The "movification" of literature

[altivo]

We watched Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring tonight. (The extended DVD edition.) Of the three films, I thought at first, and still do, that it was the best. That's because it sticks more closely to the book than the others, and seems to leave out the least. Even so, it suffers from pointless alterations to Tolkien's much-polished prose.

I realize that it is necessary to leave things out, because film can never be long enough to contain the entirety of such a massive work. Sometimes the cuts require small changes elsewhere in order to clarify things that would otherwise be confusing. But Jackson and his writers made many small changes and some larger changes that I find most irritating. As an example, replacing Glorfindel with Arwen herself simply makes no sense. Perhaps Jackson thought it somehow forwarded the romantic element that he so much exaggerated over the original, or perhaps he thought he was somehow simplifying, but all he did was confuse the character of Arwen herself. making of her something that Tolkien never intended.

Replacing Galadriel's gift to Sam, which was a box of earth from her own garden, and turning it into a coil of rope destroys a major plot element, because Sam carried that earth with him to the bitter end of the tale, when he used it to restore the Shire, in part, to it's former garden-like quality. Worse, while the rope was mentioned in the book and Sam had declared his concern at the lack of it, that concern was omitted in the film, yet he was given rope as a gift.

Likewise, small changes to the dialog, substituting words for instance, can be extremely distracting to those who are familiar with the original. This happens far too often, though it is difficult to say whether the screenplay changed the wording or the actors merely ad-libbed the changes which were then allowed to stand. For instance, when Gandalf translates the writing on the doors of Moria, in the book Merry asks, "What does it mean by speak, friend, and enter?" But in the film, the question is shortened to a pointless "What does it mean?" Thus losing the foreshadowing hint. In the film, it is left to Frodo to prompt Gandalf in the end with "What's the elvish word for friend?" This is something I'd have expected Frodo to know already, and a pointless hand-off to him. In the book, Gandalf realizes his mistake on his own, and then actually gives credit to Merry for being on the right track after all.

One odd thing. Galadriel's words as she gives the light of Eärendil to Frodo end with "May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out." This is true in both the film and the book, yet both Gary and I consistently remember it as "when all other lights fail." I have to wonder if this is a variorum between different editions. I know there were some corrections made at Tolkien's instruction at one point, but I've never seen an explicit list of them. Gary probably read the Ace paperback edition first, while I know I read the Ballantine. We have neither available now, and the Houghton Mifflin hardcover volumes we have do say "revised edition" on the cover.

Comments

[jairus-greywolf.livejournal.com]

I know I would have liked the LOTR movies better had I not read the books first. Some books are just too rich and intricate to be successfully made into a movie. Dune is another example. Loved the book, did not like the movie.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I agree, Dune is another example and one that did far more damage to the original than even Jackson did with Tolkien.

I have an equivalent problem with what they did to Narnia. I'd actually be less bothered if most viewers had read the book first, but of course they haven't. So in seeing Jackson's parody of the original, many believe they have now "seen" the book. That's about as true as for us to say that by seeing the petrified skeleton of T. rex we have "seen" the living dinosaur.

[goldenstallion.livejournal.com]

Whinnyhi, Rider.

Richard McKenna - The Sand Pebbles. The film starring Steve McQueen is one of the closest I have ever seen to the book. I remember reading the book only days before watching the movie and amazed how closely it followed the story and dialogue. Of course it is not nearly as complex and lengthy as Lord of the Rings.

It has been many years since I read the Rings trilogy, or the Hobbit for that matter, and so many things were forgotten while watching the films but yes, you bring up these points and had already told me how much more focused the films are on the battles and how little of the detail of the world and its peoples, culture, poetry, etc. was offered. I think that the audience would not have enjoyed the films as much, considering today's viewers. It has to make money after all.

Imperator the Loyal

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Your last point, about films having to make money, is of course the main issue here. It's why I generally oppose turning classic works of literature into film. The medium should be used in and of itself, with materials expressly written for it. Film makers invariably commit mayhem on fine literature in order to bring their cloudy vision into "focus" upon them.

The thing that galls me about it is that so many who might have been truly inspired by the original have now been exposed only to a pale shadow of the beauty that is Tolkien. From that they have carried away either a distaste for what is not really there, or a misinterpretation of the whole. Jackson failed to convey they story. That's my final conclusion. He missed the whole point. The great drama is a tragedy of epic proportions, not a triumph of military strategy with a romantic climax.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Oh, I *so* agree with this. This is exactly how I felt after watching the first of the movies, and it's also the reason why I never bothered with the rest at all - for all I care, Jackson butchered the books in a blatant attempt at commercialisation. It worked out, too, but I certainly don't like the result one bit.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

You're right, of course. I grew even less happy after viewing the other films. Whatever Jackson read in those books, he read something I never saw in them. And, worse yet, the powerful story that I see there completely escaped him. I don't think he understands it at all.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think so, either... or maybe he understood it but thought it wasn't quite mainstream-compatible enough yet. >_>

Oh well, the books are still there at least, of course. Unfortunately, there's a new German translation that also came out around the same time (not sure if it was done because of the movie or not) which loses most of the charm of both the original and the older translation; it doesn't bother me personally, since I still have the old one, of course, but I think it's unfortunate.

[felder.livejournal.com]

Well, from my point of view.. the view of someone who's never read Tolkien ;) yes I know.. I will at somepoint ;) and living with someone who's read them all the way through and pretty well versed, we both enjoyed the trilogy. Squirl saw the changes, but didn't think it ruined what the movies were trying to achieve, which is to get that written trilogy down into some form of visual entertainment.

it also means from my point, I can now pick up the books and see what changes were made, but still see the films for what they are, great entertainment! ;)

*hugs*

[altivo.livejournal.com]

That last word, "entertainment," is the crux of the problem for me. Tolkien's works are great art, but I doubt that even he would have used the word entertainment to describe them.

Imagine the difference between, say, a finely crafted dish, like a soufflé, that must be served in an instant before it loses all its delicate nuance, and a frozen version of that same dish that is intended to be microwaved and eaten in a rush. Does the person who samples the convenience food have any idea what a real soufflé is or can be?

Or does someone who reads Cliff's notes or a comic book version of Moby Dick have any idea at all of the power and depth of Melville's original?

I hope you do read the real Tolkien one day, because I know you will see immediately what I mean. *hugs back*

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I think I've mentioned this, but Michael Moorcock, whom I personally respect a great deal as a fantasy author, still keeps on whinging and whining about how he disagrees with Tolkien being great art. ("Winnie-the-Pooh with swords" he calls it.)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Funny you should mention Moorcock, because I dislike his work intensely. Far too much hack, slash, and zap, and nowhere near enough reality for me.

Tolkien is really outside the realm of popular fantasy fiction in many respects. He is not about hearts and unicorns, or incompetent wizards, or oversexed and overmuscled heroes. He writes on the level of myth and legend, manufacturing both out of whole cloth (or sometimes from raw fiber.) It's a whole different level from the stuff that fills the shelves in the science fiction section of today's bookstore.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

In many ways Moorcock is as non-mainstream as they come, though in a fashion entirely opposite to Tolkien. He's intently concerned with inserting Aesops in his books, and he has no patience with the sort of heroic epic Tolkien did. From the sound of it, I'd say you've been reading his sword & sorcery stories, which are often sub-par or blatantly recycled (keeping in tone with one of his central theme, actually) from his Elric cycle. The innovation and cleverness of even that neat little series has went through immense inflation in the last decades. Elric repealed, avoided, mocked or reversed absolutely every contemporary fantasy trope in the book. Of course it was a smash hit. Consequently, of course, Moorcock's work has become established cliché to the degree that no one remembers he came up with it.

I'd personally recommend the Dancers at The End of Time trilogy, Behold the Man, and to some degree its sequel, Breakfast in The Ruins, though in keeping with Moorcock's love with making points, the last one intentionally has absolutely no plot whatsoever. The first one is extraordinarily high-fantasy, but probably no more than the food logistics of Minas Tirith. Then there are the Jerry Cornelius stories. They're rather fun, but only if you look at them as cyberpunk commedia dell'arte pieces.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I remember Elric when that stuff was new. I didn't like it then, I don't like it now. Cyberpunk has never worked for me either. "Slice of life" can work occasionally, but something with absolutely no plot isn't going to hold my attention I'm afraid.

I don't mean to say that Moorcock's work is not valid or not art or whatever. It just doesn't work for me at all. Then, a lot of what is written these days doesn't work for me, or at least not very well. I'd rather have James Branch Cabell or better yet William Morris, to be honest about it. And, undoubtedly, that explains why I much prefer Tolkien's watermelon over Edmund Wilson's kumquat.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Actually, this seems an appropriate point at which to bring up Edmund Wilson, and C. S. Lewis' comment about the negative attitude Wilson took toward Tolkien's work:

"Wilson resembles nothing so much as a disgruntled kumquat lover discoursing upon the merits of a watermelon."

So with Moorcock. He doesn't like watermelons, which is his right, but that doesn't mean they are without merit.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Pretty much exactly. Egregiously enough, Moorcock's main gripe with Tolkien is apparently that the Aesop is all wrong for his left-wing political tastes. (He makes a few wonderful points about JRRT's language use, but then quickly starts ranting about how Tolkien should've somehow discovered his inner Michael Moorcock.)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, Tolkien's conservative views have never grated on me, nor have Lewis' somewhat more moderate ones. Even though I vote and think well left of center, I don't really believe that Tolkien's works are about politics or that they contain "Aesops."

Tolkien wrote about the human condition, in the historic context of his own lifetime, which was mostly a very dark time that included two very bad world-wide conflagrations filled with wickedness and atrocity as well as several smaller ones that were particularly painful for the British. But he wasn't writing about the wars themselves, their causes and effects, but about the threads of civilization and culture that are broken and disrupted by such events. His entire epic, from the creation of Middle-Earth in The Silmarillion right down to the death of Arwen in the appendix to The Lord of the Rings is about the tragedy of existence, and takes a very pessimistic view of the whole. Yet he highlights every moment of beauty, art, and emotion, showing them as the high points for which we were really made. That I can appreciate.

I'm also keenly sensitive to his scholarly approach, because it suits my temperament and background just as well as it suited his own. The way in which he picks up threads of legend, literature, and language from so many cultures and weaves them into his world so well that they form part of an integrated whole can only inspire my admiration for the work of a master craftsman. (I feel the same way about the "Nationalist" music of composers like Sibelius, Grainger, Vaughan Williams, Smetana, and Wagner, who are often derided for being "derivative" but who created great beauty out of homely and familiar snippets of melody and folk song.)

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

My, we are a tough critic aren't we.

There is no way I can disagree with your examples about the differences between the movie and the book because they are fact. But my overall analysis and opinion of this movie as well as the other two is much different than yours. (I own and have watched all the extended edition DVDs)

Points of agreement:
-The Fellowship of the Ring sticks more closely to the book, I agree with that. It has been commonly observed that each movie in the series grew progressively more Hollywood and less Tolkien.
-I did not care for the over-emphasis of Arwen and her role. It does seem pointless for her to to have replaced Glorfindel, and why Jackson did that, I can only speculate as you have and I would guess similar reasons.
-With respect to Galadriel's gift to Sam and the whole restoration of the Shire, I was disappointed with how the Return of the King film removed that small but final climax and made it appear as if nothing happened to the Shire at all. In fact I have to say that the role of Arwen, and the ending of the Return of the King are among the biggest deviations/omissions from the book as well as the elves coming to fight at Helm's Deep (but I actually liked that one). Oh, and I guess I we can't forget Tom Bombadil. They should have left him in. :P

Points of disagreement:
-The alterations of dialog and prose may have been essentially meaningless, but they did not distract me or ruin the movie for me. Most of the important lines and words were said by the right character and compared to most movies adapted or based on books, the material was fairly accurate, especially the first film. Just hearing Tolkien's characters and his writing come to life in these movies was amazing to me. Even with the alterations, the beauty and majesty of Tolkien's writing shined through in the film.
-While the story and romance between Aragorn and Arwen is made more significant in the film than the book, Jackson and the screenwriters argue that they based a lot of it on the Appendixes in the Lord of the Rings which does elaborate on the role of Arwen and her relationship with Aragorn and I don't think it hurt the story at all. At first I wasn't too keen on it until I read The Silmarillion and then it hit me. I believe Jackson was trying to allude to the story of Beren and Luthien and he even does so blantantly with the scene when Aragorn is singing and Frodo asks him about it. The story of Beren and Luthien was my favorite part of The Silmarillion and I enjoyed the fact that there was some allusion to it in the film through Arwen and Aragorn.

Now I could go on about all the other things I loved about the films, such as the cinematography, the special effects, the brilliant and moving musical score, and the actors, but I'll spare you. I'm also not going to discuss the other two films since you only talked about the Fellowship of the Ring here, but I will say a few things about the film trilogy as a whole.

I loved these films and they are among my favorite of all time. No, they are not perfect and they have their flaws, but watching these movies, especially the first in the theater, were an almost spiritual experience more that I will never forget, much like reading the book is. The same feelings that I got reading the book, I got from the movies as well. The movies made me cry and the book made me cry. The movies lifted my heart and made it sing just as the book did. Despite the differences between the films and the book, I believe Peter Jackson captured the essence of The Lord of the Rings extremely well and I honestly doubt anyone could have done it better than he did. Sure, there are some things I think he should have done differently, but trying to turn something like Tolkien into cinema is not easy and he did a pretty damn good job.

(more)

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

I also think that comparing a book to a film is a bit pointless because they are two completely different forms of media. When I judge these movies, I judge them more on how they stand as films rather than how they compare to the book. I don't see why people ask "Which is better, the movie or the book?" The movie wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the book and it is extremely rare for something to be "better" than what it was based from. The films were not about improving the book, they were about translating the book into a film. It's a bit like translating one language into another language that is completely different. There are subtleties that tend to get lost along the way, and sometimes there are a few significant errors :P Film is a different language than literature.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Film is a different language than literature.

This is the excuse so often given. To follow on that analogy though, it is also why we say that reading a translation is never as good as reading the original language. Worse yet, translations can be detailed and true to the original, or they can wander so far afield that they have as much or more of the translator's word in them as they have of the original. A famous example of that would be FitzGerald's translation of Omar's Rubaiyát.

What bothers me so much in cases such as this one, or the ruination by film of Narnia, is that so many of the viewers will think that the translation they have seen is true to the original and that they need never bother themselves with the real thing. Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ may be "great film" (I don't know, I didn't see it) but I doubt very much that it is a substitute for reading the actual biblical accounts. Nonetheless, by its very existence, it becomes such a substitute for many people. I don't think that's a good thing in the end.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I've recommened The Passion to friends before, but then again, I'm very much emotionally pleased with the "blood and gore" intepretation Mel Gibson chose in the first place. It's very - how should I put this? - Catholic in a positive sense of the word, but does require that the viewer can accept that particular aesthetic for a while.

Pretending for a moment I was a Christian, I wouldn't say it's as good as reading the same bit in the Bible, though. But it did work for me.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

What bothers me so much in cases such as this one, or the ruination by film of Narnia, is that so many of the viewers will think that the translation they have seen is true to the original and that they need never bother themselves with the real thing.

What does that mean? I've read the books so I know what the original is. How could I not know what "the real thing" is? Are you saying I'm so stupid or delusional to think that the LOTR films grasped the essence of the book when I have read the book itself? Tell me that isn't what you just said.

Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ may be "great film" (I don't know, I didn't see it) but I doubt very much that it is a substitute for reading the actual biblical accounts.

I have seen the film and I have read the biblical accounts and that movie was one of the most power movies I have ever watched and actually seeing what Christ went through was actually more powerful than reading about it. The biblical accounts, after all, are pretty straight forward documentation stories. They aren't filled with all the poetic and graphic descriptions of emotion that a piece of fictional literature would be or even a modern novel. The film was also very accurate in staying true to the biblical accounts. There were a few scenes added in for prosperity and dramatic flare, but the actual events from the time of Jesus' arrest to his crucifixion were what was described in the Bible. The dialog was also very close to scripture and it was even in Aramaic and Latin instead of English.

Would I say the movie "replaces" scripture? Absolutely not. Neither would I ever say that the LOTR movies replace or substitute for the actual book.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I did not call you (or anyone else) "stupid" here. You're literally pulling that out of the air.

The truth about the Lord of the Rings films is just that most of the viewing audience never read the book at all. In fact, many of the film critics who wrote at length about them had never read the book and admitted this. That was my point. I've discussed this with some people who saw the film and admitted that they had never read the book and never intended to do so. That's what I meant. By seeing the film, you are only getting the highlights, or what some one or few people thought were the highlights of the whole. It's as if reading a Fodor's guide was a substitute for actually visiting a place, or reading Cliff's notes was a substitute for actually reading a book. That's all. It's sad, in my opinion.

Since you had already read the book, this simply doesn't apply to you in any way. I would have thought that was obvious, so how could I be calling you "stupid"?

[saythename.livejournal.com]

Trying to make Tolkien's massive trilogy into
a movie has put many a filmaker on the shoals.
Its just too enormous and too detailed to do
right on film.

That being said, I have to admit I was impressed
by the films and thought that, while not
perfect, they did go the extra mile to try
and get things right. The only other book
thats been tried so many times to get right
on film is, I think, Solaris. The 2002
version comes somewhere near but doesn't capture
the technobabble the author used purposefully
to show our ignorance in the face of the
Universe.

Sometimes the movie is almost a different version
of the story, like the Disney adaptation of
Wrinkle In Time or the movie version of Starship
Troopers. Both are entertaining, but veer
wildly from the prose they are based on.

Most of the time books made into movies are
either passable or atrocious. The animated
Watership Down was good, and the film
adaptation of Firestarter was well done.

In other cases the movie is simply better
than the book. Fire In The Sky and Communion
are clear examples of B list scifi that
came out as almost visionary when put on
screen.

The one thing thats harder to quantify,
though usually a bad bet, is when a
film spawns a book, or more usually,
a series of books.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The animated Watership Down was exceptionally good, I agree. Without substantial alterations to the original, which is a bulky book too, the animators and writers managed to tell the whole story. It can be done. I suspect that film was not a big financial success though.

The problem is that the film-going or television audience have vastly different, and usually much shallower expectations, than a serious reader does. Someone who tackles The Lord of the Rings or For Whom the Bell Tolls or even Dr. Zhivago is not looking just for entertainment to use up an hour or two. Those who want flashy entertainment read the junk romance novels or sensationalist crap like Tim LaHaye's pseudo-Christian fiction, or W.E.B. Griffin's military action novels. Film is marketed to the latter audience because they are much more numerous and easy to sell.

You can't reduce Tolkien or Hemingway to a 32 page comic book and retain any of the quality or content of the original, yet that's what happens when commercial film versions of such epics are made.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Given the sheer weight of the prose, I've slowly began to wonder if it's in fact possible to succesfully adapt any major Russian classic novel to film in anything other than miniseries format. (Well, maybe Fathers and Sons.)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yes, and that's my complaint. In general, I wish film makers would stick to writing their own stuff, rather than chopping up classic literature. What we so often get as a result of their stupidity is millions of people who think they understand Victor Hugo because they saw the Disneyfied version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

A paricularly apt example, given Disney's love for doing this. I swear, it's only a matter of time before they make The Song of Roland or Kalevala or something, with the usual helping of singing animals.

[saythename.livejournal.com]

*imagines the Song of Roland with singing animals*

Wait...that was Robin Hood.

XD

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it was. ;)

It worked OK with Robin Hood, since he's a legend rather than a literary work, and has lots of contradictory stories and songs attached to him.

Might work for Roland too, except that no one today knows his story, at least not in the US. Perhaps it would fly in France, but I kinda doubt it. Ultimately though, I think it would just be a bad movie, like Beowulf. *holds up a silver cross and douses himself with garlic or something*

Hmm. Could poor old Walt be undead? I think I hear him coming now, mumbling "Brains...brains... must eat their brains..."

[saythename.livejournal.com]

When you get a great huge book that your excited about reading that
exictement can last days or even weeks (our one night if your just
obsessed with it).

A movie though is a communal event. A group cheering for a hero, or
gasping at an atrocity.

Very VERY different mediums really and when crossed they mostly come
out like the children of cousins.

I like a good movie, say a nice thriller like I Am Legend, (another
oft made movie from a book) but usually theres a special thrill
of anticipation when you know that you can, after a long days work,
sit or lay in bed and just read and go off in a way a flat screen
could never do.

Just me.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Since I don't think much of the original book I am Legend, I'm not too bothered when they make a bad movie of it, which they've done more than once in fact. ;p

As for the rest, yes. It's that old warm media vs. cool media thing that McLuhan talked about.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

There was a fairly simple reason for cutting out Glorfindel. He's not a major character, and introducing him for a single scene to do one single job wouldn't have served the movie much, unless they had intended to kill him later, say, at Helm's Deep. But 90 per cent of the change was motivated by Jackson's desire to have an active female character in the first film. (Aside from a single example, Tolkien's women are all magical beings of light who do absolutely nothing except talk and that doesn't fly these days. What Aragorn actually says to Éowyn has also been subtly altered to match current fashions.)

Elves suddenly appearing at Helm's Deep isn't canonical, but I wasn't peeved by it because it has an obvious and reasonable purpose above and beyond showcasing all the neat stuff the producers ripped straight out of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Legolas's flashy Errol Flynn ninja antics... not so much. Jackson himself said he wanted to minimise those scenes, but the studio insisted.

Personally, I found the ghost army hilarious. But Théoden's ongoing quest for self-destruction is still very charming.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Heh. You're the first one I've seen talking about the film who had also read the book and still seemed to agree with Jackson's alterations.

It's not the omission of Glorfindel that bothers me, it's the insertion of Arwen into his role. This is out of character for her and remains so. In order to justify that insertion, it would be necessary to cast her in an entirely different role (one resembling Eowyn instead) throughout the story.

To me, the story of the Arwen-Aragorn tragic romance is merely a sidelight, and clearly that's what it was for Tolkien as well since he put most of it in the appendix. One of Jackson's horrible distortions is the insistence with which he moved the entire focus of the work.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Something like that; let's say I understand them and can forgive them. Though I have to agree about Arwen acting entirely out of character in the finished product. Arwen's transformation, immediately after the action scenes, into Our Lady Of Copious Sighing And Pointy-Eared Angst indeed seems jarring. (They could've went the Bakshi way and put Legolas in Glorfindel's boots. But then they'd have had to invent a separate dramatic entry for Arwen, so they could have the romance, without which there wouldn't be a single female character absolutely anywhere in the entire film with the exception of Galadriel.)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

And Eowyn, who wasn't left out. Had she been omitted, I would really have screamed, because she has always been among my favorite characters, and perhaps especially so since I believe it was difficult for Tolkien to write her and yet he did so.

Various female hobbits, of course, make minor appearances. Galadriel is really the chief feminine figure in TLOTR as written, and she was intended to be so. Unfortunately in the course of editing, Tolkien made her role in history so obscure that most readers fail to appreciate her significance at first. She is the only survivor of the Exile to appear and take an active role in the story. Even moreso than Elrond, she has seen the entire history, knows the back story that was only hinted at, yet can only glimpse various dark paths into the future, none of which are satisfying to her. In many respects, she is the female counterpart of Gandalf, which does make sense in the end when we learn that they were both wearers of Rings. However, she had worn Nenya from the very beginning, so had an awareness of the integral whole, while Gandalf came into possession of Narya late in the story. Elrond too, as one of the half-elven, could only have received Vilya as an inheritance or gift, because the ring predated his birth.

[bariki.livejournal.com]

I think that it's unrealistic to expect a facsimile of a every book to appear in the format of a film. In this case, translating 'The Fellowship of the Ring' line by line into a film would require an audience to have rooms, let alone seats! Although that might be a rather original idea for the cinema going public, I doubt that many Americans (or, indeed, Europeans) would have the patience for such an endeavour.

The world is replete with books that have been gutted by the cinema: C.S. Lewis' Narnia books, Peter Beagle's The Last Unicorn and Elyne Mitchell's The Silver Brumby all spring to mind. I don't expect books that have been converted into films to be 100% faithful to the exact content of the book.. but, as you said, I do expect them to keep the storyline the same. All too often characters are cut out, punchlines are altered and key scenes are sacrificed on the great alter of Hollywood. For me, gazing at Russell Crowe's beard for an hour was not what Mitchell had in mind when she wrote The Silver Brumby - she wrote about the beauty of the Cascades in Australia; about the sheer joy of Thowra in his own strength and beauty; and of the growth of a young and outcast colt into 'the fabulous silver stallion'.

The Sum of all Fears by Tom Clancy was carved up like a roast to appear on the big screen: the President's fumbling indecision after the nuclear strike in Denver was ignored, destroying a critical part of the original novel's focus of American leadership. Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass suffered less from the surgeon's knife but still had pounds of its flesh severed onto the floor of the cutting room to fit into less than two hours.

I should have a point here, I suppose. If there is one, it should be that one form of art - the written word - does not necessarily translate into another as a perfect clone. Sometimes this can happen, depending upon the director, the actors and the expectations of the studio. Other times, as with Tolkien's work, the knife is applied with zeal and to the disappointment of the literate cinema goer. Temper your expectations would be my suggestion, because the masses are not so patient nor so inclined to read as you or I might be.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass suffered less from the surgeon's knife but still had pounds of its flesh severed onto the floor of the cutting room to fit into less than two hours.

I agree completely. My own greatest gripe with the film was that the production team, engaged as they were in the making of a kiddie film, had entirely cut away all the religious undercurrents which, in Pullman, were subtle like a brick thrown in through the window. This turned an enjoyable Strawman Space Vatican into a lacklustre Superfluous Space Vatican: Suddenly, the villains have absolutely no proper motive beyond "we're evil" and that makes them boring. (For Darth Vader they ain't.)

[bariki.livejournal.com]

We're evil.. and have a cool name. Come on, fear us.. oh, go on, do!

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

I must say it was one of the most faithfull movies to a books storyline I've seen...problem was it did make them a bit long and to have sped it up would've ruined them.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The first film was pretty faithful, in spite of the cuts. My big objections are the way Galadriel was portrayed as some sort of ethereal, disinterested witch or something, and the insertion of Arwen in Glorfindel's role.

The other two films diverged more and more from the book until I almost wouldn't have recognized them.