Into the Wardrobe

This thread looks like it's been languishing a little; not only that, I feel as though I've been through this discussion on other forums almost enough. Actually, after about three years of it I think I've finally come to the point where I can summarize what I thought of them in a reasonably concise post. So here goes.

I didn't like the movies. I didn't expect to (after my experience with the first one, the one done in the seventies). But I wanted to like them, and tried pretty hard, even on subsequent viewings. But it's useless. If I'm going to try to be impartial I'd say they're probably pretty good movies, which I didn't like.

They have strengths: wardrobe, backgrounds, scenery, photography, special effects. Story. Those were great. Most of them, except story, are rather budget related, and they did have a big budget.

Unfortunately for me I strongly disliked the characterization: it was shallow, overly emotional, and tended to toward sentimentality. They had too many fights, too many chases, and too many close-ups. And most significant of all, the spirituality of the books was suppressed, especially anything even remotely Christian. So they were weak on what I think are important parameters and strong on less significant parameters.

What it boils down to is that I didn't like the way they were directed and written (adapted). I doubt it has anything to do with the filmmakers wanting to cater to this or that audience, but is rather a reflection of their own states of mind; their views on ultimate reality, and most of all, their strengths as artists.

Overall I'd say the movies were okay when taken as completely separate works (if I hadn't read the books, this is what I would think). When linked to the books, I think they were a weak representation.

As far as characters go, I think they were all far too one-dimensional. Gandalf was the wise, no-nosense guy; Sam was the blindly loyal redneck; Boromir was antagonized all too firmly, as was Denethor; Faramir was ruined utterly, nothing like he was in the book; Legolas was only there to attract females; Smeagol, Gimli, Merry, and Pippin were reduced to bumbling idiots inserted for comic relief; Orcs became mindless, weak, and ineffective as soldiers; Eowyn was overly heroicized (I agree that she was important and indeed a hero, though people often overlook how she accomplished this); and Frodo became an undiscerning fool who needed Sam to accomplish anything and everything. I'm sure plenty of people completely disagree with these descriptions, though I can explain if you'd like ;).

Most of the sites and battles were pictured quite differently in my mind, but I won't rant about that. I think I've done plenty of ranting for one post.

Bottom line is while I enjoy seeing the movies every now and again, they don't even compare to the books. I'm incredibly happy I read the books a couple times before I'd even heard of the film .

I'm a bit late to this thread, but I thought I'd comment because I just got around to seeing the movies in full. Jackson's Fellowship I found utterly appalling; his Towers was somewhat better, and I was able to actually enjoy The Return of the King. Or maybe I was just de-sensitized to the changes in the story as I kept watching.

The bottom line: the films contain abundant evidence that Jackson & co. either did not understand, or else chose to ignore many facets of, Tolkien's trilogy.

What Jackson omitted from the films is mostly forgivable. With the constraints presented by the time limits and the medium of film, I can understand the elimination the Old Forest or the scouring of the Shire at the end. What is less forgivable are the additions. Seriously: would Frodo actually dismiss Sam at Gollum's bidding? And would Sam actually leave at that point? And the added scenes of Arwen with Aragorn and Arwen with Elrond--horrendous. And one other example: Isn't there enough battle and drama in the story to make Aragorn's "near death experience" in Jackson's Towers a bit over the top?

What's more, the films almost totally miss the flashes of humor that appear in the books, even in some serious moments. And that makes the movies ponderous and stilted in a way the books never are. To take one example: in the film version of the council of Elrond, it is Legolas who confronts Boromir about Boromir's snubbing of Aragorn. In the book, of course, it's Bilbo who first defends Aragorn. And that scene, for all its tension, is funny, because here's a little old hobbit jumping up to defend the rightful king of Gondor and Arnor. Heck, even Aragorn chuckles at it. When an elf-prince comes to Aragorn's defense, though, all the humor is lost.

And then there are the character distortions. Glorfindel of Gondolin nailed most of them--an amazing feat, given that he fell two ages before the War of the Ring. Of the ones Glorfindel mentioned, the ones that bothered me most were Frodo and Faramir. In the movies, Frodo is pretty much on the verge of swooning and giving the Ring to the Nazgul the whole time, and he is made an idiot. Which is totally unlike him: of the four hobbits, Frodo does emerge as the least valiant in battle, but he also emerges as by far the wisest. And Faramir was totally defamed, which not only disappointed me bitterly (he is perhaps my favorite character in the trilogy), but it also obscured the Boromir/Faramir contrast which provides an important subplot in the book.

To the list of painfully distorted characters I would add Treebeard, Elrond, and Aragorn. Why did Jackson think it would take Treebeard more than a moment to distinguish Merry and Pippin from Orcs? Or that Elrond frankly despised just about everyone except his daughter? And Aragorn--aside from candidly acknowledging "Isildur's fault," would you have gleaned from the books that he is deeply ashamed of his lineage and carries a paralyzing fear of its effects on himself?

But I'd better stop writing now, or else I'll just get too worked up.

<----- <goes off muttering and :cuss: >

I completely agree with everything you just wrote, c_m_.
Faramir's character is probably my favorite too, and it was sad to see him so changed.

I especially thought it idiotic that in Aragorn's "near death experience" in TT, that as he's sitting on his horse riding over miles of country, he seems to gain strength rather than lose it, and appears quite healthy and refreshed by the time he shows up at Theoden's door.
So apparently hard riding across open country is the best cure for a fall off a cliff into a river that renders one unconscious and delirious. Where's the logic here?