Lord of the Rings: Did PJ lose the plot?

[Orius]

The Scouring is an "odd ending" and including it changes the whole tone of the story. I understand his choice to not include it.

Not to mention it would totally screw up the pace. When I went to see it, there were a lot of people who seemed to be getting up to leave after the Ring was destroyed before the Grey Havens, they thought that's where it would end at some of the scenes in between. Movies typically end right after the climax. But the book takes six whole chapters to reach the end after the climax. There was a lot of stuff cut out from those six chapters, and it was still a long resolution for a movie. The Scouring was a reflection of Tolkien's feeling on how industrialization had crept up on the countryside where he was raised. Some purists would compain that PJ left out something that was obviously near and dear to Tolkein's heart, but it just wouldn't work in a movie, the ending would take an hour to wrap things up.

 

[Orius]

Can anyone say, "Eowyn versus the Witch-King"?

Count me among those who found some of the changes jarring and unwelcome. Again, I'm not arguing that there weren't serious changes, nor that there weren't bad changes -- I'm just saying it's incorrect to say that the PLOT was changed.

Exactly. The story itself was more or less recognizable, most of the changes are minor details. Some of those details are jarring, because I don't see how the change improved the story. Other changes, I can accept because of the intent behind it -- the Elves at Helm's Deep is a prime example of this. A major theme unlying LotR is that the Enemy seeks to sow division among the races. Having the Elves at Helms Deep in the movie show the importance of unity. Yes, I know Lorien was too busy fighting its own battle in the book, but the moral behind that change I think is more important than keeping the original plot.

And in conclusion I'll just say that every time the films got closer to the books, they got better. The best dialogue in the films is that which Tolkien wrote himself, and among the great disappointments of the films -- the absence of "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!" and "Here is the Sword that Was Broken and if forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!" are perhaps the two most painful.

I agree, the dialogue is great when taking directly or almost directly from the books. Even dialogue that isn't in the book, but has the same style Tolkien used works. But stuff that PJ, Fran, or Phillipa clearly put in that doesn't mesh sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[Storm Raven]

I heard the reason they took out the powersuits was that they could not get them to look/ move right. IMO the movie still captured the themes/ spirit of the book.

Umm, what? Did you ever read ST? Because the movie may have done many things, but it most certainly didn't capture the theme or spirit of the book.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yeah, but in the film, Frodo pushes Gollum in and nearly falls in himself. That's not how it happened in the book. The book may have been less dramatic, but the reality was that Frodo failed, and the Ring was destroyed only because Gollum was careless.

Frodo failed in the movie as well, since he was struggling to keep the Ring for himself rather than destroy it. Whether Gollum slipped in due to his dancing, or due to struggling with Frodo is of minor importance. Gollum was still instrumental to the destruction of the Ring, and Frodo still failed.

 

[diaglo]

i watched Ronin last night and missed GI Jane, but i realized just what sorry actors they recruited for the LotR.

 

[nikolai]

barsoomcore,

I feel our disagreement basically boils down to you not feeling I'm using the word "plot" correctly. I think I am, but I appreciate this sort of disagreement is very difficult to resolve in this sort of forum. What I mean by the plot is the scheme or plan behind a book/play/film. I think that includes internal causality; how earlier events cause later events and the links between them. I think you feel plot is limited to which events happen and it what order. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turned out that the word had been used to cover both senses in different places.

My shortened plot summary wasn't intended as an listing of differences between the movies and books. It was meant to illustrate how the drama around the possession of the Ring drives the books, but is lost in the films.

 

[Nightfall]

Thank you PANTS!!

 

[barsoomcore]

I feel our disagreement basically boils down to you not feeling I'm using the word "plot" correctly.

Fair enough. I'm more interested in the ideas rather than demanding everyone use my terminology. Let us drop the word, since we seem to have come up with more specific (is somewhat more ponderous) terms to explain what we mean.

We can agree to disagree on usage of the word "plot", I think.

What I mean by the plot is the scheme or plan behind a book/play/film. I think that includes internal causality; how earlier events cause later events and the links between them. (snip) My shortened plot summary (snip) was meant to illustrate how the drama around the possession of the Ring drives the books, but is lost in the films.

I agree that the chain of causality is changed from the novels to the movie. I am not convinced that the "drama around the possession of the Ring" does not drive the films, however. Your examples so far only show that said drama unfolds in a slightly different manner, but the story I saw is still most definitely driven by the drama around the possession of the Ring.

 

[Pants]

Thank you PANTS!!

No problemo

 

[Nightfall]

No problemo

Yeah well it is still appreciated.