Re: [mythsoc] Jackson and the books
- At 03:52 AM 9/4/2007 -0400, ChessQu654@... wrote:
>>Are there any anecdotes to suggest that anybody actually consulted the bookI am both convulsed with hilarity - at the idea of a cast and crew
>>on the set?
>Yes. Throughout the commentaries and appendices attached to the extended
>version of the movies, many of the actors and production staff talk about
>referring to the books. Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler definitely
>about reading the books and referring to them. Liv talks about the proposed
>changes from the book that were abandoned, thankfully, that Arwen would be
>present at Helm's Deep.
supposedly fairly familiar with the book needing to consult an on-set copy
in order to determine that Tolkien's Arwen was not at Helm's Deep - and
saddened, because this treatment of Arwen is a perfect example of Jackson's
cluelessness in dealing with his own script adaptation.
For Arwen at Helm's Deep would not have been any more of a violation of
Tolkien's story than what Jackson actually did - have Haldir show up at
Helm's Deep instead - and it would have made more sense to have Arwen than
Haldir in terms of Jackson's own story. Haldir is, in Jackson's story,
only a walk-on character from the previous installment, so his sudden
reapparance jars oddly; his presence violates plot logic (why an Elf from
Lorien is at the head of warriors from Rivendell is never explained); and
the Warrior Princess character arc that Jackson had been building for Arwen
in the previous film (unfaithful to Tolkien though it was, it was also a
consistent, coherent thread up to that point) is abruptly cut off,
undercutting Arwen and leaving her far more of a helpless, pathetic female
than she'd have been if he'd left her alone from the start.
>The commentariesThis was a creditable impulse as far as it went, because Jackson was trying
>frequently mention their desire to make it look like Middle Earth was a real
>place, with real history. He tried to physically create a world and its
>history for the screen, the way Tolkien did in the written work.
to avoid fuzzy fairylands, but he forgot Tolkien's wise comment in OFS that
Faerie, while built on hard reality, is not enslaved to it, and Le Guin's
reiteration that Elfland is not Poughkeepsie. Jackson's Elves are merely
wickedly good warriors with pointed ears. You couldn't fairly say of their
presence, as Bilbo does, that "it smells like elves."
- In a message dated 12/7/07 9:41:39 AM, dbratman@... writes:
> Very much the opposite opinion here. I don't recall anything harmful being
> done to the text, but the image was definitely a problem. Tolkien says she was
> "beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful." The only word in this
> that Jackson seems to have followed was "terrible" - and he seems to be using
> it in the sense of "scary and terrifying," rather than "eliciting awe" which
> is what Tolkien presumably meant.
> Good point David! Beautiful and Terrible like an angel would have been more
Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]