The Hobbit and LOTR changes over mediums (books/movies/comics)

[Hado]

In the thread about the end of comic movies and their accused killer, Fox FF movies, points were made about Fox not staying true to the plethora of source material.

 

RMA then made an interesting comment, basically, that if Peter Jackson could change a literary masterpiece like Tolkien's The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, then anything was fair game. Which started a PM conversation between the two of us which RMA though I should share with the rest of you in hopes of starting a fun discussion.

 

Understand that Hollywood is a business, and the people who make these decisions have never...ever...had any respect for the source material, with the exception, perhaps, of Kevin Smith, who doesn't make these movies.

 

If Peter Jackson can muck up major themes in LOTR, changing major, major Tolkien thematic elements for nothing other than his own whim, changes that didn't even NEED to be made, then nothing is safe. So long as it's eye candy, pretty scenery, and lots of satisfying battle scenes, HUZZAH!

 

The unfortunate part is that they have been rewarded by the public for these efforts, because the public doesn't care. The public is stupid, and so long as they are entertained, deviation from the source material...which only 1 in 100,000 viewers have even seen...means absolutely nothing to anyone.

 

Does anyone reading this care that Jackson demolished major themes in LOTR...? Does anyone reading this even KNOW that Jackson demolished major themes in LOTR, themes that Tolkien spent years developing, and which he thought were so important, he wove them throughout all three novels...?

 

Probably not.

 

Hell, George Lucas did it to his own movie franchise, and he was rewarded with $2.5 BILLION. Phantom Menace was a farce, a travesty, a complete betrayal of the spirit of the original films and Lucas' own stated vision...and the movie made a BILLION DOLLARS worldwide, based on nostalgia.

 

So Attack of the Clones "only" made $649 Million. Oh, no, what shall we do?

 

As long as the stupid moviegoing public supports this nonsense, this will continue to happen.

 

Maybe...just maybe....Fox losing a boatload of cash on this particular travesty may turn things around...but it's not likely.

 

Movie makers in Hollywood have little but contempt for the public, and maybe rightfully so, but they only care about one thing: your money.

 

Artistic integrity in the movie industry doesn't exist and, outside of a few rebels, never has. You want to see artistic integrity, you'll have to watch independent films, which cannot afford to make these types of movies.

I bolded one part of this RMA, why do you give us all so little credit?

 

I had originally asked this in the thread, but didn't want to seem like I was confronting you in public, because I really enjoy your posts and you have a lot of knowledge on many subjects and heck, I just kinda like you so I don't want any animosity.

 

But the bolded part just seems harsh.

 

There are many people who had problems with the seemingly odd changes Jackson made in LOTR, and it seems a little insulting to suggest otherwise.

 

I'd also be interested in hearing which bothered you most, for me it was cutting out the Barrow Downs, Jackson's change to where the Hobbits got their swords (from Strider instead of the Barrows) means it made no sense as to how Merry distracted the Witch King of Angmar at the battle of Pelennor fields

 

Happy Sunday

Glen

 

I'd be interested in hearing which changes bothered you or which you though worked well across all mediums, the books, movies, comics and the video games.

 

 

Let's have some fun with this!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Understand that Hollywood is a business, and the people who make these decisions have never...ever...had any respect for the source material, with the exception, perhaps, of Kevin Smith, who doesn't make these movies.

 

If Peter Jackson can muck up major themes in LOTR, changing major, major Tolkien thematic elements for nothing other than his own whim, changes that didn't even NEED to be made, then nothing is safe. So long as it's eye candy, pretty scenery, and lots of satisfying battle scenes, HUZZAH!

 

The unfortunate part is that they have been rewarded by the public for these efforts, because the public doesn't care. The public is stupid, and so long as they are entertained, deviation from the source material...which only 1 in 100,000 viewers have even seen...means absolutely nothing to anyone.

 

Does anyone reading this care that Jackson demolished major themes in LOTR...? Does anyone reading this even KNOW that Jackson demolished major themes in LOTR, themes that Tolkien spent years developing, and which he thought were so important, he wove them throughout all three novels...?

 

Probably not.

 

Hell, George Lucas did it to his own movie franchise, and he was rewarded with $2.5 BILLION. Phantom Menace was a farce, a travesty, a complete betrayal of the spirit of the original films and Lucas' own stated vision...and the movie made a BILLION DOLLARS worldwide, based on nostalgia.

 

So Attack of the Clones "only" made $649 Million. Oh, no, what shall we do?

 

As long as the stupid moviegoing public supports this nonsense, this will continue to happen.

 

Maybe...just maybe....Fox losing a boatload of cash on this particular travesty may turn things around...but it's not likely.

 

Movie makers in Hollywood have little but contempt for the public, and maybe rightfully so, but they only care about one thing: your money.

 

Artistic integrity in the movie industry doesn't exist and, outside of a few rebels, never has. You want to see artistic integrity, you'll have to watch independent films, which cannot afford to make these types of movies.

 

I read the LOTR books before and after seeing the movies. I am willing to admit I am dense but I failed to see any extreme deviation from the novels. Those films did make alot of money if I recall correctly.

 

The most major thematic deviation was the destruction of the counterpoint between Boromir and Faramir, a point so important, Tolkien repeatedly emphasized it throughout all three novels, weaving it into the larger elements of that theme.

 

Tolkien was making a statement that appearances aren't everything, that what appears to be strong, vital, courageous, steadfast may just be an appearance, and what appears weak, powerless, and underwhelming may have hidden, inner strength and power that far, far exceeds the outer appearance.

 

Boromir was the favored son of Denethor, the heir to the Stewardship, the pride of his father. Faramir was the "weak", despised younger son who always gave way to his father, and didn't make waves.

 

But, when the greatest challenge of both their lives faced them...the temptation to sieze the One Ring, and "defeat" Sauron (if such a thing were possible by the mortal men of Gondor), Boromir...Boromir the strong, Boromir the brave, Boromir the favored...was the one who, when tempted, fell.

 

But Faramir, faced with the same temptation, Faramir the weak, Faramir the disdained and scorned, is the one who resisted. Faramir had strength of will and character that, when tested, far, FAR outshone that of his older brother, and proved to be, in the end, the real hero of the family. Boromir nearly caused the destruction and devastation of all Middle Earth. Faramir helped save it.

 

Tolkien's point: that it is not by outward appearance that we should judge.

 

Obviously...OBVIOUSLY...this was a major, if not THE major, theme throughout the entire story, as it was the "halflings", those ignored by Elf and Men, who managed to do what they could not. By appearance, the hobbits were weak, soft, small, frail, easily pushed around, and easily ignored. Surely, thought they, surely these people, and this person Frodo in particular, didn't have the strength to do what needed to be done, and it was only the proud, the willful, the strong who could withstand Sauron and defeat him.

 

You can see it in Frodo and Sam, you can see it in Eowyn, and you can see it in Faramir, all major thematic developments that Tolkien spent a tremendous amount of time and talent constructing.

 

In making Faramir fall victim to temptation, a major sub-plot and development of that theme was completely wiped away. He merely became "Boromir lite" a large chunk of the point was completely lost, and Faramir became pointless as a unique character. He didn't even need to show up in the films.

 

The director, producer, and the actor who played him "defended" the change thusly:

 

"Jackson's explanation is that he needed another adventure to delay Frodo and Sam, because the episode at Cirith Ungol was moved to the third movie, and so a new climax was needed. In fact, according to the timeline given by Tolkien, Frodo and Sam had only reached the Black Gate at the time of the fall of Isengard. Jackson also argues that it was necessary for Faramir to be tempted by the Ring because in his films everyone else was tempted, and letting Faramir be immune would be inconsistent in the eyes of a film audience. Co-screenwriter Philippa Boyens and actor David Wenham defended the changes to Faramir's character in order to increase dramatic tension: Faramir's "sea-green incorruptible" nature in the book would not have "[translated] well filmically". Wenham (who had not read the book until after filming had commenced) also found Tolkien's original "dramatically dead"."

 

What a bunch of arrogant, egotistical rubbish. Idjits who failed to understand the significance of the theme Tolkien developed, and so dispensed with it because they thought they knew better. They could have had the battle at Osgiliath....which IS mentioned in the books...WITHOUT Faramir carting Frodo off to Minas Tirith. These fools completely missed the entire reason for Faramir's existence!

 

My contempt for them on this issue is immense. Who does this "Wenham" maroon think he is? TOLKIEN, he is not.

 

"Oh no" says an actor "if there's no action, whatever shall my character DO?"

 

 

 

Here's the original posts.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In the thread about the end of comic movies and their accused killer, Fox FF movies, points were made about Fox not staying true to the plethora of source material.

 

RMA then made an interesting comment, basically, that if Peter Jackson could change a literary masterpiece like Tolkien's The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, then anything was fair game. Which started a PM conversation between the two of us which RMA though I should share with the rest of you in hopes of starting a fun discussion.

 

Understand that Hollywood is a business, and the people who make these decisions have never...ever...had any respect for the source material, with the exception, perhaps, of Kevin Smith, who doesn't make these movies.

 

If Peter Jackson can muck up major themes in LOTR, changing major, major Tolkien thematic elements for nothing other than his own whim, changes that didn't even NEED to be made, then nothing is safe. So long as it's eye candy, pretty scenery, and lots of satisfying battle scenes, HUZZAH!

 

The unfortunate part is that they have been rewarded by the public for these efforts, because the public doesn't care. The public is stupid, and so long as they are entertained, deviation from the source material...which only 1 in 100,000 viewers have even seen...means absolutely nothing to anyone.

 

Does anyone reading this care that Jackson demolished major themes in LOTR...? Does anyone reading this even KNOW that Jackson demolished major themes in LOTR, themes that Tolkien spent years developing, and which he thought were so important, he wove them throughout all three novels...?

 

Probably not.

 

Hell, George Lucas did it to his own movie franchise, and he was rewarded with $2.5 BILLION. Phantom Menace was a farce, a travesty, a complete betrayal of the spirit of the original films and Lucas' own stated vision...and the movie made a BILLION DOLLARS worldwide, based on nostalgia.

 

So Attack of the Clones "only" made $649 Million. Oh, no, what shall we do?

 

As long as the stupid moviegoing public supports this nonsense, this will continue to happen.

 

Maybe...just maybe....Fox losing a boatload of cash on this particular travesty may turn things around...but it's not likely.

 

Movie makers in Hollywood have little but contempt for the public, and maybe rightfully so, but they only care about one thing: your money.

 

Artistic integrity in the movie industry doesn't exist and, outside of a few rebels, never has. You want to see artistic integrity, you'll have to watch independent films, which cannot afford to make these types of movies.

I bolded one part of this RMA, why do you give us all so little credit?

 

I had originally asked this in the thread, but didn't want to seem like I was confronting you in public, because I really enjoy your posts and you have a lot of knowledge on many subjects and heck, I just kinda like you so I don't want any animosity.

 

But the bolded part just seems harsh.

 

There are many people who had problems with the seemingly odd changes Jackson made in LOTR, and it seems a little insulting to suggest otherwise.

 

I'd also be interested in hearing which bothered you most, for me it was cutting out the Barrow Downs, Jackson's change to where the Hobbits got their swords (from Strider instead of the Barrows) means it made no sense as to how Merry distracted the Witch King of Angmar at the battle of Pelennor fields

 

Happy Sunday

Glen

 

I'd be interested in hearing which changes bothered you or which you though worked well across all mediums, the books, movies, comics and the video games.

 

 

Let's have some fun with this!

 

Here's my response:

 

Wait a minute...hold on a second...

 

You are very much aware of the idiom "the exception that makes the rule", correct?

 

If, then, you are one such exception...does that render the general statement untrue?

 

As I said in the same post....maybe 1 on 100,000 people who saw the films were familiar with the source material.

 

That's not zero....but it's still a very, very small number.

 

Sure, some of these folks are smart, some exceptionally so...but the reality is still that almost all of the people reading this...with some choice exceptions...aren't aware, because they can't be. It's just the nature of life.

 

You are the exception. You take LOTR seriously. You are familiar with what I'm referring to...but the vast, vast, vast majority of the people reading that have no idea, nor do they care. And that was really my whole point. They don't care (and I'm not suggesting they SHOULD), and that's why Hollywood produces this stuff.

 

The odds against people being aware of what I'm talking about...even on a comic message board...are, as you know, pretty slim. Hence the "probably not."

 

I'm THRILLED to know that that isn't the case, but it's still the exception that makes the rule, right?

[RockMyAmadeus]

And let's not even get into the disaster that was Ralph Bakshi's utterly mangled attempt.

 

Well, ok, maybe a little:

 

To demonstrate the contempt these "filmmakers" have for the public, Bakshi changed the name of "Saruman" to "Aruman", because he thought people would "confuse" Saruman with Sauron.

 

Now...in the live action trilogy, were people confused....?

 

Not that I ever heard.

 

And if they were, was it sorted out?

 

Sure, the characters were quite obviously different.

 

But Bakshi, perhaps because HE HIMSELF was confused, decided everyone else would be, and changed the name of a major character.

 

Big deal?

 

Well, not really....unless you have a film with Uke Kywalker in it.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The Ents were a big problem...

 

And there were NO DAMN ELVES AT HELM'S DEEP.

 

(Except Legolas.)

[Hado]

I always love the though that if Denethor had taken Faramir's request to be Gondor's emissary to the council of Elrond (Even if to be rid of him for a time) the story would have been so drastically different.

[H0RR0RSH0W]

A glaring contrast when a written medium is turned into a film( a book is turned into a movie) is that we lose the introspection into the minds of the characters. We are privilege to the' ...and so and so thought_blank_ while such and such was happening' perspective when an author provides us a stream of thought to follow. The audience generally loses that first person perspective in a film.

 

I personally have always just taken it as a leap of faith that a film director has to put that into a movie somehow. They have to be creative in how they re-present or recreate that material so that we can get the drift of what is going on without being able to read minds really.

 

As an audience we are paying film makers to do their jobs effectively. Their job is to translate the material as accurately as possible. The inconsistencies in the first 3 LOTR films against the book were more subtle in my mind simply because as others have stated the film arrived in the same place in the end. I found the the inconsistencies about the Hobbit trilogy to be much more glaring to the point where I had no idea where the films were going . For example way too much time was spent in Laketown in both films to the point I lost the plot.

[H0RR0RSH0W]

Further the if I recall the plot of the Hobbit dealt almost not at all with Thrains madness and moral struggles of paranoia. Very distracting was the dragons sickness as I recall it not being a strong theme in the novels. The movie dealt little with Bilbo's obtaining the ring and is own mental struggle which were much more significant.

 

The LOTR/Hobbit films copy the concept of the "precursor-sequel " that the Star Wars films presented. I suppose not as many people are familiar with the story line so it may be the only reason it made more sense inSW.

[Hado]

The Hobbit was an adventure story, and an action movie.

 

They had to add so much to make it more thrilling, which stretched it so thin.

 

Like keeping Azog alive and adding Legolas and uh, Girl elf?

[Buzzetta]

I read the books and I've seen the directors cuts of the Lord of the Rings movies and the first two Hobbit movies. I actually enjoyed the movies immensely.

 

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film. I use the X-Men costumes as examples. Lycra and Spandex would not have worked well on film so I had no problem with the costume changes. When they cast Hugh Jackman as Wolverine... I don't care what anyone wants Wolverine to be according to some issue they read because Wolvie looks very different depending on who is tasked with writing and drawing him. A Jim Lee Wolverine if VERY different from a Sam Kieth Wolverine. However, as far as I am concerned, Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine. The guy loves the character and you can tell from how he talks about it that he has a passion for it. I can see people getting disenchanted though with the LOTR and Hobbit movies because they stray from the vision of the original and ONLY author. I don't agree with it but I understand it.

 

Now when it comes to the FF... I don't care if Johnny is portrayed by an African American. That is not a deal breaker for me. I don't care that they deviate from the source material. Frankly, that so called classic Lee/Kirby run of FF from 1-100 was dated to me and hokey in some places. Should we REALLY stick the source material because there are many instances where Reed looks like he walked off of an episode of Mad Men. And, I know it's blasphemy, while I appreciate the Lee/Kirby dynamic and creativity, there are other ways to tell the story.

 

Why does the movie fail? It doesn't entertain, and it does not need to completely adhere to the source material to do that.

 

X-Men DOFP deviated a LOT from that storyline and to tell the truth I was VERY entertained by that movie.

 

 

[MetalPSI]

I read the books and I've seen the directors cuts of the Lord of the Rings movies and the first two Hobbit movies. I actually enjoyed the movies immensely.

 

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film. I use the X-Men costumes as examples. Lycra and Spandex would not have worked well on film so I had no problem with the costume changes. When they cast Hugh Jackman as Wolverine... I don't care what anyone wants Wolverine to be according to some issue they read because Wolvie looks very different depending on who is tasked with writing and drawing him. A Jim Lee Wolverine if VERY different from a Sam Kieth Wolverine. However, as far as I am concerned, Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine. The guy loves the character and you can tell from how he talks about it that he has a passion for it. I can see people getting disenchanted though with the LOTR and Hobbit movies because they stray from the vision of the original and ONLY author. I don't agree with it but I understand it.

 

Now when it comes to the FF... I don't care if Johnny is portrayed by an African American. That is not a deal breaker for me. I don't care that they deviate from the source material. Frankly, that so called classic Lee/Kirby run of FF from 1-100 was dated to me and hokey in some places. Should we REALLY stick the source material because there are many instances where Reed looks like he walked off of an episode of Mad Men. And, I know it's blasphemy, while I appreciate the Lee/Kirby dynamic and creativity, there are other ways to tell the story.

 

Why does the movie fail? It doesn't entertain, and it does not need to completely adhere to the source material to do that.

 

X-Men DOFP deviated a LOT from that storyline and to tell the truth I was VERY entertained by that movie.

 

 

Excellent post

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film.

I don't think we have to realize that at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. If the directors and producers wanted to be completely faithful to the source material, they could be.

 

After all....all films, except the most avant garde, are filmed from a written -script. Someone, somewhere, had to imagine this all and write it down to convey those thoughts and ideas to other people. That's the beauty of 21st century film; you can literally do just about anything you want.

 

We're not talking just about minor deviations in physical depictions, after all, but major themes and character motivations.

 

Nothing in Tolkien had to be changed. Everything that Jackson did could have been done in other, faithful ways, without a single stitch of additional effort required by anyone. And, if there was something he felt just couldn't work, he could have left it out, and filled the plot points in.

 

If there's a will...there's a way. It CAN be done. There just needs to be the will. And, that's the problem: there isn't.

[Buzzetta]

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film.

I don't think we have to realize that at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. If the directors and producers wanted to be completely faithful to the source material, they could be.

 

After all....all films, except the most avant garde, are filmed from a written -script. Someone, somewhere, had to imagine this all and write it down to convey those thoughts and ideas to other people. That's the beauty of 21st century film; you can literally do just about anything you want.

 

We're not talking just about minor deviations in physical depictions, after all, but major themes and character motivations.

 

Nothing in Tolkien had to be changed. Everything that Jackson did could have been done in other, faithful ways, without a single stitch of additional effort required by anyone. And, if there was something he felt just couldn't work, he could have left it out, and filled the plot points in.

 

If there's a will...there's a way. It CAN be done. There just needs to be the will. And, that's the problem: there isn't.

 

Should Sue take on the role of the damsel in distress or housewife that the Lee and Kirby run portrayed her to be in some instances? Those days are long gone and it does not translate well to today's societal norms. There are many instances where the comics, their origin stories and some of the personality traits of the characters are dated and no longer work. I absolutely, unequivocally disagree that it is possible to be faithful to the source material. We will most likely never see eye to eye on that.

 

 

[entalmighty1]

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film.

I don't think we have to realize that at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. If the directors and producers wanted to be completely faithful to the source material, they could be.

 

After all....all films, except the most avant garde, are filmed from a written -script. Someone, somewhere, had to imagine this all and write it down to convey those thoughts and ideas to other people. That's the beauty of 21st century film; you can literally do just about anything you want.

 

We're not talking just about minor deviations in physical depictions, after all, but major themes and character motivations.

 

Nothing in Tolkien had to be changed. Everything that Jackson did could have been done in other, faithful ways, without a single stitch of additional effort required by anyone. And, if there was something he felt just couldn't work, he could have left it out, and filled the plot points in.

 

If there's a will...there's a way. It CAN be done. There just needs to be the will. And, that's the problem: there isn't.

 

Should Sue take on the role of the damsel in distress or housewife that the Lee and Kirby run portrayed her to be in some instances? Those days are long gone and it does not translate well to today's societal norms. There are many instances where the comics, their origin stories and some of the personality traits of the characters are dated and no longer work. I absolutely, unequivocally disagree that it is possible to be faithful to the source material. We will most likely never see eye to eye on that.

 

 

Agreed. So much has changed since the "gee, golly, gosh" era of the early 60's, I don't think a lot of the original source material would translate to today's theater crowd. You think the media hammered this movie? Give Sue Storm an apron and a vacuum and see how they kill it.

 

Things change, some better, some not. This is all just opinion, but I don't think wholesome sells like it used to. The younger crowds want grit and grime.

 

Filmmakers can definitely make more of an effort to incorporate the original themes, but when you're talking about comic book movies, I think there has to be a lot of creative liberty taken to turn a 16 page book into a 2 hour film that 70+% of your target audience will enjoy.

 

People act like it's easy, but I don't see it that way. :shrug:

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film.

I don't think we have to realize that at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. If the directors and producers wanted to be completely faithful to the source material, they could be.

 

After all....all films, except the most avant garde, are filmed from a written -script. Someone, somewhere, had to imagine this all and write it down to convey those thoughts and ideas to other people. That's the beauty of 21st century film; you can literally do just about anything you want.

 

We're not talking just about minor deviations in physical depictions, after all, but major themes and character motivations.

 

Nothing in Tolkien had to be changed. Everything that Jackson did could have been done in other, faithful ways, without a single stitch of additional effort required by anyone. And, if there was something he felt just couldn't work, he could have left it out, and filled the plot points in.

 

If there's a will...there's a way. It CAN be done. There just needs to be the will. And, that's the problem: there isn't.

 

I don't fully agree with this notion. Literature is very much a reflection of the times. Many of the themes in TLOTR were reflective of fears and apprehensions during the time he wrote the books. Tolkien lived in a post WWI and WWII world. A lot of the book seems to present fears of that time like the fear of other races, apprehensions about power, and people argue the ring is representative of the atomic bomb. Sure a lot of those things are still part of society today, but many of the fears have shifted. We don't hide under desks anymore.

 

Like any good author and literature professor, Tolkien insisted the book shouldn't be read with one interpretation in mind. It reminds me of the quote that starts The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; "“Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." I digress though...

 

While many of those fears are still present today, many of them have changed and evolved. Society finds new things to fear, and it is why the interpretations of texts shifts. Part of the fun and intrigue of pairing films with novels is to see how the themes have evolved.

 

Personally, to make a good film, a director/screenwriter/producer needs to be able to interpret and present the work in a way that appeals to the audience. Jackson did a pretty good job of remaining true to the major themes, but he still updated and changed things to make it work in today's world. Your point about Faramir and Boromir is a good example. While he changed the intricacies of the events, I still felt that Faramir was able to resist the temptation of the ring. Jackson changed it slightly so in many ways Faramir made a mistake trying to hold Frodo, and then he realized and let him go. It showed that humans can make mistakes and correct those mistakes when given the opportunity.

 

I'm also not sure I agree with your assertion that so few people have read the source material. The Lord of the Rings trilogy consistently remains on lists as one of the top selling books in history. Most numbers place sales of the book around 150 million copies. On top of that, The Hobbit is in a good number of middle school curriculums. I've also seen TLOTR on a lot of curriculums as well. I think a lot more people have read it than you give credit.

[Hado]

Interesting points Chris, one question.

 

While clearly the publishing dates of the LOTR novels are post WWII, so much of the world was thought up and in different notes of Tolkien's, and the Ring itself appeared in The Hobbit which was published in 1937.

 

How could the Ring represent the A-Bomb?

[entalmighty1]

Interesting points Chris, one question.

 

While clearly the publishing dates of the LOTR novels are post WWII, so much of the world was thought up and in different notes of Tolkien's, and the Ring itself appeared in The Hobbit which was published in 1937.

 

How could the Ring represent the A-Bomb?

 

Atomic research had been going on for quite some time prior to the discovery of the atomic bomb. The Germans first split the atom in 1938 I believe, but that suggests they'd been doing that research for years before it bore fruit. It's hard to keep members of the scientific community quiet about groundbreaking research projects.

 

Not saying it's a direct correlation, but it's a possibility that he was eluding to that sort of weapon.

[Hado]

Interesting points Chris, one question.

 

While clearly the publishing dates of the LOTR novels are post WWII, so much of the world was thought up and in different notes of Tolkien's, and the Ring itself appeared in The Hobbit which was published in 1937.

 

How could the Ring represent the A-Bomb?

 

Atomic research had been going on for quite some time prior to the discovery of the atomic bomb. The Germans first split the atom in 1938 I believe, but that suggests they'd been doing that research for years before it bore fruit. It's hard to keep members of the scientific community quiet about groundbreaking research projects.

 

Not saying it's a direct correlation, but it's a possibility that he was eluding to that sort of weapon.

That's what I figured, the fear and threat of a weapon that could destroy on a massive scale, not specifically the Atom bomb.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film.

I don't think we have to realize that at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. If the directors and producers wanted to be completely faithful to the source material, they could be.

 

After all....all films, except the most avant garde, are filmed from a written -script. Someone, somewhere, had to imagine this all and write it down to convey those thoughts and ideas to other people. That's the beauty of 21st century film; you can literally do just about anything you want.

 

We're not talking just about minor deviations in physical depictions, after all, but major themes and character motivations.

 

Nothing in Tolkien had to be changed. Everything that Jackson did could have been done in other, faithful ways, without a single stitch of additional effort required by anyone. And, if there was something he felt just couldn't work, he could have left it out, and filled the plot points in.

 

If there's a will...there's a way. It CAN be done. There just needs to be the will. And, that's the problem: there isn't.

 

Should Sue take on the role of the damsel in distress or housewife that the Lee and Kirby run portrayed her to be in some instances? Those days are long gone and it does not translate well to today's societal norms. There are many instances where the comics, their origin stories and some of the personality traits of the characters are dated and no longer work. I absolutely, unequivocally disagree that it is possible to be faithful to the source material. We will most likely never see eye to eye on that.

 

 

You're talking about a single aspect, and ya know what?

 

It absolutely could work, depending on the context.

 

Look at Mad Men.

 

The comics themselves haven't portrayed Sue as a "damsel in distress" since the 60's, either, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a consistent direction and guidance...and yes, faithfulness to the source material...that Conway and Thomas and Wolfman and Byrne kept throughout the 70's and much of the 80's with what Lea and Kirby did in the 60's.

 

My point is that anything is possible, and everything is valid as a story....it just takes creativity and a willingness to be faithful to the source material.

 

Being faithful to the material doesn't mean reproducing every single nook and cranny of every page down to the minutest detail, especially from a medium like comics where things DO change and adapt...being faithful means keeping the character, the tone, and the personality of the source material, and not making major thematic or characterization changes "just because you can."

 

There's no need to make Johnny Storm black. That makes as much sense as making the Black Panther white. There's no need to make Reed Richards a 20-something year old. There was no need for Anakin to be "born of a virgin." There was no need for Faramir to cart off Frodo, regardless of whether he "ultimately changed his mind" or not.

 

These are major, substantive changes to the source material, not just "updates" for the "time period."

 

It takes just as much time, effort, and resources to be faithful to the source material as it does to create something different. Since the vast majority of the audience doesn't even know the source material, what harm is there to being faithful to it...?

 

None.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think we have to realize that what works on newsprint does not always translate well to film.

I don't think we have to realize that at all. Where there's a will, there's a way. If the directors and producers wanted to be completely faithful to the source material, they could be.

 

After all....all films, except the most avant garde, are filmed from a written -script. Someone, somewhere, had to imagine this all and write it down to convey those thoughts and ideas to other people. That's the beauty of 21st century film; you can literally do just about anything you want.

 

We're not talking just about minor deviations in physical depictions, after all, but major themes and character motivations.

 

Nothing in Tolkien had to be changed. Everything that Jackson did could have been done in other, faithful ways, without a single stitch of additional effort required by anyone. And, if there was something he felt just couldn't work, he could have left it out, and filled the plot points in.

 

If there's a will...there's a way. It CAN be done. There just needs to be the will. And, that's the problem: there isn't.

 

Should Sue take on the role of the damsel in distress or housewife that the Lee and Kirby run portrayed her to be in some instances? Those days are long gone and it does not translate well to today's societal norms. There are many instances where the comics, their origin stories and some of the personality traits of the characters are dated and no longer work. I absolutely, unequivocally disagree that it is possible to be faithful to the source material. We will most likely never see eye to eye on that.

 

 

Agreed. So much has changed since the "gee, golly, gosh" era of the early 60's, I don't think a lot of the original source material would translate to today's theater crowd. You think the media hammered this movie? Give Sue Storm an apron and a vacuum and see how they kill it.

 

Things change, some better, some not. This is all just opinion, but I don't think wholesome sells like it used to. The younger crowds want grit and grime.

 

Filmmakers can definitely make more of an effort to incorporate the original themes, but when you're talking about comic book movies, I think there has to be a lot of creative liberty taken to turn a 16 page book into a 2 hour film that 70+% of your target audience will enjoy.

 

People act like it's easy, but I don't see it that way. :shrug:

 

No, it's not easy. It's work, it's difficult, and it requires talent.

 

That's why Alan Moore...who took a moribund, dying character, and turned it completely on its head...without changing a single note of what had gone on before him (I speak of Swamp Thing, but also of Miracleman)...is considered one of the greatest writers in the medium, while hacks like Quesada, Nicieza, and Harras, who have consistently just jettisoned (we have a nice term for it: "retconned") what has come before to do what they want to do.

 

It's lazy, selfish, and boring, and why those "creators" will mostly be forgotten when they are gone.

 

Anything...even being faithful to the source material...is possible, if they want to.