Back to The Lord of The Rings and Why The Movie Failed The Characters

 

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.

Wherein I Take An Opportunity To Hate On The Hobbit Films A Little More

Well, a little Box Office Number News gives me the opportunity to opine on the latest iteration my most hated franchise, Peter Jackson's Ruination Of Tolkien The Hobbit, Desolation of Smaug.

On a weekend in which much of the nation was shivering through bitter winter weather, it seems somehow right that “Frozen” was the No. 1 movie at the box office.

The animated musical blasted past snowstorms and the new horror film “Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones” to take in $20.7 million and knock “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” out of the top spot it had held for the past three weekends.

Ha! Take that, movie makers of crap! A FAMILY ORIENTED MOVIE takes over in it's 6th week!

Disney’s 3D family film is still going strong in its sixth week of wide release and has rung up nearly $300 million domestically since just before Thanksgiving and more than $600 million worldwide.  It’s the second-highest grossing Disney Animation release of all-time, behind only “The Lion King.”

 ...compared to the Blobbit:

Blockbuster “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” which has been No. 1 every weekend since it opened on Dec. 13, finished third with $16.2 million. The Warner Bros.-MGM production is up to nearly $230 million domestically, and is on its way to $700 million globally.

and it was running in fewer theaters: “Frozen” (3,318) and “The Hobbit” (3,730)

I am disappointed about this, though:

Disney’s “Saving Mr. Banks,” the Tom Hanks-Emma Thompson drama about the making of “Mary Poppins,” was next with $9 million. It’s at $59 million domestically after a month in wide release. 

So, while not free from some predictability in its story, a new, original animated movie is beating recycled horror sequel crap and bloated bad literary sacrilege? There is justice in the world.

"Based on The Hobbit," but it's not JRR's story.

** Update: I happened upon the beginning of the movie surfing past the PayPerViews, and saw another stupid "error" (it was a stupid choice, actually) during the prologue: Thorin's father Thrain's eye was shown as scarred over before Smaug arrived, yet, he didn't lose that eye until the battle at Moria (you know, the one where Azog was killed and Thorin got the Oakenshield added to his name?) which happened 30 years later (and 140 years before the events in The Hobbit). Jeesh. It's like they were daring people to catch stuff.

So, the Facebook conversation started with my post:

Watching The Hobbit with Trevor, and I am really not enjoying all the "liberties" Peter Jackson et al have taken with the story. If you are going to rewrite a classic story like this, here's an idea: write your own story and film that. Got that, @Peter Jackson?

Commenter 1

Here's an article about how the additional material is not Peter Jackson's ideas but taken from other stories in the Tolkien universe. It does contain some spoilers but it's a pretty interesting read. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Tolkien-Nerds-Guide-to-The-Hobbit--185546102.html?c=y&page=2


Me:

I'll read the article as soon as I get a chance, but the Azog subplot is a total fabrication that fundamentally changes the story and introduces dramatic conflict that wasn't present, or in my mind, necessary! That's the kind if stuff that bugs me.


Commenter 2

My opinion is that the added those other elements and sub-stories to make it last through 3 movies - which the original book would not be! Quite disappointed in Peter Jackson as well..


Me

Frankly, as soon as I saw how he was portraying Thorin, my trepidation began. Oldest most respected and regal dwarf became youngish warrior dwarf? Wth?

Commenter 3 (my brother)
Frankly, I dont understand why it is so popular! I mean, that added scene where they are sitting around a table whining for 20 minutes only for the purpose of "setting up" the LOR was not entertaining on any level (except seeing Count Dooku one last time).

Me
So, I read the article, and I think the writer hits the main points, but is more generous than I am. I am a Tolkien fan far more than a Jackson fan, and feel like it's a case of "if you give a mouse a cookie" when we fans quietly accepted his changes to LOTR because we were so thrilled to see a major big screen version, so he felt justified to do whatever he wanted to tell his story, based on The Hobbit, but he's not telling Tolkien's story.

Commenter 1

To each his own. When a movie is made from a novel, regardless of the age of the story, there are going to be things that are changed/left out that are going to make the fans annoyed. I've always felt that as long as there is truth behind what is being shown then I'm happy. I'm a Tolkien fan as well as a Peter Jackson fan so I've been pretty happy with it all.

On the note of Azog, his story is definitely expanded and it was the part of the movie I could have done without but he wasn't completely fabricated. This is from the LOTR wiki page - Azog is mentioned briefly in the novel The Hobbit by Gandalf, who says to Thorin, 'Your grandfather Thrór was killed, you remember, in the mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin,' to which Thorin responds 'Curse his name, yes'.


Me

I understand your perspective completely, he just crossed the line too much for me. I grabbed The Return of the King last night after watching so I could verify my suspicions about Azog in the appendices, and Dain killed him at that Moria battle when Thror was killed. I've always been aware of the need to cut and edit to make a novel a movie, I never get cutting, then changing, modifying characters, plots, and themes, and then adding new original material. Thats my own hangup, definitely. Like you said, to each his own!
Me
I can't imagine a conversation like "Boo Radley is too passive, we need more conflict in reel two. Maybe he could be the one to set the house on fire, and then when his father cements up the knot in the tree, he could come out that evening and cut the tree down." I would not be okay with that, either!

Sketches of Middle Earth … Tolkien's artwork, from The Art of the Hobbit. Photograph: The Art of the Hobbit

I posted a comment on the Smithsonian article (2 actually):

I disagree with some assertions! 

"Yet those fans who went on to immerse themselves in J.R.R. Tolkien’s wider lore will find inspiration." 

Nope. I am annoyed at the misreadings, additions, and fabrications that Jackson et al included in what should have been a tightly woven, faster moving tale. Cutting actual story details to make room for additional unnecessary backstory, prologues, and brand new material out of their imagination isn't inspiring, it's bad movie-making. Seen his King Kong?

"For the most part, director Peter Jackson does not exercise an extra heaping of artistic license." 

I disagree. There are too many "additions" to list here, starting with nearly every bit of the prologue about Erebor and Smaug. 

" “Elrond could have quite easily have said, ‘Hey, thanks for bringing that back, we wondered what came of that sword over the last 7,000 years,’ but he doesn’t,” Rateliff said."

No, he couldn't, because he didn't say it in The Hobbit. Mr. Rateliff, you now have zero credibility. You can't treat characters like they are actually alive, making decisions: the author didn't have him say it, so he couldn't have said it. 

"With Jackson's obfuscation about where the many threads came from, it would be easy for even the mild Tolkien fanatic to get confused. Recognizing some of these twists may help dubious fans be more supportive of Bilbo’s tri-installment cinematic journey—and also appreciate Jackson’s own celebrated nerdery." 

No and no. I am a Tolkien nerd, and it wasn't even slightly confusing, just annoying. I knew Azog was dead. I knew Thror wasn't killed in battle. (*If I want to nitpick, I also know that) The White Council was around for a long time before the events in The Hobbit (about the time Smeagol and Deagol find the ring, in fact), but the author may know this too, she just chose the wrong word, "formed" instead of "convened." 

She nails the end, however. Peter Jackson is the one making the movies, not me or any other literalist, until the technology catches up, and so he gets to do what he wants.

The parenthetical comment is an addition I had to delete to make the character limit, one of several, but the only one I remember now.

I also posted this as a separate comment, character limit again:

The graphic is wrong, by the way: the two items attributed to the Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion are both available, either in The Hobbit, or the appendices of The Return of the King. The description of the Misty Mountains adventure is also wrong: they are all captured (except Gandalf) and Bilbo is lost, he doesn't escape. Did they even read the book?


I have a lot to say about the movie.

Here's The One Ring's list of changes, with some comments. Their comments are also much more generous than mine. I should point out that Trevor (my 13 yr old) said "hey, Slenderman" when Sauron/Necromancer was shown in Dol Guldur, and his observation is shared by the One Ring's Post!

So, I've been reading around the internet, and holy crap there are a lot of stupid people. That, and I am a bigger nerd than I thought (but not as big as a select few).