Quote:
JK Rowling's Harry Potter books are very under-rated by a lot of adults, but her work too stands up to digging. Just one thing I realised the other day was how she pays homage to Tolkien by using some of his Hobbit surnames. I love Order of the Phoenix for the pin sharp satire on the Civil Service, and maybe a worse enemy even than Voldemort, Dolores Umbridge. |
My memory is strongest about treatment of the first two HP films that the critics were kindest then. However the transfer to film of the latter ones seemed to have irked many, as if Rowling made a mistake getting more serious and darker in the latter books. While I didn't see it as a mistake, because a storyline without flow feels plastic & artificial to me
I guess Rowling was correct that people wayyyy underestimate children's ability to absorb serious issues or events. As if they couldn't hack the latter books & they aren't forced to in their lives, which is rot. Children in Western societies don't life a perfect life in a bubble that can only be pierced by dark books & films; the literary critics perhaps ought to open their minds more.....ahem, lol. |
A very nice colleague of mine today crept over and said "Look what I've decided to give another go!" It was an old, but very unbattered copy of Lord of the Rings. A while back she had said to me that she absolutely could not stand the way Tolkien writes, she'd tried to read it and failed. But she went to watch The Hobbit over the Christmas break and now she's been inspired to give Tolkien another go.
I was quite pleased with this. ;) |
I don't know if this applies as an answer to the question in the title, but this may provide indication that the movies will do damage to the themes of the books.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/joeljmi...-of-the-rings/ |
I think the hobbit will kill the popularity of the genre. People who love it will still love it, but I doubt it will remain popular worldwide, it will have a niche audience like it was meant to have. The lord of the rings movies introduced many to Tolkien, likewise I think the hobbit will de-introduce many to Tolkien. It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know. How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing. It will be cleaner ;) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
From my point of view, if you can't be true to yourself, why bother? I'd say, Man up!, but that might be considered racist as you might be an elf or dwarf or hobbit or dragon or talking fox or ent or...well, you get the drift. Quote:
Anyway, still haven't seen the Hobbit. Might takes the kids some day; probably should read the book to them first. |
Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?
Well I checked my bookshelf, and my copies appear unharmed so far.
|
Quote:
On the other hand, if the movies bring new readers to Tolkien, some books are likely to take quite a beating. :p |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To each their own. Go ahead, live a little...dress up as Sebastian. :eek: |
Film making in his time was very crude. Translating The Lord of the Rings was long a taboo because of the sheer scale and technical incapacity.
He dismissed even cartoon attempts because not everything could be done. But then this is half a century later, when film-making has more applicability. Sir Christopher Lee met Tolkein, did he ever relay a movie-making ever position? No, just frustration at the early attempts. There also seems to be this weird perception, like that a book can 100% be brought to film. That'd take too long & be too expensive to make; and the cinemas wouldn't play them. I doubt human cloning in the future will be 100% perfect, so why object? For people that see these films first, for many it'll ensure they'll read the books. Whereas if they never saw it in the cinema probably would never have read them even if you recommend them as a friend or something. This was my position on the Harry Potter series. After seeing the 1978 rendition of TLotR I was determined to watch PJ's translation, even if it wasn't 100%; I was already a fan & understood the facts that had to be accepted. They hype about the HP series only was confirmed for me after I saw the first HP film in 2001. That's how some minds click. It's only fair to just accept it, not assume that all others don't really know or appreciate things. That's just snobbery |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
While I believe that the films would be far more dramatically effective if they hewed closer to the original texts I don't think that they're especially damaging in and of themselves. I think the main danger they pose is the potential to trivialise discourse on the subject of Professor Tolkien's work by having this Hollywood filter layered over the top. I don't mean to say that's a fact, just something I think might be a risk. The films are, in my view at least, rather shallow (thematically) compared to the source material and I am occasionally concerned about their presence in culture getting in the way of a deeper appreciation of Professor Tolkien's work, not in isolation necessarily but at least in terms of its own merits.
That being said I believe Professor Tolkien might possibly have been more agreeable to a film adaptation if in his time there had been the kind of modern techniques and technology which can bring Faerie to life on the screen today. His main objection seems to me to have been this attitude of changing things for no particular reason. I suppose that's why I find An Unexpected Journey to be a good deal more disingenuous as an adaptation than the films of The Lord of the Rings: I can just imagine someone watching that film, deciding to read the book and being bewildered by how brief and utterly different in tone it is to the adaptation. The films of the LR make major changes in terms of plot and characterisation but the atmosphere and pacing are more comparable (in The Fellowship of the Ring at least). Actually maybe Fellowship is the only good example... |
Quote:
Well let's start with your first paragraph here,(Which later you contradict but claiming not to judge, by the way) Your first paragraph is probably the most on-topic of this diatribe. You claim that The Hobbit will "de-inroduce" many to tolkien. I disagree I think the Movie, being more action packed, will bring in more readers. I think Tolkien's book is fantastic and works on paper on screen through if you think about it there are pretty good chunks of time in the book of really nothing occuring outside of Bilbo and Bombor complaining. Now then you continue on calling people pathetic, for dressing up and enjoying their fandom. I actually owe my recent weight loss to geekness(a contradiction for sure) I was 245lbs(about... estimating 110-125 kilos something like that 2.2 lbs per kilo) now I'm at 202 because I wanted to dress up in a cool costume and look good in it. More fans can mean more longegevity even in a fairly secluded forum such as this. Even you with your...shall we say... contreversial, opinions bring new conversation to the board. Without new comers how can we keep the conversations alive only so many times to go over whether or not balrogs have wings(they do deal with it;)) Then you talk about religion as if it's on the same level as Tolkien. I'm assuming you were just trying to get a rise out of people. You're ashamed to be a geek? You must still be in Junior High. Such distinctions have no real say in the real world. I consider my style Business Geek. looking at me I'm a very well kept and groomed guy but you look at my arms you'll see on the right a triforce/mad hatter tattoo on the other a video game spell/Dr who tattoo. Yet I'm a Manager at myplace of business and held in fairly high regard by the district managers. Let me give you some advice, don't be ashamed to like something, don't be afraid to admit you like something. Truth, truth is all that matters. If you're too scared to admit you like Lord of the Rings which is currently a fairly main stream interest(a theme park planned and everything) then you'll never be able to fully and whole heartedly pursue a more important dream. A more worthy goal. |
Quote:
Jackson didn't do too bad with LoTR though honestly I found his changes far more glaring in those movies than The Hobbit. I still love the last March of the Ents in the bbok I was in awe but on Screen chills, literally. I was hypnotized by that scene. Again heed my advice if you can't be honest about talking about Tolkien how can be honest about more important things? My wife knew the day nay the hour we met that I was a geek through and through I've been a geek since at least first grade got my first pair of glasses and was THRILLED(my favorite ranger being th blue ranger who wore glasses:D) Of course I met my wife when she bonked me in the head with a sword so the whole geek thing worked in the situation. Again with the muslim/taliban comparison? Us liking LoTR and dressing like characters doesn't compare to blowing up cars and Things of that nature. and frankly if us in costumes makes us the talibanm that makes you the "regular" muslim which mean you worship Tolkien 5 times a day is that really more sane? See how silly it sounds now. Comicon in San Diego is HUGE. Bi Bang Theory one of the hottest shows on. Super Hero movies are blockbusters LoTR and TH BLock busters. Star Wars is EVERYWHERE. Harry Potter is a featured area in universal And J.K Rowling is the first person to become a Billionare from writing books. Geekdom is no longer a niche. We're mainstream. You seem to just want to be the kid that hates Tolkien now because "he sold out man!" |
Quote:
Quote:
Second, I don't think it's correct to say that Tolkien dismissed attempts to film his work because he thought they could not be achieved technically. It wasn't that he didn't think the visual effects would be convincing; it was that he objected to the proposed changes to plot and character. None of the concerns that he mentioned, as far as I can recall, had anything to do with the technical aspects of film-making. So I can't imagine that the superior technology available today would have had any effect whatsoever on his opinions regarding cinematic adaptation. |
Quote:
|
Also inspired a lot of art. I recommend deviantart.com
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The joy of drawing Tolkien is to use one's own imagination from the words to create a unique visual image, rather than to replicate another image. |
To be fair, deviantart is used by a heck of a lot of young people, especially teens, to show off their work, and I remember spending a lot of time copying other images either outright or adapting them when I was learning to draw.
And then of course, there is slash art :eek: |
True enough. I remember when we saw the students copying the masterpieces at the Louvre--my kids were very small but they insisted they had to draw too. So my guidebook to the Louvre has their pencil sketches in it too, as I had no other paper. :eek: :D
But what really sparked my reply, and the mention of Viggo, was a picture I saw passed around on FB. It had exquisite technique but it was of a movie shot and it broke my heart that such talent was spent on a movie image rather than an original interpretation. It is true that we take our inspiration wherever we find it, and that everyone has the right of interpretation. Yet that does not mean we cannot also comment upon things. One does not cancel out the other. |
There are variations, including non-film drawings. Like search Gandalf, Saruman & Radagast. Maybe half the results are non-film
|
Quote:
I often worry though, whether these exquisite drawings are genuine or done on one of these computer packages that turn your photos into sketches...and I'm not that impressed by pure skill if there's no originality behind it. It's nice, but is it Art? |
Hell, I liked it
I saw the film over the hols and thoroughly enjoyed it -- sure, it wasn't the book, but I wasn't expecting it to be. I was very pleasantly surprised to see how much of the 'added' material was actually true to Tolkien's other writings and I also very much enjoyed how the 'tone' of the movie was more in keeping with how Tolkien himself wanted to revision the book after having written LotR. I could have done without several of the scenes (which were really just Jackson being self-indulgent and nobody having the authority or balls to tell him that they really needed to be cut -- the dwarves tidying Bilbo's table, Radagast nursing the hedgehog (I mean, really!) and about half the Council-scene at Rivendell) but for the rest it was very well done. I am quite excited about the sequels.
Oh, and for the people who have been complaining that the 48 fps makes it look 'fake'...it isn't real to begin with... :D |
Quote:
Am I seeing things? Is that really Fordim Hedgethistle back on the Downs? and using British slang? :eek: Welcome back, Fordy. :smokin: Quote:
But then Renaissance artists often had students finish their paintings or work on small areas, if I am not mistaken, so I suppose there have always been apps for artists. :D |
Quote:
Also I think "non original" drawings are great ways to practice then you can expand into doing your own stuff. |
Quote:
|
Quite the contrary, I'd say
I've had numerous relations practically begging for my copy of the book after seeing the movie, which is a phenomenon I did not experience during the release of any of the LoTR movies.
I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days. |
Quote:
That's interesting about Dwarves in general being popular. What would be the cause, if that's the case? |
After seeing the movie, my wife is now reading The Hobbit for the first time in many years.
Her first comment after starting her re-read, "I'd forgotten how many things were different between the movie and the book." |
Quote:
Quote:
As for Dwarves, I am tempted to note the stout fellows' surge in popularity amongst the video game community over the past several years, including the antics of a particular bunch of (immensely popular) video game commentators. However, I do not believe this to be the cause of the trend. I do think a (statistically) significant measure of their uptick in recent years comes as a reaction inspired by the present social climate in many Western nations. However, this is certainly not the thread - or the forum - for such musings, and I hope our esteemed moderators will pardon this brief foray into the thickets of Off-Topic. To return On-Topic, I think there's something to the phrase that all press is good press. In my humble, anecdotal experience, the movie has served to entice those with a fleeting interest in Fantasy to actually pick up the book, while those with no interest remain unaffected. For what it's worth, I've yet to hear of anyone refusing to read the book as a direct result of watching the film. |
Quote:
(Sorry. I didn't care for the film - can you tell?) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.