Comparing the Bakshi and Jackson LotR versions
- At 08:05 PM 11/26/2003 , Joan Marie Verba wrote:
claims to be an "incurable Tolkien purist." That would make it a pretty
strong rebuttal to those of us who claim that Jackson's films seriously
But even aside from saying that Brian Tiemann, the author, is simply wrong
in claiming that the script's new lines are perfectly suitable for
Tolkien's characters, I think he actually reveals that in fact he doesn't
really like Tolkien's book that much at all. Evidence:
>Sure, some characters and plot elements are dropped. But did we really missImplication that we didn't. But wait a minute here. Do I think that,
given the constraints he was under, it was in the end a reasonable decision
for Jackson to drop Bombadil? Yes, I do. But does that mean that I don't
_miss_ Bombadil? Of course not. Tiemann doesn't even miss him.
>Never mind that Aragorn doesn't spend his time reciting love stories fromIt couldn't be clearer that Tiemann isn't very interested in Aragorn doing
>the First Age.
this in the book, either. Anyone who can brush aside "reciting love
stories from the First Age" this way ("reciting" - sounds boring; "love
stories" - plural, which isn't accurate, and generic, which is unfair;
"from the First Age" - a long time ago and therefore irrelevant) is missing
most of what Tolkien wants you to get out of his story.
>And that's the difference between all the fans who assumed that Tolkien'sIn other words, he's saying that Jackson's films aren't just true to the
>original work couldn't be improved upon, and the people who weren't afraid
>to say that it could.
book, they're better.
Tiemann doesn't know the book that well either:
>When we saw the first trailers for the first movie, Tolkien fans were inIt _is_ a paraphrase, but a very close one. Aragorn's actual words to
>shock. Not nearly frightened enough! said Aragorn in one of the shots. What
>the hell? When did he say that?
Frodo about the Nazgul were, "You fear them, but you do not fear them
- David Bratman