| abstract
| - Any work of the scale of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings movie screenplay was going to exhibit differences from the source material. While the three movies had a large number of minor and trivial differences from the book, there were quite a few substantial differences as well. These major differences take two forms—1. differences in form; this includes changes made to the story by deleting or adding parts or spreading ideas over a long period of time, and 2. differences in substance, which included changing actual ideas and people in the story to suit the film. Some such changes include the changing of almost all the characters and changing events to reach the same outcome as the book. The director and writers of the motion pictures faced some significant challenges in bringing Tolkien's work to the big screen. Not the least of these was the enormous scale of the story. The Lord of the Rings is a very lengthy story that was, itself, derived from a fictional universe of prodigious dimensions. In it, an entirely original world of the author's manufacture forms the backdrop of a story with multiple intelligent races (Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Ents and Men), their many languages and dialects, a highly developed historical narrative, and a minutely detailed geography of the world that had, itself, changed significantly over time. The result of all this is a level of complexity that is very difficult to apprehend in a screenplay. How does one go about presenting, for example, the historical background of a story that spans an enormous period of history that is outside the scope of the movie to be filmed? The difficulties the writers faced were innumerable, and many compromises to the story were required to successfully adapt it to the medium of film. Soon after the release of the first movie, controversy began to arise over deviations in the screenplay from Tolkien's own story. Key characters such as Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil were absent, and substantial parts of the story were completely missing. Moreover, characters that were present, such as Elrond, Aragorn, and Gandalf, were substantially altered. The release of The Two Towers took this even further with deviations in character development and major plot elements becoming more significant. Finally, with the release of The Return of the King, more differences appeared and critical plot conclusions were either reduced or removed. The overall effect of the entire movie series was that it told a story that was recognizably that of Tolkien's, but it did so with major thematic and other differences. Reactions were mixed, with some fans becoming disappointed with the films,but others acceped the changes and loved the movies. These differences were not, however, of any importance to the movie's target audience— the enormous worldwide movie going public most of whom knew nothing of the story. Despite the differences, The Lord of the Rings motion pictures are beautiful and stunning epic movies that tell a great story in their own right. The fact that the movies are a great achievement of movie-making is due, in part, to some of the changes that were required for screen adaptation. The most understandable differences in the screenplay from the story are those that were required to contract the duration of the film and keep up its pace. Even with substantial portions of the story excised in the screenplay, the three, extended-edition movies have a combined running time of well over eleven hours, and there is arguably enough material not filmed to make a fourth, extended-length motion picture. Considering the relative unimportance— to general audiences— of the missing material, it was probably a wise decision to not include it. Another important consideration in filming a motion picture is the pace at which the story moves. For example, the Council of Elrond is a lengthy episode in Tolkien's book, The Fellowship of the Ring, in which much historical material and explanations of off-camera events are provided. If this episode had been filmed as written, it probably would have run on over an hour and lost many viewers. Instead, the material was presented in a different way that kept the pace of the movie going along as was required for the medium. Some differences between the story and the screenplay, however, are less easy to justify. Characters in the screenplay were developed very differently to those in the story, and they were made to do things that seemed contrary to their personalities. Moreover, major differences of theme exist— differences that do not seem to make sense or be entirely necessary for film adaption. For example, the result of the Entmoot in the movie was that the Ents decided not to go to war, but then the writers had them decide not to go to war, before Pippin gets treebeard to go south, saying the Hobbits will be safer that way, so Treebeard will see the ruin Isengard has caused, to get Ents to go to war anyway. It is fair to ask why they could not have just agreed to go to war in the film as they had in the book. Such differences, though unnoticeable to those who had never read the story, disappointed some fans of the book, while again other's did not mind. On the other hand, the film's creators stated that the scene had been added to make Pippin more than just useless baggage. In that context it succeeded.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)