What I didn't like about TTT, and a couple of things I did

[bluesqueak <pipdowns@etchells0.demon.co.uk>]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Amy Z <lupinesque at y...> 
wrote:

> Warning: contains spoilers for all of LoTR

Pip: Warning: I cannot *believe* that I'm about to defend a movie I 
didn't actually like that much...

> 
<Snip> 
Fellowship of the Ring was
> *very* faithful.  It omitted some scenes, some of
> which I didn't miss (Bombadil) and some of which I did
> (what Sam sees in Galadriel's Mirror, the full Council
> of Elrond), but omissions are necessary and they
> mostly chose well.  With a few exceptions, it caught
> the feeling of the book and was faithful to its
> meaning:  the themes, the characters, the sense of
> time and history came through.
> 
> That's why I was stunned when I watched The Two
> Towers.  It was so different from the book that it was
> hard to believe it was made by the same people who
> made Fellowship, at the same time and as one seamless
> piece of art, to boot.  It seemed as if it was made by
> someone with a completely different philosophy of
> adaptation.  I'm not talking about small changes, or
> the kind of juggling they did in order to begin and
> end it in a way that worked well for them (e.g., it
> chooses a different spot to break between TTT and
> Return of the King); I'm talking about huge added
> scenes that had no resemblance to what happens in the
> book and/or go up against the books' themes in some
> way.
> 
> (1) Aragorn's near-death experience.  It was
> unnecessary and anti-climactic, and most of all, it
> undermined the impact of Gandalf's "death," and the
> one that parallels it in much smaller scale, Sam's
> belief that Frodo is dead at the end of The Two Towers
> (in the book; the moviemakers have left it to #3).  It
> reminds me of what Cassandra Claire writes in her
> summary of Draco Sinister:  "Everyone dies at least
> once."  In fanfiction, this is clever and funny.  In
> LoTR, it's an insult to the author.  

Um. I think you've actually explained why they invented scenes where 
Aragorn is believed to be dead. There is a 'false death' in each of 
the books. Gandalf, book one, Frodo, book two, Eowyn, Pippin, Frodo, 
Sam (I may have left some out) in Book Three. 

By deciding to move the ending they provided an excellent 
juxtaposition of the Tolkien theme that the huge, set piece battles 
are ultimately not as important as the battle between good and evil 
that is going on within each of the characters. The magnificent 
victories may prove worthless - simply because little Smeagol has 
just *lost* his own personal battle, and has decided to betray Sam 
and Frodo.

However, the false deaths in Books One and Two have the important 
link that in each case, characters decide to carry on having just 
lost their leader. The Fellowship have to go on without Gandalf. Sam 
thinks he has to go on without Frodo.

I'm not sure they were hugely successful in changing it to 'Legolas 
and Gimli think they have to continue without Aragorn' (with a side 
helping of 'Aragorn has to go on without believing that Arwen will 
come back to him'), but it is in keeping with the themes.

> 
> (2) In the book, Arwen has already pledged to give up
> her immortality and marry Aragorn (if he survives and
> becomes King of Gondor, which are the conditions
> Elrond has set).  In the movie he thinks she's going
> off to the Undying Lands instead.  This might give
> Eowyn hope, but to me it was just an irritant.  Why
> change this?  Isn't it enough that the chances of his
> ever seeing his fiancée again are infinistesmal—do we
> have to call into doubt whether she'll marry him as
> well?

Simple. The story of Aragorn and Arwen is dramatic, moving, 
ultimately tragic. It is the most important event in Aragorn's life. 
He's spent his entire life preparing for the Kingship of Gondor in 
order to win Arwen, and the events of the War are the final 'win or 
lose' battle for him.

It also unfortunately (from the movie point of view ) takes place 
mostly *before* the start of Fellowship of the Ring. By the start of 
the war the love story is settled. Arwen and Aragorn have made their 
decision. Arwen will give up her life for Aragorn, if and only if he 
can survive the war and become the healing king.

The problem is, there is no conflict between Aragorn and Arwen in 
this (or very little). The love story is settled, finished, they're 
engaged. It's not dramatic.

Drama equals conflict. No conflict, no drama. No drama, no story. A 
film or a play is not a novel. A film or a play cannot survive 
without conflict. Novels can.

Think back to any film or play you have seen. Did *any* of them have 
no conflict? Were there *any* bits where the characters had no 
problems to overcome? Or did that just come at the end of the story?

So, Aragorn and Arwen have this deeply moving love, which is also 
(in film terms) deeply boring, because all the drama and tension in 
it happened years back. IF the scriptwriters decide that this story 
is so important to Aragorn's character that it MUST be included 
(which they did, and they were right) then they have two basic 
choices. 

They either choose to tell it as Aragorn being all misty eyed and 
going into flashback every so often, or they choose to bring the 
events of years ago forward into the film's present, and portray the 
hard choices and decisions that the two characters have made as 
going on right now, and being made right now.

Dramatically and filmically the correct choice is the second. Arwen 
becomes a much more interesting character because she has to make a 
choice between immortality and love. She becomes 'worthy' of the 
film's major hero. And the audience is not *told* this, they're 
*shown* it, which is another cardinal rule for films - show, don't 
tell.

Plus, had the scriptwriters chosen to stick faithfully to the book 
and leave Arwen out of movie 2 (cause she ain't there in the books) 
then they would have had to make Eowyn a much less sympathetic 
character. Because one of the great plots of drama, a staple since 
the time of the Romans, is the plot where one character starts the 
play *engaged to the wrong girl*.

Leave Arwen out, and you're in real danger of the audience 
subconciously assuming that she IS the wrong girl. Because Eowyn is 
nice, Eowyn is brave and Eowyn would in fact have been an entirely 
suitable Queen of Gondor if Aragorn hadn't already fallen in love 
with someone else. And the audience knows that 'wrong girl' plot by 
heart.


> 
> (3) Speaking of elves, that whole thing with the Elves
> showing up to help at Helm's Deep?  And the rivalry
> between Rohan and Rivendell that it resolves?  They're
> completely made up.  Nothing whatsoever along those
> lines in the book.  Rohan isn't ticked at Gondor,
> either.  Apparently the moviemakers didn't think there
> was enough conflict in the book and decided to
> introduce a bit more.

Darn right. Novels aren't plays, or films. In the book you can find 
out through the occasional line that the events we see are just part 
of a world wide conflict, and (for example) the Dwarves are fighting 
a huge battle in front of the Lonely mountain.

In the books you can find out from odd lines or appendixes that 
Legolas's kindred are fighting battles in Mirkwood. In a film it's 
best to show the elves fighting battles. In the confines of a budget 
it's a lot better to show the elves fighting in the battles you 
*have* to stage anyway. So they turn up at Helm's Deep. In reality 
they were covering Rohan's back by keeping Orcs occupied in 
Mirkwood. Not a huge difference.

And the Rohirrim *are* suspicious of elves. It's in the book. 

As for the bitterness of Theoden King with Gondor - a scene where 
Theoden comments that Gondor would help if they could, but they've 
got their own problems is a *lot* less exciting than one where he's 
bitter about the fact that he's got no-one to come to his aid. 

It's back to 'no conflict, no drama, no story'. Don't *tell* them 
Theoden can't expect any help, *show* them by staging an argument 
between Aragorn and Theoden. This is a lot more likely to keep the 
audience awake than a scene where Theoden pulls out a map and 
says "you see, Gondor's tactical position..."



> (4) All that stuff with Frodo and Sam almost getting
> caught at the gate of Mordor.  Huh?  Again, the movie
> wasn't exciting enough without that?  

Don't tell.
Show.
Film is a visual medium. Dialogue is secondary.

The gate at Mordor is dangerous. Don't use dialogue to *tell* it, 
*show* it, with guards nearly catching Sam and Frodo. Then the 
audience will know deep down that Sam and Frodo haven't a hope if 
they go through that gate.

<Snip>
> 
> (5) Theoden's release.  In the book, Theoden is NOT
> under a spell in any magical sense.  Thank heaven.  He
> is under the sway of evil advice from Grima (and
> therefore Saruman), and when he stands up and is a man
> and a leader, the tide turns (which is a bit
> irritatingly macho and far from my favorite scene, but
> at least it's about character).  The movie turned it
> into just a magic trick.  Saruman has him under a
> spell, Gandalf comes in waving his wand, he *drives
> out Saruman* as if Theoden has been possessed by a
> devil (yeesh!), and lo, Theoden is young and bold
> again.

You don't find anything magical about Theoden's incredibly sudden 
recovery in the book? I did. I always assumed Gandalf had released 
him from some kind of spell. 

Again, it comes back to the fact that film is a visual medium. Pre 
Gandalf, Theoden is enslaved by Wormtongue's words, thinks himself 
old, weak, helpless. Post Gandalf he is again a vigorous decisive 
king. Even in the novel some physical changes are described; in a 
film it is much more effective to show the entire change physically. 
So Theoden is shown as a visibly old, weak, helpless man, Gandalf 
comes in, there is a visible change to a vigorous, decisive man. 
Theoden feels younger, he is shown looking younger.

It's incredibly effective; it also saves several pages of dialogue 
where everyone goes 'Gee, hasn't Theoden changed' - because you SEE 
he's changed.


> 
> (6) Faramir's temptation.  Pip noted that in the book
> he's tempted for about ten seconds, the implication
> being that the movie's way has more dramatic tension. 
> The thing is, you know, you have to trust your actors.
>  A good actor can let us see that he's tempted and
> resisting temptation, with nothing more than a few
> words and a few seconds.  

Uh, yeah, I know. I have some experience in conveying a lot with 
very few words. ;-)

We don't see a heck of a lot
> of Faramir in the book, but we see enough to realize
> that he doesn't make this painful choice with ease. 
> We have his brother for context.  Boromir wasn't a
> power-hungry bad guy; he was a brave and noble future
> Steward of Gondor who was motivated by his
> responsibility to his people (intermixed with less
> lofty motives, to be sure) to want to use the Ring to
> save them.  Faramir struggles with the same dilemma,
> but rightly concludes that there is no way to use the
> Ring for good.  We don't just think he's an angel; we
> see the struggle.  That's because JRRT gives us some
> dialogue.  But this is an Action Movie and Action
> Movies don't have too much dialogue—the audience might
> get bored.

My problem with arguing against this is that I do actually think 
that the scriptwriters made the wrong decision here. I think they 
changed the book's plot so drastically at this point because they 
wanted to establish that Gondor (in the shape of Boromir, Faramir 
and Denethor) are tempted by seeing the Ring as the weapon that can 
save them. Plus they wanted to establish in advance that one of 
Faramir's other temptations is that his father has always seen him 
as the second-best, and now he, not Boromir can be the one who 
brings the Ring to Gondor.

They also wanted to establish that Gondor is up that famous creek 
sans paddle, and since this is a moving picture rather than a 
European style talking picture, they needed to (you've guessed 
it) 'show, not tell'. So we got dragged along to the battle of 
Osgiliath.

Whatever they did, they would have had to expand Faramir's 
temptation scene a bit. Ten seconds equals 'this is not a big 
problem'. The Ring is a BIG problem. Again, it's back to 'no 
conflict, no drama;no drama, no film.'

Myself, I think I would have done it by having Faramir find the Ring 
earlier than in the book, and somehow making a shrewd guess what it 
was. That would have given him a much longer internal struggle. Plus 
when he was discussing Gondor's tactical position you probably would 
have been able to see a good actor thinking 'if I just take the 
Ring'... 
> 
<Snip>
And
> as my dh pointed out, in the book he feels the
> presence of the Nazgul king when the latter first
> rides out and is a mile off.  That's really powerful: 
> that Frodo's wound aches and he feels faint even when
> he so much as sees the Nazgul at a distance.  Here he
> has to come face-to-face with a flying Nazgul to get
> the full effect.  Which approach gets across the
> terrifying power of Sauron's servants better?

The second. You can't see the Nazgul when they're a mile off [grin].

Seriously, in a film the terror of the Nazgul is going to be mostly 
conveyed by the reactions of the other characters to them. Which 
means, technically, you have to establish that the Nazgul *are* in 
the same scene, which means you have to *see* them (visual medium, 
remember), which means they can't be small, unidentifiable dots in 
the distance.

If you can't get any visual impact from them being a long way off, 
you can get a heck of a lot of visual impact from them hovering 
right over Frodo's head...

Doesn't apply in books, of course. In a book you can show two 
characters being interconnected at any distance you like. Being able 
to terrify people when you're a mile off is really scary in a book.

> 
> (7)  One change didn't make sense even within the
> movie.  The way the scene at Helm's Deep and the
> Entmoot are intercut, the clear cinematic message is
> that the Ents are going to save Rohan's bacon.  
<Snip>
 But in the movie, all that buildup never
> delivers.  The Ents overthrow Isengard (I loved,
> loved, loved the flooding scene—all those Ents
> standing in the water—it was just gorgeous) but that
> has nothing to do with Helm's Deep.  It's not as if
> Saruman was about to send out another army or
> anything; the battle is underway and will not be at
> all affected by what happens in Isengard.  I don't
> know what the heck the director was thinking.

I do. He was thinking while in the books Saruman is a secondary 
problem, in the films to date Saruman has had the most screen time 
and is effectively the main villain of the first two films. 

This means that while he wants the victory of Helms Deep to be a 
climatic event at the end of film two, Saruman's defeat must also  
come in the last part of the film (otherwise the film has an anti-
climax, not a climax). This means the Huorns don't have *time* to 
get to Helm's Deep. Saruman's defeat will have to be seen as a thing-
in-itself - a satisfying ending for the film; the effective 
destruction of a major villain.

And the flooding scene *was* gorgeous.


> A couple of character changes were interesting and I'm
> still mulling them.  One is that Sam is actively
> intervening when Frodo's tempted by the Ring.  This
> alters their relationship quite a bit, in ways that I
> like but that may be ultimately OOC.  I'm not sure,
> but I think I would rather that they again left it to
> the actor—he could show us that he sees Frodo's
> struggles with the Ring and is worried, without
> actually having to wrestle Frodo away from the thing. 
> Sean Astin, who has so far struck me as the best actor
> in the ensemble, could pull it off.  

No, I think in the books Sam is 'intervening' by providing moral 
support. He's the unquenchable optimist, who keeps determinedly 
trogging onwards when Frodo would have given up long since, and it's 
largely this which is helping Frodo in his struggle with the Ring. 
Evetime Frodo's spirits start to sink, you find Sam will say 
something cheerful and optimistic, and heartening, and will thus 
strenghten Frodo's will to resist.

However, in films, you go back to the point that it's a lot easier 
to show than to tell. It's a lot easier for the actor to convey that 
he doesn't want Frodo to put on the Ring if he's allowed to actually 
grab Frodo's hand and physically stop him. If he's not allowed to do 
that, because it's not in the book, then he's fighting against the 
fact that what the audience will *see* him doing is well, nothing. 
Frodo will be having these dreadful struggles, and Sam will be 
sitting there doing nothing with a worried look in his eye.

<Snip>
<Snip characters of Gollum, Wormtongue and Saruman and Ents>


Well, why have I spent all this time defending a film I didn't like 
very much? 

Because a film is not the same thing as a novel, and you shouldn't 
expect it to be. A novel is based on words on a page. A film is 
based on pictures. A novel can tell you what a character is 
thinking. A film has to show you. A novel can have pages and pages 
of events without conflict. A film lives by conflict, whether 
between characters, between a character and the world, or in a 
character's own internal life.

A novel is words.
A film is pictures.

A novel is a story.
A film is a drama.

Some novels are naturally dramatic. Dickens frequently transfers to 
the screen without any major alterations - he's a naturally dramatic 
author. Austen is also a natural dramatist. Her characters are 
generally in conflict with either circumstances or themselves.

Tolkien is a descriptive writer, a writer capable of conveying an 
entire world, and of handing us characters whose stories started 
long before the novel's opening pages, and continue in appendixes 
long after the novel's end. When I say he isn't a dramatist I'm not 
insulting him - he has no need to be; there is absolutely no 
requirement for any novel to have dramatic form.

But when you translate the written medium of the novel into the 
visual drama of film, don't be surprised if changes have to be made.

Pip