Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?

[nikolai]

Now that the whole opus is out there; what does everyone think of the alterations made to the plot of the books for the screen version?

Frankly, I think it's almost as if it was adapted from version of the books from a alternate universe. Places are represented very close to the way they are in the novel and the fellowship travel along roughly the same path, but there are dramatic differences in what happens and why it happens. I'm not sure all of this is for the best or was essential for the adaptation to be a success.

nikolai.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

IMO: The movies are great movies; the books are great books. Movies != books.

I think PJ did a reasonable retelling of the original story that preserves the spirit of the original, if not the scene-by-scene letter of it. Would I have made the same changes? No -- but I might have made others.

Heck, history is being "revised" all the time, and constantly reinterpreted. You can't get two historians to agree on the same interpretations of historical facts. If we were to imagine LotR as real events, of which Tolkien and PJ are both chroniclers, should we expect them to agree at every point?

PJ got close enough that I'm satisfied.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Now that the whole opus is out there; what does everyone think of the alterations made to the plot of the books for the screen version?

Frankly, I think it's almost as if it was adapted from version of the books from a alternate universe. Places are represented very close to the way they are in the novel and the fellowship travel along roughly the same path, but there are dramatic differences in what happens and why it happens. I'm not sure all of this is for the best or was essential for the adaptation to be a success.

nikolai.

I agree completely. PJ took an epic work and turned it into a good action flick. I can't think of a single change I agree with, save perhaps omitting Bombadil for the sake of time, and perhaps giving Arwen a more central role to satisfy women film-goers. He raped the characters of Faramir, Theoden, and Denethor, completely screwed up the scene with Eowen and the Witch King (which is quite possibly my favorite scene in the book), turned Gimli into Jar-Jar, and for some godawful reason he doesn't like magic in a fantasy flick. To me that's kind of like not likeing guns in a western.

I think the movies were great, and I would have probably been a blubbering fan-boy had I not read the books several dozen times. I stand my comments from earlier threads, though, that PJ made changes for no other reason than to leave his fingerprints on it, and to try and one-up Tolkien. LotR has sold more than any book EVER, excepting only the Bible, and PJ has the nerve to try and improve on it? I'm not saying it's perfect, but that's a bit arrogant, imo.

*Donning flame retardant suit now*

 

[Endur]

I am in the "close enough" school.

Was he as close as I wished, no. But he did such an excellent job on the sets that I forgive him completely.

The Shire, Bree, Rivendell, Moria, Lothlorien, Edoras, Helm's Deep, The Gate of Morannon, Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, and Mount Doom were exactly as I envisioned them. Absolutely beautiful.

The only "visual" image I might have a problem with was the "eye". I would have thought only "sensitive" people would be able to actually see it. Rather than a great spotlight hovering in the air above Barad-Dur. And that was a reasonable intepretation, not mine, but fair.

That and the Mumak were too big. They were big in the book, but not as large as in the movies. Tolkien's Oliphaunts were Mastadons, larger than African/Indian elephants, but not much larger. PJ's Oliphaunts were probably three times larger than normal elephants and looked like At-Ats. Tolkien's elephants would not smash a horse and rider flat like a bug if they stepped on him. Tolkien describes the Mumak from the point of a view of a hobbit. For a hobbit, an Elephant would look "as big as a house."

 

[nikolai]

IMO: The movies are great movies; the books are great books. Movies != books.

I think PJ did a reasonable retelling of the original story that preserves the spirit of the original, if not the scene-by-scene letter of it. Would I have made the same changes? No -- but I might have made others.

I agree completely that the books are great books and the movies are great movies. It's also wrong to expect a scene-by-scene adaptation of the books; which would have made a very strange film to watch.

However, what strikes me when I watch the films is that the story being told is very different to that in told the books. I've no problems with the necessary stuff of adaptation, like showing scenes in a different way to the books, but it's just very strange to me that the tale being told on screen is not the same as the one in the books. That really the point I'm trying to make; rather than moaning that dialog isn't word-for-word from the books or that scenes are different. Just to clarify what I meant above.

In the film: Sauron is bent on genocide, Saruman is his lacky, Theoden is possessed and a puppet, Denethor is mad for no apparent reason, Isengard is destroyed and the warbeacons lit because of tricks a child could see past, and I could carry on... There are major differences. It just seems strange when I watch them.

And the finale is changed. In the film: Gollum bites the ring from Frodo's finger, Frodo fights with him to regain it, and because of this both fall, with Gollum and the ring ending up in the lava. In the story: it's a lot more complicated and nuanced; but the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.

 

[barsoomcore]

What's the plot of LotR? It is the story of the Free Peoples destroying the Ring of Doom. The key of the plot is that the Ring is utterly corrupting and thus cannot be defeated though positive action -- only resistance supported by the action of grace can bring about its destruction. The key theme of the story is that sacrifice is required to defeat evil -- real sacrifice, not the sort where your best friend dies but in the end you get the girl and Ewoks dance happily.

Both the plot and the theme of the story are unchanged in the movies.

That many changes were made, no question. That some of those changes were ill-advised, no question.

That those changes were made for some particular reason none of us are qualified to say, and to pretend otherwise is every bit as arrogant as what PJ is accused of.

But the plot and the central theme of the story are clearly identical to what's in the book. I am interested to hear exactly HOW people think they were changed.

 

[diaglo]

he made his money.

i don't agree with it. but i still watched it.

 

[barsoomcore]

In the story: ... the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.

Yes it was. That's EXACTLY how the Ring is destroyed in the book. Frodo claims the Ring, puts it on, and Gollum attacks, biting off Frodo's finger and then falling into the Cracks of Doom.

You'll need to be much more specific if you're trying to point out a difference, because to my mind the sequence of events is almost identical.

 

[Storm Raven]

And the finale is changed. In the film: Gollum bites the ring from Frodo's finger, Frodo fights with him to regain it, and because of this both fall, with Gollum and the ring ending up in the lava. In the story: it's a lot more complicated and nuanced; but the ring wasn't destroyed because someone slipped and fell whilst having a fight.

Umm, yeah, that's pretty close to how it was destroyed in the book. Frodo and Gollum fight, Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and begins dancing around in glee. Gollum loses his footing and falls into the volcano.

 

[Storm Raven]

I agree completely. PJ took an epic work and turned it into a good action flick. I can't think of a single change I agree with, save perhaps omitting Bombadil for the sake of time, and perhaps giving Arwen a more central role to satisfy women film-goers. He raped the characters of Faramir, Theoden, and Denethor,

Theoden got a major boost in the movies. It was Eomer who got screwed.

completely screwed up the scene with Eowen and the Witch King (which is quite possibly my favorite scene in the book),

How? The action in the movie proceeds almost identically to the action in the book. He changed some dialogue, which I think was a mistake, since the dialogue in this scene in the book was very powerful, but he got all of the elements of the scene correct.

turned Gimli into Jar-Jar, and for some godawful reason he doesn't like magic in a fantasy flick. To me that's kind of like not likeing guns in a western.

What examples of magic do you recall from the books that didn't get incporporated into the movies? LotR is a very "magic-lite" fantasy epic. There are only a handful of "magical items", and spells and so on are few, far between, and subtle. One could very well argue that PJ added magic to the stories (like the wizard duel between Saruman and Gandalf in LotR, and Saruman's possession of Theoden in TTT).