h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think that the movie is very differint than the book.

Ah, yes, but thank goodness movies are movies and books are books. No movie ever did justice to "the book" (with the possible exception of Gone With The Wind, and Slaughterhouse Five). When any good book is made into a movie, whenever you try to translate truth from one art form into another, something gets lost in the translation—usually about half the book—and our imagination gets severely trampled on by a director who gets to impose his vision on us and take away our images, replacing them with his own.
But we love movies, and enjoy them for what they are, and we are able to suspend more than our disbelief, allowing rich (usually)Hollywood stars to play the roles of people who are nothing like them. To feed our imaginations, we still have the books, and it is because of the difference (vive le difference) that we continue to invest the effort in the books. And they continue to pay off and reward our efforts: reading demands an investment from us that movies do not.
Peter Jackson has done a wonderful job, and has created a wonderful movie which deserves all the credit we can give it. But you, Aargain, are a fan of the work of Professor T., and you will go back to the books. Thanks to Peter Jackson, others will discover the books, and come to know what you already know.
Let it work.

Cheers,
Nightowl

Fully realising that films and books are, inherently, different media and therefore the one can never fully be a faithful copy of the other, and therefore not expecting to see a total replication of the books onto the scren I was still disappoined by The Two Towers. My major quibble is that through removing parts of the story, and changing others, Jackson has changed or lost some of the themes of the books. This was slightly present in the first film, notably with the changing of Saruman from a wannabe Sauron to yet another lackey. The scene in which Saruman tried to persuade Gandalf to join him played a little bit too much like "The Return of the Jedi", in which Darth Vader, who has been a willing servant of the Emperor tells his son (Luke Skywalker) that if he'll join forces with him they can. together, overthrow the Emperor. It seems to me as though Jackson, by simplifying the storyline at this point, lost the irony of Saruman's relationship to Sauron. Saruman is never a willing servant of Sauron, he does Sauron's will unintentionally.

However, in the second film themes which hve run from the beginning of time in Tolkien's world (ie in the "Song of the Valar") are lost or misrepresented. The waning of the elves, to coincide with the waxing of men, plays a major part in the mythology of the LOTR, the story standing as it does at the beginning of the New Age of Middle Earth. Faramirs role in this is lost in the second film -in the first film the men we meet are stupid (Butterman),traitors (Boromir) or are not wholely human (Aragorn)- we are told that the blood of Numenor is running thin- and therefore cannot be relied upon to be representative of mankind anymore. By making Faramir a copy of Boromir one loses the contrast and the hope that he represents by being, essentially, an ordinary human and yet still noble. Showing that the race of men can be valiant and will not ruin middle-earth.

Another quibble I have is with the Ents, despite including the speech about "Not being hasty" Jackson MAKES THEM HASTY. They decide not to go, then Pippin makes a speech- suddenly they decide to go. Very hasty indeed.

I just think we should be glad someone actually had the guts to make the trilogy of films in the first place. Especially since newline cinemas wanted him to only have it as one three hour film, instead of a trilogy of films...image the consequences to the story then.

I thought that Jackson wanted to film it as two films but when he went to newline and presented it (after his previous deal fell through) they told him it should be done in three?

CK

Hi
From what I can remember, Jackson went to newline to try for a 2 film deal, instead of the 1 film deal already offered. Then someone saw sense and offered the 3 part one we see today....weren't miramax involved somehow though?

Crazydreamer

I'm with you Nightowl - I love the books (although I generally mumble about the writing, and the bits he seems to have rushed) and I'm all for getting everyone in the universe to read them somehow.

And just think, if Peter Jackson hadn't made the films, we wouldn't all know how lovely boy really is! (shallow moment there, but I don't care)

Maybe I'm wrong with the 1 film deat, but I still thought the films were excellent regardless of missing/changed bits It brought a lot of Middle Earth to life.

I'm not saying that i didn't enjoy the films- the second one did get me slightly, just slightly mind you, irate in places- but certain bits were SO good that it almost made up for it (ie the ents sacking of Isengard and gollum). I enjoy films on two levels- the basic visual aspect of the film (and no one can quibble that that part of the film was not MINDBLOWING) and a more analytical level- trying to get messages from the film etc. And on that second level i felt the film didn't deliver. The books are more than just a good read, or good story whatever, and it is a shame the films do not offer as much sophistication.

I think that labelling Boromir as a traitor is rather extreme! He desperately wants to defeat Sauron and firmly believes that using the enemy's ring against him is the best way forwards. Those firmly held convictions and the warping effect of the ring on those close to it lead him to do something that, in the book at least, he regrets before he dies.

As a major fan of the trilogy I have read it many times over the years and it never fails to involve me in in totally, feeling such things as the relief from grief whilst the fellowship recovers and rests in Lothlorien and the savage exultation of the battle-rage of the Rohirrim "and they sang as they slew..." The films, although far closer to the books than I imagined they could possibly be, don't manage to do that to anything like the same extent. I must confess though, being moved by a part of the first film which is not the same as the book: Where Arwen and Frodo have been chased in that brilliant horse-race of a sequence and then she turns back and defies the Ringwraiths to come and take him if they can.

I was a little fearful that Jackson's visual extravaganza and images would overwhelm my own mental images when I read the books again, but I am glad to say that I have found it possible to separate and enjoy the two different media. To those who haven't read the story, don't feel that you can't do so now that you have seen the films; there is a whole lot of subtlety and excitement that the visual media cannot adequately convey...

All in all, my favourite book(s)of all time have been supplemented by what I suspect will remain my favourite films of all time!

There, I think, is the point:
Fog Plaiter says, "All in all, my favourite book(s)of all time have been supplemented by what I suspect will remain my favourite films of all time!"
He did not say, "supplanted"!



And here's a riddle:
Why would you never find a nice hard-cover copy of The Lord Of The Rings for sale second hand?

Nightowl

I'm not saying that the films supplant the books, I am assessing them completely independently and saying that though they are great visual films, and great entertainment they will not be my favourite films because they lack the extra ingredient I (personally) need to be truely happy with a film. It is very selfish I know- but to me the greatest single test of art/literature/film/music etc is on what level it touches and speaks to me. I'm not going to apologetic for that. So lets all relax and enjoy the films for its merits, trying not to look for what is not there.

For the same reason Isaac Asimov says you won't find many of his books in a second hand shop. People who have them, tend to keep them. Anyone who owns a nice hardcover copy of The Lord Of The Rings is going to want to keep it and read it over and over.

I agree with you about the films. Sure, they are different from the books, but it is a different medium. You can't fit everything that was in the book into the movies. Imagine how long it would be then! If you can't fit everything in, then naturally the story will have to be altered slightly for it to make sense. I think Peter Jackson has done a fantastic job, the films definitely keep the essence of the book.

The films are definitely bringing people back to the books. I work in a public library. The books sat dusty on the shelves for years, being read only by die-hard SF & Fantasy fans. Since the films have come out, we've had to buy more copies of the books just to satisfy demand. I do sometimes wonder, however, how many of the people who ask for them, actually get through all three.

My only quibble with TTT is that the ents were far too short. Surely they should have been taller? The regular non walking trees in Fangorn made the ents look like bonsai.

Technically the ents were pretty accurate height-wise or if anything a tad too tall. According to the original book treebeard is "...a large Man-like, almost Troll-like, figure, at least 14 foot high...". So Ents are not huge, or massively tall in actual fact.
But as we musn't compare book and film too much then we must look instead to a more philosophical answer- the Ents are tree-herds, and I don't see why they should have to be as big as the trees they herd. Think of it as sheep being herded by small, yet intelligent, dogs.

Personally, I think that the difficulty of reducing a 1500 page manuscript with supporting material longer even than that, to a mere 9 hours of film can only mean leaving an awfully large amount of material out. Most adaptations tend to be based on short stories, so in theory there is enough material for fifteen films not three!

However that said, this is an interpretation and given that Tolkien set out to create a myth, having it retold in a slightly different form seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I might disagree with some of Jackson's choices and some of his changes, but there is enough of the magic of the book in the films to make them worthwhile in their own right.

Also, since the media used for the retelling is an audio/visual experience, I for one am pleased to have seen something that has filled out the characters, locations and culture in ways that the book alone cannot.

BTW, I must thank Nightowl for doing an excellent job of editting this review so, "Thank you, Nightowl."

My pleasure, Madent. It was a good read, and you did a fine job (and you know your book!). We look forward to your review of The Return of The King.
Be happy in your work,
Nightowl

Aye, I guess you're right about the ents, my image of them attacking Orthanc made them seem very tall in my head, but thats what a book will do to you.

Yes, to be honest when I first read LOTR I thought the ents were much taller, then when I read it the second time I noticed the "at least 14ft tall" bit and understanding dawned. Plus Treebeard says that trolls were made in mockery of ents, just as orcs were made from, and in mockery of, captured elves (see The Silmarillion). Therefore they'd be about the height of trolls.
In my humble opinion the ents were too "leggy" as well, Tolkien describes them as like stumps of trees- not neccessarily like trees themselves- and I'm sure he says they walk in a straight-legged gait, without knees. The ents in the film definitely had knees. But I can live with that discrepancy.

I thought the LOTR:FEOTR was one of the best films ever made. Despite not being 100% accurate to the books, the atmosphere, acting, casting and visuals were completely mind-blowing, especially the beauty of the shire and the attention to detail.

The TTT has even more amazing computer effects and stylish costumes. However I didn't enjoy the film as much as I was expecting to. My problem with the film was not that Jackson had left out parts of the book, which obviously must be done to fit into a 3 hour film. What I found extremely annoying was the way that things jackson changed a lot of the book, but didnt add anything to the film. For example the Ent council could have happened in the way described in the book and the whole confusion with what kind of character Faramir really is and the Osgiliath parts. I also thought that Helms Deep didn't feel such a unsiegable place as described in the books. The new characters seemed a lot shallower than they are in the books. Full marks however for Sméagol. The combination of amazingly life-life graphics and sublime performance from Andy Serkis makes him easily the best CGi character ever made.

One final point... don't the Ents have green eyes? or at least a green spark or flicker in them.