Here's the tweets I posted today that are the short version of what I hope to flesh out one day:
Thread: I've been
re-reading #LOTR and re-watching the films, which was a bad idea. I
didn't need to be reminded of the invented scenes and conflicts (when there are
already plenty) and outright destruction of character's core traits and
strengths: that point bugs me the most.
Don't get me wrong, the
films are lovely to look at, and the attention to detail make them epic
examples of movie craft. I almost enjoy the special features more than the
movies, as I am a Tolkien originalist, basically... :)
The character assignation
starts almost immediately with Bilbo, making him seem doddering when he was
totally in control of the plans around his birthday. This is a fundamental
change, not a minor one. Literary Bilbo is sharp as a tack, the Master of Bag
End, indeed.
Frodo matures into the Master
as well, as the years pass. The maudlin doubting weepy-eyed movie Frodo is far
from the hobbit that Bilbo and Gandalf considered the "best hobbit in the
Shire." Again, a fundamental change.
I am especially bothered
by the ruination of Merry and Pippin. From the get-go, literary Merry
Brandybuck is smart, reliable, and just, for lack of a better word, cool. They
manage to show some of it with his decisiveness in the movies: the Black Rider
incident in the Shire, eg.
Pippin isn't a useless
comic in the books, and his growth to a warrior of Gondor that saves the Shire
short-shrifts the character unforgivably. The Scouring of the Shire is sorely
missed from the movies as it truly completes the character arc of Merry and Pip.
Samwise is perhaps the
most closely tied to the character in the books, frankly, except for maybe
Gandalf. Then they had to invent that stupid Frodo-Sam-Smeagol triangle on the
climb to Cirith Ungol. Ugh.
Even old Barliman
Butterbur gets buffooned rather than given an honest depiction. So frustrating.
It would have been easier to depict him as a busy barman, than add a ridiculous
line about not really knowing who Gandalf was....
Sean Bean's Boromir is
pretty good, I must say. Fell to temptation to help his people, redeemed in battle
protecting Merry and Pippin. Few complaints from me.
Theoden is so
frustrating. Like Frodo, waaaaay too young. Too indecisive. And that
transformation scene? Yuck. When he is cowed in the book he rises. Why diminish
such a character, why not show his (regained) nobility that causes his people
to love and follow him as they do?
Side note: When I first
saw the films, I was shocked by the Galadriel's Mirror scene, so I got the book
out and saw that they pretty much nailed it, much like when Bilbo sees the ring
again in Rivendell. See, I can give props, too... :)
OK, Legolas and Gimli. In
this re-reading I caught that their friendship was cemented not in battle, but
in Lorien, walking about this most Elvish place remaining in Middle Earth.
While I found the dwarf-tossing bits funny, well, you know what I'm going to
say, right?
They get plenty right,
though. I just object to using Gimli as comic relief and, well, Legolas as the
magic surfing elf warrior with endless arrows. I really missed the line in
Fangorn about him almost feeling young again after "journeying with you
children."
The whole of Merry and
Pippin with Treebeard is wrong. All of it.
Aragorn and Arwen, also
almost entirely fabricated wrongness. Elrond's role in that was so messed up. It's
not in Elrond's character to do any of what he did in that relationship, and it
belittles who he is, who Arwen is (the Evenstar of her people), and who Aragorn
is.
This is about character,
not plot points, remember. Elrond is far too old and wise to
"interfere" how he does in the film. Ok, it's also about the invented
plot points and conflict. He knows what's up, who Aragorn is and will become,
no need to create out of whole cloth.
Faramir comes last. (His
dad, Denethor is a mess, you don't need me to tell you that. My complaints for
him are like to Theoden, his destroyed nobility, etc. Who would respect or follow him?) He is deliberately a contrast to his beloved brother, especially
in terms of the ring.
He is not tempted. Not.
Tempted. He perceives clearly and rightly, why change that? I can't reconcile
that. That it added more stupid invented plot scenes in Osgilliath, that's
secondary. He's such a great character, and they ruined him entirely. This is
unforgivable to me.
Gollum/Smeagol? In terms
of character, I really can't complain much. Even the fake Cirith Ungol stair
framing of Sam was in character, actually, even though it was fabricated and
unnecessary. A monumental achievement for a CGI character portrayal that will
hold up for years.
Sorry, I'm distracted by
the Osgilliath scene right now: the portrayal of Frodo as weak bothers me so
much. His resoluteness is so remarkable in the book that his failure in the
Cracks of Doom is such a shock. They blew that.
Oh, I forgot Eomer. Why?
Because the movie pretty much does, too. Again, plenty of meat in the book,
barely acknowledged. A shame. Eowyn is well done! Minor observations not worth
mentioning that actually enhance her, in my opinion, while retaining her
qualities from the book.
I understand why they
"humanized" so many characters. I just disagree that it was
necessary. The characters are meant to by mythic, if you will. Inspirational
and aspirational, if you will. Not merely "relatable." That's too low
of a goal. Fini.
