February 5, 2003

To Steve L. and 'Changes'
Scooter

Steve L, I found your message interesting. It addressed worthwhile questions. However, you seem to imply (I may be wrong in this) that the changes you mentioned were not necessary.

For the most part, I disagree with this implication.

Now, as I say this, understand that I love the books and, on most levels, prefer them to the films. But, I think that we must realize that condensing the story for the film is not simply a matter of making the story shorter, but also a matter of plot (and character) developement more simple and more "simply enthralling," if that makes any sense.
What I mean by this is that you must try to accentuate the viewers focus on the vital characters and makes sure these characters develop.
Central characters ought to change somehow from the experience of conflict. They should develop as they progress through the plot. Now, who are the characters who develop most through the course of the books? Merry, Pippin, and Sam. This is evident in the Scouring of the Shire. In fact, why si the Scouring there at all? To show how the three younger hobbits changed.
Are the three hobbits the central characters? Not really. The film-makers have decided to make Frodo and Aragorn the story's central characters-- and for good reason. However, how do Frodo and Aragorn change throught the course of the plot? Well, Frodo had pretty much determined what he would do at the end of chapter 2. In fact he pretty much had it figured out that he would "die" in the process at the end of that chapter too.
How does Frodo develop through the plot of the book? He gets stabbed. He gets stung. He gets bitten. He suffers the consequences. That's it! No great internal changes after chapter 2.

As for Aragorn. He was pretty content to be king right after Elrond told him as a lad. What's he wating for? For the Ring to be revealed and for the "right time," apparently. How does Aragorn change internally through the plot? He fixes his sword. He get's in big battles. And he freely tell ANYBODY who he is. Internal changes-- not very many.

So, if Frodo and Aragorn are our central characters around whom the plot revolves, do we get to see how they change inside? In the books, not really. Do we feel o-kay with this? Sure, because we have other characters making realizations and changing inside. In fact, the grit and determination of Frodo and Aragorn inspire hope as we read.

But, for the film, if Frodo and Aragor are the central characters and we are condensing the "role" of the other characters, wouldn't it be nice to see these central character CHANGE through the plot? Sure! So, Aragorn is uncertain about his desire to be king, and the experience of the plot moves him to certainty. This also makes it a little easier to follow the plot point that he has known he was heir to the throne most of his life yet chose to run around Middle earth for several decades rather than take his place. In the books, all we have is that he was being patient. In the context of the books, that's fine. We get it. But to make this plot point more understandable and give him room to change, we add uncertainty.
From this stem all the Aragorn changes mentioned. It also has the side benefit of augmenting Arwen by making her "the encourager" rather than the "vital character who is almost totally non-existent" that she is in the book.

About the difference in Merry and Pippin's captivity etc. Was it that different. The dispute was between two Orc kinds (if you look closely). It was based (indirectly) on the issue of loyalty to Saruman ["They are not for eating"]. In the books there was debate on what to do with the hobbits-- eat them, take them this way or that, etc. The point being that eating them was a key argument. Merry and Pippin excaped mainly as a result of Eomer's attack-- as was also the case in the movie.

As for the difference in Saruman, well, I'll give you that one. It would have been nice (and not all that hard to depict) if there would have been more focus on his "double agent" status-- or his self interests. I think that there is still that element in the film, but it rests of two or three "throw away lines" and is hard to see.

As for the business with the Ring bearer seeing the eye and what not, I took the visual of the eye as a handy way to establish to the audience that attention WAS drawn to Frodo when he wore the Ring. Did Frodo see the eye all the time? No? But, certainly, they Eye was nearer to finding him when he had it on. What's the easiest way to really impress on the viewers that Sauron could spot Frodo if he put on the Ring and that wearing it is truly a threat? Well, having a big flaming eye haunitng Frodo when he wears the Ring. I guess I don't view this as a "change" to the novel so much as a translation. It allows the view to "see" that which in the book was present but unseen (except for some instances). As to comments in the Two Towers film specifically that imply that if Frodo wore the Ring that Sauron would see him instantly, is this not exactly what happens in the book? Why does Frodo not wear the Ring and walk invisably to Mt. Doom? Because Sauron would see him if he did! What happens when Frodo
DOES put on the Ring in Mordor? Sauron sees him-- instantly (or near enough). What is the REAL issue in the of the films dialogue where Sam suggests that Frodo wear it. The issue is that the Ring has almost claimed him that that if HE put it on, Sauron would see. Why does Sauron not see Sam in ROTK? Because the Ring had not claimed or was even close to claiming him-- and, more importantly, Aragorn had greatly distracted, in fact TERRIFIED, Sauron. It was the old had off fake. Who has the ball? Who has the Ring? Sauron was sure it was Aragorn-- or would be soon; so he was totally focus on that arena of battle.

Anyway. Those are my two cents. Take them or leave them.