![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
factual mistakes about The Lord of the Rings fostered by Jackson's movies
These are specific errors, not general falsities of spirit, and they have in common that people don't realize they're major changes from the book. When the movies omit Bombadil or the Scouring, or have Faramir threaten to seize the Ring or Frodo abandon Sam, viewers realize those are changes. But they fail to recognize that the following are not true of Tolkien's story:
1. That Sauron, at the time of the War, is a disembodied giant eyeball.
2. That Aragorn is reluctant to become king.
And the latest additions,
3a. That Smeagol is a different character from Gollum,
3b, and is basically good.
1. That Sauron, at the time of the War, is a disembodied giant eyeball.
2. That Aragorn is reluctant to become king.
And the latest additions,
3a. That Smeagol is a different character from Gollum,
3b, and is basically good.
no subject
I had earlier heard that every elf has a personal gem like Arwen's that somehow grants them their Elf Nature.
But, you know, movies have been doing this forever and ever. Consider how many people know
1. That "Frankenstein" is the name of the creature.
2. That the creature was brought to life by electricity.
3a. That the creature was an inarticulate brute
3b. and was made so by having the brain of a criminal madman, giving him inborn criminal tendencies.
no subject
no subject
Oh, indeed. But, you know, that's no excuse for doing it again.
It has one upside: as a cautionary tale. When people respond to my complaints about the media colonization of Tolkien by saying that a movie can't bury a book, at least not a good one, I have two counter-examples, good books that have been buried by their movies, in the sense that, even though the book is available and supposedly widely read, few people know how it differs from the movie or how much, and are inevitably surprised when they find out. They are:
1) Frankenstein
2) The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (a book whose very title has been buried by its movie's)
no subject
no subject
gorillasentities....no subject
The best we can say is that Jackson and Walsh consider Smeagol/Gollum a case of multiple personality disorder, except that (perhaps unusually) the personalities can talk to each other in real time.
That is, as you suggest, two different personae. But that doesn't fix the problem, because the problem is that, in Tolkien, they are not two different personae. Stephen Colbert, in his version of the same error, described the Ring as reaching out and "seizing Smeagol's heart," i.e. taking him over against his will. That's not what happened at all. Smeagol was susceptible to the Ring because he was already a greedy little bastard with all the seeds of the Gollum-to-be already in him.
Misunderstanding this is a frequent theme in Jackson. Jackson has stated that he can't understand why Faramir doesn't succumb to the Ring. It's because he has a purer heart and knows better than to be tempted. (This would not work for prolonged exposure, but Faramir has no more exposure to the Ring than Smeagol did before seizing it.)
Similarly, Jackson depicts pre-redemption Theoden as literally under a spell of Saruman's that controls his soul. Again, not in Tolkien: Theoden's own weakness had allowed himself to be lulled by Wormtongue. (Why is Wormtongue called that? Because he's twisty and sneaky of word, and capable of fooling the gullible.)
no subject