LotR films - faithful?

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,691
Location
UK
Well, "Two Towers" will be showing soon - no doubt a lot of folks are excited by the prospect of watching Helm's Deep.

But how faithful are the films to the spirit of the books?

Obviously, they are not literally faithful - after all, Tom Bombadil seems to have gotten a very deserved boot.

But have they sought too hard to keep to the drama and conflict, and therefore forgotten the character of the work?

I noticed a few choice lines not present in "Fellowship of the Ring" - such as when they couldn't decipher the message to open the doors to Moria. Anyone remember Gimli complaining that they should have brought Saruman instead of Gandalf?

Anyway - LOTR - a good translation of the literary spirit to epic screen?
 
It is of course impossible that the movies could be completely faithful to the books. This is never possible with movies taken from books, some things don't film well, others film too well (like the Balrog, which is left more to the imagination in the book). Film is inherently third person objective, which very few worthwhile books are written in (none, in my opinion). Third person omniscient and limited omniscient, and first person particularly don't translate well to film, because there is too much that simply cannot be portrayed. And the "transmitted epic interpolative narrative" style of Lord of the Rings is completely lost in moving the work to film.

In some ways it is even impossible to expect that the movies would be faithful to the spirit of the books. After all, Tolkien was a deeply commited religious thinker, and his books are deeply Christian and, in fact, Catholic works. The director and actors of the film largely subscribe to interpretations imposed on the work in the seventies, many of which are diametrically opposed to the attitudes that permeate the books. For instance, Tolkien regarded the Ring of Power as symbolic of totalitarian socialism, whereas the seventies regarded it as a symbol of nuclear power.

And I have to admit that there were artistic decisions that had nothing to do with underlying philosophical outlook that set my teeth on edge. For instance, the Nazgul come across as very weak in the film, and with just slightly more faithful adherence to the books, a couple of lines of dialogue to explain things, that would not have been the case. For instance, if Aragorn had specified that he didn't drive them off, they simply left because their purpose was achieved with the Morgul blade, then they would have remained terrifying without his heroism in fighing them being lessened (in fact, it makes his heroism greater knowing that he went in against a foe he knew himself helpless against). Also, it would have been natural for Frodo to ask, upon waking in Rivendell, if the Nazgul were dead (as he did in the book). Then he could be told that they were only dismounted, that no power of the Elves or Gandalf himself could serve to actually kill them.

There are elements in which the portrayal of Moria fails as well. In the book, it is clearly explained that one reason Gimli has come to Rivendell is to seek tidings of his kin in Moria. That exlains why he wants to visit there. By the same token, Boramir has come seeking Isildur's Bane. Legolas brings tidings of evil things in Mirkwood as well as of Gollom's escape.

Of course, not everything could be included. But there were times that I felt that five minutes of critical dialogue had been cut in favor of ten minutes of very pretty scenery. All well and good, for those of us that have read and re-read the books, but not so good for those that don't know what a Nazgul is, or for those that understand little of the history of Moria and the many battles the Dwarves fought against Orcs and trolls in its labyrinth.

The battle in Balin's tomb was a perfect example of doing things both right and wrong. Having Pippin's contrempts with the well be more egregious and immediate was a good idea. Having the inital fighing take place in a room with only one entrance and exit, rather than one entrance for the orcs and a seperate exit for the fellowship, was a mistake. Also, in the book once they have fought the orcs in the tomb chamber and retreated through the other doors, Gandalf seals the entrance with a spell. He first encounters the Balrog when it challenges his spell and destroys the doorway in the process. This gives them breathing space to make for the bridge, where they meet the Balrog again and realize its true nature. The way it happens in the movie is visually stunning, but tactically nonsensical.

I could go on all day about how I would have done things differently, but the fact is that Lord of the Rings was still a great movie. Middle Earth comes alive, and if it is inexplicable at times and unlike Tolkien's vision, it is still breathtaking in sweep and scope. It truly is a worthwhile movie, and I hope that it will inspire another generation to read Tolkien's work.
 
I agree completely with Survivor, and could probably come up with a few more points (looking at my list of tasks to do this week at work there's no time for any of THAT though ;D).

In short, while they changed some things that were not really necessary, and added some stuff I do not really approve of, the general feeling of the movie still is that it's a great movie and I really look forward to the next one. Helms Deep is one thing, I'm looking forward to seeing the Ents march towards Isengård even more though :)

I have to disagree with brian on Tom Bombadil though, I think he's one of the most interesting characters in the trilogy and would have loved to see him "faithfully" portrayed in the movie. I think they made the right choice not to include him after all though, because he's such a special character I think it would be very hard to portray him well without him looking ridiculous (which he shouldn't, considering his actually immense powers over the lands around him).

So while they probably did right in not including him, it wasn't a "very deserved boot" imo ;)

/Menelthor
 
Heh, the trouble with Tom Bombadil is that he seemed far more rooted in 'the Hobbit' mentality [cf, Beorn], and somehow seemed an unnecessary distraction to the overall movement of LoTR itself.

If I remember right, there's nothing particularly distinguished about his presence in the final battle, either. It was as if Tolkien made a mistake [often emulated in modern fantasy writing] of creating a character that was in effect too powerful for the work, and thus was pushed aside to let the mortals prove their worth.
 
The one big difference with Bombadil in the book... and a point I think should have been made... is that he is the only person in Middle-Earth over whom the ring has no power. Not only that... he just is not intrested in it... in his mind it is a trinket... a bauble. Every other character at some stage feels the lure of the ring... Galadriel when Frodo offers it to her, Gandalf... when Frodo begs him to take it. Boromir of course falls under it lure. Part ofthe reason Froo leaves the Fellowship at the falls is to take it away from temptation... particularly Aragorn.

I am lucky enough to have the Extended DVD edition, and a lot of reasons for inclusion and exclusion are given on the Appendix disc. It also comes across that they did think long and hard... it was not just a case of fitting into a time frame.
 
I am not happy that I bought the first DVD release, only to find an advert for a proper DVD set advertised on it.

Fellowship only gets one of my twenties. I'll maybe wait a few years and dig the four-DVD set out of some bargain bin.
 
That is a very valid point... I have the normal DVD version as well... but I was aware an extended version was due when I bought it. But for anyone not in the know at the time it must seem like a rip off.

BTW... I got the Collector Edition of Extended DVD set. It has 2 free bookends with it... based on the Argonath (the 2 huge statues on the River Anduin)... they are VERY nice!!!
 
TWO TOWERS OUT TOMMOROW - I DONT HAVE A CINEMA TICKET - NEED TO GO ON AN EPIC QUEST TO FIND THE SACRED TICKETS - FOR I MUST FIND A WAY TO SEE THE FILM AS SOON AS I POSSIBLY CAN - HAVE WAITED FAR TOO LONG NOW.

AGONISING :'( PAIN :( ENCOMPASSING :'( ME
 
Well, I'm at the in-laws in the Isle of Man. Plenty of babysitters! :)

Unfortunately, the only cinema on the island is booked up for "The Two Towers" until after we leave - and finding a babysitter at home can be a little difficult.

Ah, well. :-
 
It has been over 20 years since I read any of the books and so I will avoid talking about whether the movies were faithful. However, the movies ROCK. I loved them both. I have seen the Two Towers and was very impressed.
 
You know what? I didn;t actually like the film...

In the film the different peoples have no identity.

Take the people of Rohan in the film, for example - no politics, no social order, no relgion, no history, no art, no anything. The reason being that Tolkien gave us all that in the form of the mythology and past tense narrative style. But the film didn't bring that spect in, so the director desperately tried to make us associate with the people by showing faces exerting emotion, and children fleeing conflict.

It didn't work for me. Actually, it spoiled the film - by itself the film portrays a story with a shallow plot and generally watches too much like a soap opera. Lacking the mythical depth of tales and lore that Tolkien created and integrated into his writings, the film presents LOTR as being among the least works of fantasy - poor plot, poor character, poor dialogue, etc.

On saying that, though, I'm sure I'll like it better next time I see it - on DVD. The reverse happened with "Attack of the Clones"...

Maybe I'm just opinionated and fickle...
 
You are being a little hard on the film considering the problems involved if they had tried to incoprorate even a part of Tolkien's mythology. LOTR was not written for film. It could not be wholly adapted to film in a form true to the literature. The measure of success comes with how well they can represent what they can cover of the story. That they did warts and all.
 
Actually, I really am looking forward to watching the film on DVD at home.

It had taken us two weeks to arrange a babysitter, only for the cinema to be full up. We drove home and rang around and then drove across town to another. The seating isn;t great, and for a 3h 20min film...

Maybe that put myself into a grump. But like I said, in the comfort of my own home it's probably going to be a different story...
 
I made a big mistake with TT...I read the book before seeing the movie, which I didn't do with the Fellowship...

Now, most things I didn't mind, but ELVES in Helms Deep? That I will never forgive:eek: :mad:

Other than that I think the movies were faithful enough - if they'd included everything there would really have been too much...

Some of my friends actually complained because there's so much Arwen in the films, whereas in the book there's hardly a mention of her...but I think that in the book it's all explained in the appendix concerning her and Aragorn, and I think it was a good idea to work it into the story...It would have looked pretty stupid if she was in two scenes in the first film and then showed up at Aragorn's coronation out of the blue and married him :rolleyes:

I'm now waiting for the ROTK ee so I can see Saruman, apparently that's definitely going in...They really should have put that in the theatrical release, I'm not surprised Mr. Lee wasn't happy...:D
 
Speaking of which...anyone who isn't pleased with the way the films turned out can lay part of the blame at Christopher Lee's door - he was their resident Tolkien expert on set, as he reads the books at least once a year and has done for the last thirty, as well as being the only person in the cast and crew who met and talked with the man himself...:D
 
Yes and the same time a resounding no.

(quote: Character of chaucer - A Knights Tale)

I first read hobbit in the early 80's followed by LOTR later on that decade. At first glance i hated LOTR, too long, too boring and then i re read it after watching a cartoon of the first book Fellowship of the Ring, OMG bang there goes my life. I then spend approx 16 yrs waiting for the films

OK i found the extended DVD version better mainly because it had parts such as the party, the full meeting of the companions and you see Aragorn with the Sword. Ok boromir wasn't there in the books but hey that;s the way it goes.

My one major problem with the film - in the book The Ring never ever went anywhere near Gondor City so why did they deviate?

Any hoo, overall i like the films manily because for the films to remain faithful it would take each film approx 16hrs to view each book!
 

Similar threads


Back
Top