Before and after the movie - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Ealasaide · 10-20-2004, 10:24 AM

Ah, dear me... that's what I get for being hasty & posting without breaking out my specs and actually reading a thread closely first ....

Yes, you are right, I am an Old School Geezer (wonderful rating system, Snowdog!), having read the books back in the mid-seventies, well prior to the release of any movies.

I just misunderstood the purpose of the thread. I had thought it was contrasting the differences on the Downs before and after the release of PJ's movies. That's why I thought the yardstick was based on the timing of one's arrival to the Downs. My bad!

mark12_30 · 10-20-2004, 11:24 AM

Well, that *was* C7A's purpose of the thread originally. But it's taken a few zigs and zags since then, including Snowdog's enjoyable and thorough Tolkien Addict Location Grid. So far, we haven't gotten our knuckles whacked.

*peers at Sharon*

So not to worry; I just didn't want you to erroneously disqualify yourself from your Geezer's Club rocking chair!

Ealasaide · 10-20-2004, 11:30 AM

Many, many thanks! I would have missed my rocking chair very much...

HerenIstarion · 12-13-2004, 06:40 AM

I will sell myself long (is there such an expression or did I just invent something new?

)

I consider myself Old-School Book Fan, even though I was born in 1978 and my Tolkien reading started in 1989 (the Hobbit and Smith of Wotton Major, both mysteriously found on a bookshelf, everybody in the family denying buying them when questioned. But I know 'twas my granny who bought them)

The rationale to be found here: Tolkien Middle Age Club

Honestly, I suppose I meet requirements - I did not know about Bakshi version, and that cartoon of Hobbit don't remember by whom till much later, and when first asking for Silm77 and HoME (1994 or 95, same granny) to be bought for me in Germany, where she was going for her health's reasons, I expected to get something finished, probably what happened after, or what happened before, but in no way drafts and comments - more about Sam and Frodo, or Bilbo, and Gandalf.

Later, when I've read all of them and a bit more (Niggle, Giles and company), the thought of movies came in. Movies? I often imagined what a movie may have been done out of those wonderful books, and always concluded 'it were impossible, for it must be perfect'.

But lo! They are already shooting, and release is by Christmas! You should be joking? Nope, I've seen it on TV, they are shooting!

Ah, unlike, Nurumaiel (excellent post (#63 of the current thread), my compliments) I did not like the movies at first. That was wrong, this was a lie, the whole piece of that was missing. Probably, I wanted to see the movie so much I was not inclined to forgive slightest imperfections. But I wanted it strongly for the books' sake.

But now, I consider it as a piece of art in its own right. Not entirely unrelated to the books, of course, but independent I still prefer to read my books, but I suppose a lot of people prefer reading Tolkien's verse, per instance, to my ReVerse

- as both me (heh, self-confidence is the thing I never knew the lack of) and PJ are doing the same thing, to an extent - we are sub-sub-creating. I'll make myself more clear - we take somebody else's work and base ours on it. It may be argued that Tolkien did the same - basing his books on this and on that, but he has the wider base, his sources are less known, and skill is far greater. To an extent, his is the thing new, original, not eclectic, (sub-creation with one sub), ours - consequent (sub-sub-creation with two subs)

It does not mean the sub-sub thingy is bad in itself. But by definition it is A. Not the same thing. B Of less value as original (in a sense it is not original idea, it may of course be in a sense of skill - suppose PJ based his movies not on books but on Bakshi version - the result would be better in a sense - contrived with more skill, but worse - not original, sub-sub-created) Or, another analogy - the first man who invented painting is a lot more original, in one sense, than all, per instance, cubists or whoever, though his skill is crude compared to theirs

But I feel I stray in my own thoughts, let me state a conclusion before I get completely lost. Basically, it comes down to:
I appreciate the movies, but I love the books. Movies did not change my appreciation of the books, and of the Two Frodos the printed one is the stronger.

Snowdog · 12-14-2004, 12:49 PM

HerenIstarion, I guess you would be New Old-school!

10-20-2004, 11:24 AM	#2
mark12_30 Stormdancer of Doom Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Elvish singing is not a thing to miss, in June under the stars Posts: 4,349	Well, that was C7A's purpose of the thread originally. But it's taken a few zigs and zags since then, including Snowdog's enjoyable and thorough Tolkien Addict Location Grid. So far, we haven't gotten our knuckles whacked. peers at Sharon So not to worry; I just didn't want you to erroneously disqualify yourself from your Geezer's Club rocking chair! __________________ ...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 10-20-2004 at 11:28 AM.

12-13-2004, 06:40 AM	#4
HerenIstarion Deadnight Chanter Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 4,244	I will sell myself long (is there such an expression or did I just invent something new? ) I consider myself Old-School Book Fan, even though I was born in 1978 and my Tolkien reading started in 1989 (the Hobbit and Smith of Wotton Major, both mysteriously found on a bookshelf, everybody in the family denying buying them when questioned. But I know 'twas my granny who bought them) The rationale to be found here: Tolkien Middle Age Club Honestly, I suppose I meet requirements - I did not know about Bakshi version, and that cartoon of Hobbit don't remember by whom till much later, and when first asking for Silm77 and HoME (1994 or 95, same granny) to be bought for me in Germany, where she was going for her health's reasons, I expected to get something finished, probably what happened after, or what happened before, but in no way drafts and comments - more about Sam and Frodo, or Bilbo, and Gandalf. Later, when I've read all of them and a bit more (Niggle, Giles and company), the thought of movies came in. Movies? I often imagined what a movie may have been done out of those wonderful books, and always concluded 'it were impossible, for it must be perfect'. But lo! They are already shooting, and release is by Christmas! You should be joking? Nope, I've seen it on TV, they are* shooting!* Ah, unlike, Nurumaiel (excellent post (#63 of the current thread), my compliments) I did not like the movies at first. That was wrong, this was a lie, the whole piece of that was missing. Probably, I wanted to see the movie so much I was not inclined to forgive slightest imperfections. But I wanted it strongly for the books' sake. But now, I consider it as a piece of art in its own right. Not entirely unrelated to the books, of course, but independent I still prefer to read my books, but I suppose a lot of people prefer reading Tolkien's verse, per instance, to my ReVerse - as both me (heh, self-confidence is the thing I never knew the lack of) and PJ are doing the same thing, to an extent - we are sub-sub-creating. I'll make myself more clear - we take somebody else's work and base ours on it. It may be argued that Tolkien did the same - basing his books on this and on that, but he has the wider base, his sources are less known, and skill is far greater. To an extent, his is the thing new, original, not eclectic, (sub-creation with one sub), ours - consequent (sub-sub-creation with two subs) It does not mean the sub-sub thingy is bad in itself. But by definition it is A. Not the same thing. B Of less value as original (in a sense it is not original idea, it may of course be in a sense of skill - suppose PJ based his movies not on books but on Bakshi version - the result would be better in a sense - contrived with more skill, but worse - not original, sub-sub-created) Or, another analogy - the first man who invented painting is a lot more original, in one sense, than all, per instance, cubists or whoever, though his skill is crude compared to theirs But I feel I stray in my own thoughts, let me state a conclusion before I get completely lost. Basically, it comes down to: I appreciate the movies, but I love the books. Movies did not change my appreciation of the books, and of the Two Frodos the printed one is the stronger. __________________ Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! Last edited by HerenIstarion; 12-14-2004 at 03:22 PM. Reason: typos + link added

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-20-2004, 10:24 AM	#1
Ealasaide Shadow of Tyrn Gorthad Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Fencing Lyst Posts: 810	Ah, dear me... that's what I get for being hasty & posting without breaking out my specs and actually reading a thread closely first .... Yes, you are right, I am an Old School Geezer (wonderful rating system, Snowdog!), having read the books back in the mid-seventies, well prior to the release of any movies. I just misunderstood the purpose of the thread. I had thought it was contrasting the differences on the Downs before and after the release of PJ's movies. That's why I thought the yardstick was based on the timing of one's arrival to the Downs. My bad!

10-20-2004, 11:30 AM	#3
Ealasaide Shadow of Tyrn Gorthad Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Fencing Lyst Posts: 810	Many, many thanks! I would have missed my rocking chair very much...

12-14-2004, 12:49 PM	#5
Snowdog Emperor of the South Pole Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The Western Shore of Lake Evendim Posts: 647	HerenIstarion, I guess you would be New Old-school!