can read without imagining parts of the movie.
What IS it with people and Tom Bombadil?
Leaving him in would have been a DISASTER! A film is not a book. Bombadil does NOTHING to advance the plot at all; he is a completle irrelevance and would have laden the film heavily (unlike in a book where you can prevaricate all you like). The film HAD to concentrate on the titular Fellowship, and NOT on Frodo's journey to Rivendell. And it is all very well for book fans to say they like Bombadil but for the average punter that the film is trying to pull in it would have made no sense at all; to have this completely weird jolly guy wonder in singing about how jolly is he, wearing a blue coat and yellow wellies then they would have been leaving the cinema in droves before they got to the best bits.
It was a VERY intelligent thing for Peter to leave out. Likewise Radagast; he SHOULD have had a bigger part in the books but he did not. Hos book part was mostly irrelevant and so there was little point having him in the film.
I agree with Ushgarak that Tom should definitely not have been in the movies, cuz he is a poetic character. Think about it. In a movie full of action, this character suddenly shows up who hasn't a care in the world, and every time he talks, it's in song. Definitely a book character, and doesn't belong in any kind of movie except maybe a musical. I do, however think it would have been cool to put the Barrowdowns in there. (spoiler) Also, when Merry stabs the Captain of the Nazghul, it was with the knife he picked up in the Barrowdowns, forged with the express purpose of aiding in the demise of the Captain of the Nine, as is stated in Return of the King and more thoroughly in Appendix A. But all in all, I think that PJ did a good job on Fellowship of the Ring. In the Two Towers, however, he veered a bit further than I would have liked. I mean, I see no reason to destroy the character of Faramir as he did, and instead of spending the time in the movie of sending Frodo and Sam to Osgilath, which was never in the book, he could have spent it in Shelob's lair, which is still part of the Two Towers, according to Tolkien's version. On the Helm's Deep side, I think that he did a good job in keep that battle the emphasis of the movie, as it was in the book. A couple things were different that I think he could have done without (such as Aragorn's supposed death and the Elves sudden appearance), but overall, I think it was good.
Before you judge how he has portrayed Faramir watch the Extended Edition of the Two Towers. You will have to wait a few months, but all will be explained...I know this for a fact!
But not only that, why don't people like the Faramir in the film? He does what it says in the book, he deceives Frodo to catch Gollum, he blindfolds them to take them to the hideout, he interrogates them etc etc.
On to the point of Tolkien vs Jackson. It isn't really a matter of the versus because Jackson has followed Tolkien as much as possible. I mean even Eomer's helm which he wears in The Two Towers says around it:
This helm belongs to Eomer son of Eomund
It has it in Rohirric. All the little details specifically when it came to Tolkien describing them, are added even though you may not notice it. I have read the books what must be about 15 or 16 times now and I am not dissapointed in any of the films which have been released so far.
I would say that Tolkien would be proud of what Jackson has done...he has converted the best Fantasy book ever written into a movie that not only works, but are absolutely amazing to watch.
Jackson may have done a good job in converting the books into movies, and you're right, Sifer, he does include a lot of cool little details that experienced Tolkien lovers get a kick out of, but even if the extended edition clears up the whole destruction of Faramir's character, I don't see how the extended edition could justify Frodo and Sam showing up in Osgiliath. In the book, when Faramir was called to Osgiliath, he let the Hobbits go before he went. I think Sam said it best himself when they were in Osgiliath in TTT the movie, "It's all wrong, Mr. Frodo, we shouldn't even be here!"