From book to movie
I think the various differences between the books and the movies have been discussed many time, as well as which ones are the worst, which ones a good choice ect. But what I never saw was the attempt to actually find out why this or that change was made. For me, it always helps to know *why* something is like it is, I might still not like it, but it helps to at least to understand.
Would anyone be interested in really taking the movie apart and looking into the depth of things?
The first change that comes to mind, and the most obvious in The Fellowship of the Ring is Arwen's part in getting Frodo to Rivendell.
What do you think of it? Why do you think that change was made?
(Also, feel free to post another change and your thoughts on it. It would be nice to go through them all one by one.)
I did read many (if not all) of PJ's explanations when he was asked for the changes he did. Since Arwen's was one of the first changes people complained about, I don't recall what he said exactly, but more or less, because she was one of the main characters and was about to take a very important role in the next movies (TTT and ROTK); to bring Glorfindel to save Frodo and to explain of his importance would be useless since he wouldn't appear more.
Supposedly (according with PJ's script for the trilogy), Elrond tried, by force, to make Arwen travel to Mithlond to sail to the west; she would run from Rivendell seeking for shelter and advice in Lorien. There, Galadriel asked her to look into the mirror and she would see Aragorn falling wounded in that precipice; she would see too what was coming in Helm's Deep, so, she would take some warriors to lead them (yeah) to Rohan to fight there and to meet Aragorn, and to give him Andúril (she had stolen it before to run away from Rivendell). Supposedly, too, she would kill the Witch King, for Eowyn would stay in Rohan.
This was removed from the script and changed/adapted for several reasons, being the most important:
1) The large large large serial of complaints he got coming unofficially from all the Tolkien Societies around the world, with some veiled (or not so veiled) threats like to retire their support to the movie and to boycott it (as those close to Christopher Tolkien were already doing), and from many many Tolkien's fans too (not related to any TS), individually,
and
2) The fact that PJ was not so much happy with Liv Tyler's performance as he thought he would.
And then PJ made Elrond move to the south to give the sword to Aragorn because Arwen's fate was linked to the One Ring and she was dying. Well, as you know, Arwen fighting in Helm's Deep was a fact, and there are pictures and even one video. Some scenes already made, those involving her in Lorien and looking into her future, were adapted to make those dreams Aragorn had while was wounded, or Elrond speaking to his daughter to warn Arwen what would happen to her if she stayed in Middle-Earth, etc. etc. A good thing PJ changed his mind :P But he did when FOTR was about to be released, so, Arwen stayed in the movie saving Frodo (I still have nightmares with that "if you want him, come and claim him *draws sword*). Yet, look how much changed her role in TTT and ROTK (in ROTK she barely appears and, definitely, when she does in Minas Tirith, she does not look the FOTR's mighty warrior elf-lady)
Now, why do I think he wanted to involve her so much: because she was somewhat famous and, aside Eowyn, women have no great role (with a sword, that is) in the trilogy (hold, they have NO role?). And he wanted to attract the feminine public before to be accused to be male-chauvinist or anti-feminist -- and because money, doubtless, place this reason on the top
Nolen
Btw, did you know that, in the first script he made, the Lorien's episode was removed, and the Fellowship jumped directly from Moria to Amon Hen and Boromir's death?
Re: From book to movie
Ohhhhhh.... *groan*
I am slowly recovering from the shock of reading this. Yes, I had known that the movies nearly turned into a Fan's nightnmare with Arwen at Helm's Deep, but I never suspected just how *much* he would have changed the whole story. This is incredible.
I always used to say that LOTR got lucky compared to what Hollywood did to other pieces of literature that they turned into a movie. But now ... oh my... my respect for PJ just went straight into the cellar, although not as deep as it could have since at least he listened to some degree.
I kind of understand the not wanting to introduce glorfindel as a new character, because that always takes time in a movie and time is something they did not have, even given the length of the movie. And I never liked those 'dream' scenes. In my personal cut of the movie, those would be out completely, and no information lost. I had rather have some of the things that were left out of the movie in there instead.
Elrond bringing the sword to Aragorn, I never liked that - and the "Arwen's fate is now linked to the Ring" is my most hated line in all the movies *shudder*. What I can understand is wanting to probably estabish the importance of the sword more closely (time-wise) to the events in the story where it really plays a part. Movie audiences generally have a short memory, *especially* when something is mentioned in an earlier movie, so just taking it along from the start as it should have been wouldn't have had that impact.
And ow I finally understand why they had elves in Helm's Deep. With such a messed-up script background they just couldn't get rid of them anymore. My theory so far was that they wanted to show the involvement of the elves in the war of the Rings, since all the other battled going on are not shown.
One thing that might be interesting to know is how they would have done the thing with Galadirel's vial in shelob's lair, if they had skipped Lothlorien *shudder*
Re: From book to movie
It is not incredible, it is Hollywood, my dear Watson.
Of course I agreed too with Glorfindel's removal (as Gildor's, Tom Bombadil's, Ghan-buri-Ghan's, and so many things/chars not that important to the plot) but, by pity's sake, why didn't he send Legolas as in the cartoon movie?.
My most hated line: Faramir saying he will bring the ring to Minas Tirith... It caught me off, completely, so much that, I was told later, I said a "What?" looking all shocked, mouth half-open. I knew Frodo would show up in Osgiliath but, for some reason, I didn't expect PJ would change Faramir this badly (and trust me, I thought in a million things to make Frodo appear in Osgiliath). And, the second in my top list: Frodo dismissing Sam thanks to Gollum.
Quote:One thing that might be interesting to know is how they would have done the thing with Galadirel's vial in shelob's lair,
I bet there would be no vial and no shelob...
Nolen
Oooh. And I forgot to add that, PJ's primary idea was, too, to make some sort of amorous triangle Aragorn-Arwen-Eowyn, with the ladies quarrelling or so for him :P
Re: From book to movie
Oh my. We dodged a bullet with what PJ wanted originally to do, and what he did. I am surprised, I have to admit, because this is the first I have heard of much of this (Arwen running away, looking into the mirror, leading Elves to fight in Helms Deep...*shudder*) that it has taken me a few days to get over the shock.
And I am left with questions that probably won't get answers. We heard in interview after interview that they (movie producers directors actors) kept again and again going back to the books, one assumed for authenticity, but then to hear this....holds head in hands and feels vaguely sick. I mean, I know the actors had to do, all said and done, what PJ told them to do. But wow, this would have been a disaster if he had followed his original ideas! Arwen taking Frodo to Rivendell--I never liked it because, quite honestly, I just don't believe he would have let Arwen take such a huge chance when she could just as easily have led the Hobbits to Rivendell and ARAGORN could have done the heroic ride if Glorfindel could not be fit into the movie. (And as an aside, I completely disagree with the young man they picked to be the pictorial Glorfindel. He is too young looking. No affront to him at all, but he was too young looking to be the powerful Balrog-slayer Glorfindel.)
The whole Elves-in-Helms-Deep was....startling to put it mildly. Haldir is killed, and that never seemed right to me even though I admit before then I had not payed much attention to Haldir and so could not remember much about him from the books.
There is a tie-in with the "can there be a movie without a romantic superheroine" or a romance rival (Eowyn? NO!). I have to think some more. My head is not up to it today--headcold.
Wow, I am glad we got what we got compared to what was originally planned.
I have a big question for another thread: please tell us more about the Tolkien Society. Thanks.
Re: From book to movie
Yes, Legolas saving Frodo would have been better. it still wouldn't have really fit, but it would have been better. It would even haves introduced the character better, since I always got the feeling that all through the "Fellowship" movie he more or less just trudged along without really playing a role.
I think that Glorfindel picture was only done for the fans, because they sooooo missed that character - ad of course for the card game. It's a nice guy, though. Just not Glorfindel.
The fact that Haldir got killed didn't get me that much as the fact that he was there in the first place. That was something I had to deal with a lot - people complaining about poor Haldir getting slain in Helm's Deep, and how coud they do such a horrible thing. Those were usually the same people whom I then had to explain to that he had no business to even be there in the first place, so they could do with him anything they wanted in the movie, including sending him to the moon.
Actually, I saw that as a neat work of movie technique of getting some emotional response from the audience to the battle. Let's face it, loads and loads of people are killed in the battle, but none of these people are any that the audience really realates to, so it would be like reading a history book about the battle of Waterloo - just facts. Haldir as the only known character they could with good concience kill, however, was liked and it got a response, and the horror of the battle got a face.
Faramir... oh, that got me, too. That part in Ithilien at Heneth Anun is my most favorite part of the book and..(Well, I might be biased there. I am sure everyone is missing some favorite scene)
It's not only that part, but in general what they did with the character - and with Denethor. In both cases the actors did a great job in trying to convey the depth of the story, but never really gor the chance with the script and what little time they were given.
The extended versions on the DVDs are much better, but still..
Re: From book to movie
Here's a little funny thing that a friend of mine posted on her roleplaying board. I thought it might help a little with workign through some of the frustration about the Arwen/Glorfindel business:
Re: From book to movie
Yikes!!! I remember hearing that originally Arwen was to have been in at least one battle scene, but I missed how that was to have happened. Oh, I am so glad Jackson listened as much as he did!
Thankfully he also dropped the idea of a big rivalry between Arwen and Eowyn over Aragorn. It would have been so contrived, at least as badly as the "Arwen will die unless the Ring is destroyed." Did that ever seem like a silly afterthought!
I was quite surprised, in the theater version, at how they had changed Faramir's character, because the part in the book in Ithilien with him and Sam and Frodo is one of my very favorite parts. It is wonderful how much we learn about him and Sam in that part of the book. Faramir seemed too much less noble in the theater version. This was repaired quite a bit in the Extended Version, and even more in the Extended Version of ROK, though not entirely. I still don't agree with Jackson that keeping Faramir as he was in the books wouldn't have worked dramatically.
In the same way, I was disappointed that Eomer's personality in the movies seemed not very similar to him in the books. I was very fond of him in the books, but in the movies he lacked dimension.
And yes, I fully agree that Legolas was not developed enough. Especially in the first movie, it did seem like he was mostly just walking along, only getting deeply involved a few times.
Re: From book to movie
As a script writer, I can totally forgive Peter, Fran and Philippa's original script involving Arwen's Xena Quest. With so much information to sift through, so much to achieve and (don't forget, in the beginning there was only going to be one film, so they really had to cut down) so little time to achieve it in. As I figure it, they had a lot of experimentation and creative processing to go through. At the end of the day, they cut that extended storyline with Arwen. It was a wise choice and I'm glad he made it, but my respect for him certainly does not ebb just because it was an idea considered. In fact it grows that the three of them had the balls to experiment with such an idea, ambigious as an idea as it may have been!
Personally, I think having Legolas rescue Frodo would have been an interesting concept as a replacement for Glorfindel, but unnecessary. I really like the idea of Arwen rescuing Frodo. Tolkien's books have few leading female roles and I definately enjoyed the expansion of Arwen.
For me the bottom line is - Glorfindel would just not have worked cinematically. For people who aren't familiar with the books, having a character appear in a heroic sequence and then completely disappear from the film entirely just makes no sense.
All in all, the majority of Arwen time that appears in the film is just an expansion of the Appendix A. After all, don't we all like a good romance?
Re: From book to movie
I think we all agree that Glorfindel wouldn't have worked, for the fact that introducing a new character in a movie takes a lot more than in a book (or maybe not, but in a movie every second counts).
I still would have preferred it to be Legolas, since I feel that he never got a real introduction at all. He just basically dragged along. (Okay, I have to admit, I really like the scene at the ford, with the flood...somehow I am not surre if it had had the same atmosphere with Legolas)
Arwen, on the other hand had that beautiful scene on the bridge...that is one I love.
In one thing I disagree with you, though.... I do not think it was couragous to experiment with that idea, as you call it, simple because it's the standard scheme presently used in movies. It's just what any scriptwriter following the rules taught at film school would do. "We need a femaly main char heroine, how do we get her in? Gotta be the love interest of the hero, too!" (For my full feelings about that kind of thing, look at the thread The changing role of women in movies)
What I find courageous is that they had the guts to move away from that standard scheme and go for something less Hollywood- and Audience approved.
And the more traditional Toklien-style way worked well. I wish more scriptwriters would take that as an encouragement and not try to force the rules of Hollywood on every material they find.
Re: From book to movie
*Nods* Fair enough in the disagreement. I suppose above all else I admire his experimentation, as I often skip that process and stick to the first idea that comes to mind when I write. Sometimes it's good because it's instinctual, but other times it comes around to bite me on the ass and I wish I'd explored and brainstormed more, lol!
Yes...I wish more suits would follow Pete's example.
Just not Glorfindel.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies