Updated LOTR Nitpicker's Guide 223
The LOTR Nitpicker writes "A list of deviations to be found when comparing the text of The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien and the translation of those texts to film as undertaken by Peter Jackson, et.al. updated to include deviations from the recently released extended edition DVD of The Return of the King. This story originally appeared on Slashdot back in January."
to nitpick the nitpicky... (Score:4, Informative)
1. Expanding Arwen's role
2. Changing Faramir's storyline
3. Frodo sending Sam home
4. Saruman's destruction of the Shire
Of these, I sort of agree with #2, and that didn't bother me as much as the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep- that was just SO WRONG. In the introduction of Jackson's FOTR, the narrator refers to the LAST ALLIANCE of elves... not the PENULTIMATE alliance, or NEXT-TO-THE-LAST alliance! Grrr.
And I TOTALLY disagree with #4. Jackson already had, like, SIX endings in ROTK. What works so well in the book would just be *torture* on the screen, as much as I'd like to have seen it.
Re:Flesh is denser than lava? (Score:3, Informative)
Gollum didn't sink, he melted...but it certain looks like sinking.
Re:I hate nitpicking (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My nitpicks (Score:1, Informative)
Remember that wizard's in Tolkien's world had a livetime supply of total magic that was permanently lost each time they cast a spell. Naturally, all wizards minimize use of major spells except when their lives are seriously threatened. Perfectly understandable that Saruman would pull out the flashy stuff at that time.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
No, Arwen's original relationship with Aragorn was important and symbolic of the risks and meaning of the whole story but the version of it put on by Jackson was shit from start to end. It made no sense, was boring and intrusive and involved mangling Elrond's character to the point where one had to wonder if Jackson had ever actually read any of Elrond's parts in the books. "I've waited thousands of years to see Sauron overthrown...Fuck it, I'm SO depressed - I'm off. Sorry about all that giving you false hope and all, but hey: so sue me!" Utter crap.
Arwen's part constantly undermined the other characters (not just Elrond but Aragorn and Frodo suffered from this tedious sub-plot) and the plot itself. It was a total mess and the current vogue for saying "ah, well it was all in Appendix A, you know" doesn't wash: Tolkien's version was in the appendix and was a powerful and moving final end to the saga, not a load of Hollywood clap-trap.
Sorry, but failing to grasp this fundamental point is to fail to understand a primary motive for most human beings: the protection of our loved ones.
Just as you fail to see the point of Aragorn's story: he's not "most human beings", he has a destiny that presses him beyond the normally small circle of friends and family and encompasses his nation and people too. "Duty" is the key word here. His personal love affair is important enough to be placed into the appendix but is a side-show in his saga.
the books are hardly perfect
True.
poorly written
False.
I have a degree in English
Oh, that must have been hard.
Given the wealth of world mythology, of which Tolkien's work is part redaction and part recreation, I'll take the mythology myself.
That's a fair point, but I personally find that the original myths do not speak to me either clearly - due to the masses of various translations of various levels of ability - nor as a British person, whose own mythos was largely destroyed by the Roman and Christian invasions. The Ring of the Neibeling (spelling guess) is a great story but very, very German. LotR is much more about where I come from, and I like that about it.
I find his use of lengthy appendices and created languages fatuous and self-congratulatory.
Tell your fucking story, Tolkien - don't make us hunt around for it.
He did: the appendices were not at all required reading to follow the story (that's why things like Arwen ended up there: they add to it without being required). As to the language thing: the language came first and the stories later, so it would have been a different book with less depth the other way around; just look at the masses of Tolkien-wannabes that followed with huge volumes of shallow crap. Also, Tolkien was a linguist, not a professional writer, so you're attacking him for using his personal area of expertise in writing his first major book. That seems petty and self-indulgent to me.
There certainly has been a log of oh-hum stuff since Tolkien but LotRs was pretty unique when it came out. There's not much Tolkien can do about what followed him, is there?
TWW
Extra Special Super Extended DVD (Score:3, Informative)
Said tongue in cheek since I'm buying all the LOTR DVD's...
Here's a nice map for fans...
http://www.aloha.net/~shaug/pix/lotr/middle-earth
--
Peace