Welcome to LOTR General Discussions

[Paige Turner]

I was very impressed with Jackson's visual realizations of the characters, particularly the Ents and the Balrog, but let's face it. The movies were just annoying. They'll do for now, until someone is ready to take up the challenge actually telling the story of the Lord of the Rings, as opposed to this "based on characters created by JRR Tolkien" effort.

He did a better job that Ralph Bakshi, but then Ralph Bakshi is to animation what Stephen Hawking is to animation.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Did I miss something? Since last time I checked, there were three pages worth of topics and less that 2000 posts.

We just absorbed another Forum, Raynor. Unfortunately, most of their Tolkien threads have been quiet for a long while. I'm sure we can perk them up, however.

Paige, I didn't find the movies annoying. Parts of them, yes, as I am sure I would have found parts of even a more faithful adaptation. I'm usually a militant purist when it comes to dramatizations of favorite books, but not this time. For one thing, with so many riches spread out before me, it seems ungrateful to ask for more. (And these movies excited me more than any movie has done since I was a teenager.) And for another -- well, I usually get particularly mad when it's an older classic that's been successfully dramatized before and now someone has come along and decided to reinvent the story, because then the changes seem gratuitous -- but in this case LOTR had a reputation for being unfilmable, and Jackson showed that it wasn't. Now that he's done that, I look forward to a more faithful remake (possibly a mini-series), which I do believe will come during my lifetime.

[Paige Turner]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

… I look forward to a more faithful remake (possibly a mini-series), which I do believe will come during my lifetime.

Amen. Get The Voice of Saruman in there, a bit of The Scouring of the Shire, NOW we're talking.

[FeedMeTV]

I'm not sure how well another LOTR film would go down. It's been said that no one will atempt to remake them after Peter Jackson's. The fan base for these films is enormous and so many people read the books only after seeing the films therefore having a picture in their minds of Jackon's Middle Earth. I don't believe the casting was perfect in all places but Gandalf for instance felt spot on. I personally don't see the point in another film or mini series.

[FeedMeTV]

Wow, talk about a thread killer. Sorry if i stifled anything

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by FeedMeTV

I personally don't see the point in another film or mini series.

I do. But more to the point, now that Jackson demonstrated that it could be done, and done profitably, a remake is almost inevitable, sooner or later. Any classic piece of literature (and I believe LOTR is that) tends to inspire multiple dramatizations, because someone always wants to do it and thinks they can do it better than it's ever been done before, whether they can or not. I believe the only reason we didn't see a live-action movie or miniseries years and years ago is because a) Bakshi made such a hash of the animated version, and b) the special effects were so hideously expensive. But special effects are getting better and cheaper. Not cheap, but cheaper. And let's face it, part of the expense for Jackson was in the many unnecessarily long battle sequences and all the special effects that went into them. Cut out about a hundred thousand minions of Sauron, and you could save a pile of money.

And I believe there will be interest in a less effects-laden but more complete mini-series version, if not within the next ten years (which I'm hoping for), at least within the next twenty.

[Paige Turner]

You know who could do this? A&E. They rule at this epic miniseries thing. And yes, more about the characters, and fewer oliphaunt fight sequences. Oh, I'm all excited already. And I want narration over a bit of footage at the end to cover the afterstory of Sam's career, and the death of the king, and of the passage of the last members of the fellowship out of Middle Earth.

Ooh, I'm already excited.

[Crisspin]

I suppose I wouldn't mind seeing something with more depth in the epic mini-series style.

My only pause is that I have seen LOTR done on film, three times in fact (cartoon, screen version, extended version).

There are so few epic fantasy projects done on film of any quality, that I would rather see something new. Ofcourse, new would negate the funding that make these kinds of projects work on a large scale. I'd just rather see a project out of something that we have not seen on film ... there are many classics and other terrific stories that it would be great to see something else done.

[Teresa Edgerton]

For me, there can never be too many film versions of one of my favorite stories until they get it absolutely right. Which in the case of LOTR, I don't feel they've done yet. It was glorious, but I still want something more faithful to the books.

Paige, most (or all) of those great A&E mini-series come from the BBC. I, too, would like to see an LOTR from that same source.

[Cloud]

The movies were annoying? They were NOT! I am a lifelong fan of LOTR, and after waiting for close to 40 years for someone to translate them properly, I was thrilled with them.

First, I lose patience with people who whine and complain about movies which are not "faithful" to books. Film and print are different media and any replication from one to the other can only be comparable, not exact. Second, it was a marvelous interpretation! I lost my heart the moment I saw the watery horses at the Ford at Rivendell.

[ray gower]

Cannot see how anybody could make a film that much closer to the books, given that each must be realised within a 3 hour sitting.
While the films do contain some omissions, notably Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire, they do not add anything to the plot. While a few of the more nauseating additions (Aragorn and Arwen) give a valid insight to the greater part of the story background as laid out in the Appendices.

A TV serialisation might appear at some time, but it will have to be one of the big BBC/ITV drama seasons. Anything from the US will be 'Based' on the works of JRR Tolkien, in the same way as the Lost World TV series is 'Based' on the works of Arthur Conan Doyle and will largely involve Arwen getting in trouble with Aragorn and Legolas doing the rescuing .

Think I would put more hope on somebody putting a series together based on The Hobbit or Farmer Giles.

But if you are impatient for a full rendition of LOTR and/or The Hobbit in drama form, there is always the BBC radio series.

[j. d. worthington]

While I seriously doubt we're going to be seeing another film version of LotR anytime soon -- no matter how much is saved, it would still be a massive undertaking just to do the primary filming on such a thing! -- I do expect it to happen sometime; it's the nature of the beastie. Once something like this has been successful, someone will remake it somewhere down the line. Better or worse, it will happen.

However, Ray, I must disagree with you at least on the Scouring of the Shire. While the Bombadil episode may or may not have advanced the plot (personally, I think it plays an integral part in the plot of the novel), the Scouring of the Shire is absolutely essential to what Tolkien was going with the characters and necessary to the plot of the novel itself. Without it, there would have been no growth, and ultimately no point, as it brought home the effects of the shadow which was being fought. Therefore the film lost an essential element in the story ... forgiveable, I grant, but it detracts from the impact and seriously alters the outcome... in the novel, because the Shirefolk had had a taste of what was going on in the outside world, they began to grow up, and became more involved in the world as a whole, and had respect for the travelers; in the film, since that was lacking, they were given short shrift and, essentially, nothing had changed. So we were lacking what was, in a sense, the ultimate climax of the novel ... the impact of this grand quest that was so far over their heads being brought home in a very personal, impactful way.

[ray gower]

I agree that the scouring added more perspective to the Hobbits, brought closure to the lives of the Hobbit heroes and would have been nice to include, it did little to advance the story of the War for the Destruction of the Ring and would have added another half hour of film.

Indeed, reading the Appendicies, I submit that little actually changed for the Hobbits after the event. A few more foreigners passed through their land, a King now sat on the throne and a few Hobbits are well in with him, but they remained a simple and largely introvert rural community. Possibly a few did wander further afield, but as the book had earlier observed, this was not new and Hobbits had frequent trade dealings with men.

As for Bombadil, I believe he was an insert to tidy some loose ends and try and make the journey to Bree interesting and dangerous. Indeed Christopher Tolkien has stated that Bombadil was not in the early drafts of the book, which puts a certain validity to my opinion.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, I've read the HoME and such... but, as any writer knows, how the book evolves as you get further along can make radical changes in even basic plot at times, and in the finished novel I'd argue that the Old Forest and Bombadil played very important roles. If one is going for the "bare-bones" plot -- the trip to Mount Doom -- then everything else that comes along is secondary, really. And with Tolkien's intent, that is simply not the case. If nothing else, it provides a clearer picture of the dangers inherent in the world just beyond the Shire; it ties them in with the history in which they are now involved, via the acquiring of the weapons from the Barrow-Downs (which would not have happened had they not been waylaid in the forest by Old Man Willow), it introduced another thread that resurfaced here and there in the book, as Bombadil is considered at the Council of Elrond as a guardian for the Ring; it gives a deeper understanding of the fact that this quest of the ring is, in essence, the quest for the very nature of Middle-Earth, and is tied to all that has gone before which, unless, as I said, one wants a precis definition of the plot, are all parts of a very intricate plot that did indeed grow "in the telling".

And, as for the idea that the Hobbits were still insular -- yes, but considerably less so. I've not read the book without reading the appendices each time, and I've read the darned thing well over 20 times now... the changes are subtle, perhaps, but there, and no less important for being subtle; and they do indeed become more involved in the world, and interested in their place in history because of the events of the War of the Ring, and its impact on their own home. But, even more importantly, it's the impact of this final turn of the screw on the main characters that makes this an important part of the plot. It is the end of their lives as they were before they left -- which they were in danger of falling into once more had they returned to an unchanged Shire -- and their final maturation into something greater than what they were, on a permanent basis. It takes the trauma they were in danger of burying and forces them to turn it into their strength ... and, after all, the entire book is told from the point of view of the hobbits, and is concerned with their maturation (hence the note on the title page "as seen by the hobbits" in the rune-writing). So, no, I can't agree that either point was negligible where the plot was concerned, any more than I could consider the fallout of Reconstruction in post-Civil-War America to be inessential as an element of plot in a novel about Lincoln's assassination and its effect on that nation.

[ray gower]

Very aware of how the addition, subtraction or rearrangement of even a couple of words can vastly change the perspective of a story. Also acutely aware of many writers need to not only belt and brace a plot point, but copperplate, apply scaffolding and a big flashing neon sign as well. As writers have little more than a minimum page requirement, it is worth the effort to add all the sub-plots to expand the fantasy.

But, I submit, for film, where your output is limited, there are other more economical means of making points. In this case the actions of Boromir covetting the ring, Othmeil(?) in Lorien (awful memory for names) and the Ringwraiths searching the Shire, made as much if not more impact regarding the rings dangers while adding their own sub-contexts.

If the film had been entitled the Social and Political Development of Hobbits, then Bombadil would have been far more important, for the reasons you expound, and they could have cut out all the Hobbitless nonsense at Wolfhelm and the Paths of the Dead to make room. As it is, the film chose to stay with the War of the Ring and Tom for all his value to the possible greater meaning of the written work, is a minor sub-plot.

So, no, I can't agree that either point was negligible where the plot was concerned, any more than I could consider the fallout of Reconstruction in post-Civil-War America to be inessential as an element of plot in a novel about Lincoln's assassination and its effect on that nation.

Afraid I can't comment on Lincoln's assasination, I never knew him. But I would observe that while large political structures and societies can change radically very quickly, the social changes for the greater population, especially in rural areas, are invariably minimal i.e. Farmer Giles is still ploughing with the same horse, he still attends the same church, goes to the same market, his wife is still the daughter of the same farrier etc. Looking at my local town, in 2000 years of shovelling rock from the mountains, the number of times a major social change has been effected can be counted on one hand and only one of those (the formation of the NHS) was due to a national event.