Is all the "magic" gone? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Meneltarmacil · 04-20-2004, 09:40 PM

I'm not sure what you'd call it, but there seems to be something missing from the movies somehow. I'm not talking about the obvious gripes, like Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, or the weird mutant hyena things. This seems to be more on a deeper level. There was something that I'm sure most of us felt when we first read the books that didn't quite transfer over to the movies, and I can't really desribe it here.

I hope that actually made some sense to you. What are your thoughts?

Vanya · 04-21-2004, 04:26 AM

I generally think that no film can be better than book. Nothing can replace your immagination, no matter how good the film was made. Actors have less means to show their thougts and feelings than literate has ( descriptions and explanations in the book are precious). Music, scenography, drama, effects, it' all great, but magic you've felt while reading is yours, and yours only, and it comes from inside.

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 04-21-2004, 07:43 AM

I second those thoughts, Vanya. Films allow a much smaller degree of imagination than books. Also, there are limits to what you can show on film. Case in point; Galadriel. With all due respect to Cate Blanchett (who I think is very attractive) there is no-one alive who can come close to the beauty of Tolkien's Galadriel. Its just a trivial consequence of fantasy.

That's not to say I don't think the films could have been better; I actually think they could have been considerably better, and they could have come closer to Tolkien's magic if some things had been done differently (Pellenor for example,

)

So its a bit of both. The magic had limits on film anyway, but I think the limits were higher than what the end result of the movies sugggest.

Vanya · 04-21-2004, 09:03 AM

Exactly, Eomer. Also, it's not enough that you see events and characters, you have to know all the background. Without it, it's just an good adventure. The whole glorious and darh history of ME is what makes LOTR so spetial - and in film you can only catch a glimps of it.

Bêthberry · 04-21-2004, 10:49 AM

A very good way to put it, Menel, aside from the gripes, something was missing.

For me, the first film, FotR, came closest to providing that ineluctable sense of wonder or special creation. The latter two films seemed to rely too much on misplaced pranks and out of place humour and special effects for them to suggest Middle-earth. They remained movies rather than a special place. imho

As for Galadriel, I often wonder if an older actress would have accomplished more, one who clearly could have been Elrond's mother in law. Susan Sarandon?

Meneltarmacil · 04-21-2004, 12:55 PM

Thanks for all the great replies.

The area that really seemed to be missing that "sense" the most was, in my opinion, Fangorn Forest. The first time I read it, I felt this deep sense of wonder at all the Ents gathering, the meeting with Treebeard, and the march to Isengard. Althoguh the movie did portray it OK, it seemed like something had been lost in making it.

Boromir88 · 05-21-2004, 04:52 AM

FOTR seemed like the best, well put, organized movie. The others seemed choppy and a little less organized, maybe because FOTR focused on the fellowship and the other two movies the fellowship was split up.

I do agree, that a movie will never be able to show the "characters" like a book would. I believe part of it was because PJ focused on a very small aspect of the books, WAR. PJ didn't concentrate enough on the relationships or importances of certain people, I think if he had, then he would of included in Imrahil or Beregond. My biggest problem was Gondor's weakness. PJ downplayed Gondor to make it show that Gondor needed a king. Gondor probably would of lost if it wasn't for Aragorn but, Gondor just seemed way to weak. Denethor was a horrible father but PJ made him a complete ***. Denethor was a much wiser man than PJ showed and a much greater man. Excluding leaders like Imrahil, Beregond, Forlong, really take away the strength that Gondor did have. There were a lot of things missing from ROTK, and I know everything from the books can't be in the movie. I think PJ could of cut some of the fighting, some other things and added in more of the other themes to Tolkien besides war. From what I hear the ROTK extended edition, sounds very promising and could make me a lot happier.

Final words, PJ did a great job with the movies, and I honestly believe no one else could of done what he did.

04-20-2004, 09:40 PM	#1
Meneltarmacil Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The bottom of the ocean, discussing philosophy with a giant squid Posts: 2,254	Is all the "magic" gone? I'm not sure what you'd call it, but there seems to be something missing from the movies somehow. I'm not talking about the obvious gripes, like Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, or the weird mutant hyena things. This seems to be more on a deeper level. There was something that I'm sure most of us felt when we first read the books that didn't quite transfer over to the movies, and I can't really desribe it here. I hope that actually made some sense to you. What are your thoughts? __________________ I ♣ baby seals.

04-21-2004, 07:43 AM	#3
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,859	I second those thoughts, Vanya. Films allow a much smaller degree of imagination than books. Also, there are limits to what you can show on film. Case in point; Galadriel. With all due respect to Cate Blanchett (who I think is very attractive) there is no-one alive who can come close to the beauty of Tolkien's Galadriel. Its just a trivial consequence of fantasy. That's not to say I don't think the films could have been better; I actually think they could have been considerably better, and they could have come closer to Tolkien's magic if some things had been done differently (Pellenor for example, ) So its a bit of both. The magic had limits on film anyway, but I think the limits were higher than what the end result of the movies sugggest. __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

04-21-2004, 10:49 AM	#5
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	A very good way to put it, Menel, aside from the gripes, something was missing. For me, the first film, FotR, came closest to providing that ineluctable sense of wonder or special creation. The latter two films seemed to rely too much on misplaced pranks and out of place humour and special effects for them to suggest Middle-earth. They remained movies rather than a special place. imho As for Galadriel, I often wonder if an older actress would have accomplished more, one who clearly could have been Elrond's mother in law. Susan Sarandon? __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

04-21-2004, 12:55 PM	#6
Meneltarmacil Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The bottom of the ocean, discussing philosophy with a giant squid Posts: 2,254	Thanks for all the great replies. The area that really seemed to be missing that "sense" the most was, in my opinion, Fangorn Forest. The first time I read it, I felt this deep sense of wonder at all the Ents gathering, the meeting with Treebeard, and the march to Isengard. Althoguh the movie did portray it OK, it seemed like something had been lost in making it. __________________ I ♣ baby seals.

05-21-2004, 04:52 AM	#7
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	Good movies FOTR seemed like the best, well put, organized movie. The others seemed choppy and a little less organized, maybe because FOTR focused on the fellowship and the other two movies the fellowship was split up. I do agree, that a movie will never be able to show the "characters" like a book would. I believe part of it was because PJ focused on a very small aspect of the books, WAR. PJ didn't concentrate enough on the relationships or importances of certain people, I think if he had, then he would of included in Imrahil or Beregond. My biggest problem was Gondor's weakness. PJ downplayed Gondor to make it show that Gondor needed a king. Gondor probably would of lost if it wasn't for Aragorn but, Gondor just seemed way to weak. Denethor was a horrible father but PJ made him a complete ***. Denethor was a much wiser man than PJ showed and a much greater man. Excluding leaders like Imrahil, Beregond, Forlong, really take away the strength that Gondor did have. There were a lot of things missing from ROTK, and I know everything from the books can't be in the movie. I think PJ could of cut some of the fighting, some other things and added in more of the other themes to Tolkien besides war. From what I hear the ROTK extended edition, sounds very promising and could make me a lot happier. Final words, PJ did a great job with the movies, and I honestly believe no one else could of done what he did.

04-21-2004, 04:26 AM	#2
Vanya Animated Skeleton Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Belgrade Posts: 43	I generally think that no film can be better than book. Nothing can replace your immagination, no matter how good the film was made. Actors have less means to show their thougts and feelings than literate has ( descriptions and explanations in the book are precious). Music, scenography, drama, effects, it' all great, but magic you've felt while reading is yours, and yours only, and it comes from inside.

04-21-2004, 09:03 AM	#4
Vanya Animated Skeleton Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Belgrade Posts: 43	Exactly, Eomer. Also, it's not enough that you see events and characters, you have to know all the background. Without it, it's just an good adventure. The whole glorious and darh history of ME is what makes LOTR so spetial - and in film you can only catch a glimps of it.