Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwendė
Matthew M - if you want to write to CT, the usual way is to send a letter via the publishers. 
Anyway, I be surprised if CT had managed to avoid the films so far, even if he's only taken a sneaky peak at them. And the marketing images are pretty strong and pervasive so he cannot have avoided those - least of all if he had to 'approve' them in any way.
Really, why should a film cloud our imaginations any more than paintings and illustrations would? Yes, certain things from the films creep into our internal vision, but can anyone here deny that John Howe's Gandalf has not also influenced them? There's a long history of Tolkien art - including by Tolkien himself - and I'm sure I'm not the only one to be influenced by it. |
Thanks, I do agree. Hildebrandt art along with others seep into my mind as I read as well as the films (although the films do more) and unfortunetly...shutter...Ralph Baski's cartoon version will sometime peer it's ugly head on in.
I really don't understand why so many people are so against the movies. I'm 19 as well, and we weren't even around when LotR was created. I think some people to be honest are just trying to be strictly book, when in our world you cannot. It is a movie phenomeon, and there is no denying in many scenes it captures the essence of Tolkien's books greatly. They too are my beloved story, but why can't you just accept them as Jackson's take, just like you had your own? Jackson makes great visuals as well as great movies in tLotR. They are there, and they treat the LotR very good, compared to what other directors in the past have planned on doing to it...