how do you like the portrayal of frodo?

[Sauron the White]

[QUOTE]

The coincidence of three indicators, two of which are entirely arbitrary, carries no more weight than a single indicator. Remember Titanic? Boxoffice success is useless as a barometer of quality, and the Oscars hardly better.[/QUOTE]

These are not arbitrary. They are the three most obvious measurements of the success of a film as utilized and respected by the film industry and those who consider it an artform. Using these is an attempt to take this discussion beyond the personal whims of the individual regardless if it is you, me or anyone else.

Each and every individual person can posess their own measurement of what makes a good film. I am sure that for some out there the number of car chases or body count is their scale. For others it may be hot sheet activity of sexual intensity. For some it may be eye candy or display of fashion or bling. To each their own. And for others it appears that the scale employed is "how faithful is this film to its source material".

However, as personal as any of these scales of success may be in measuring the film for an individual - or even many individuals who may share it - it means nothing to the film industry and to those who follow film as an artform.

Worldwide box office is the measurement most dear to the studio which makes and distributes the film. How could anyone using rational thought not take that into account? Awards such as the BAFTA's and the Academy Awards are a public expression as to how the people who make up the motion picture industry feel about quality films. You are being flippant when you claim it is hardly better than the measurement of box office. To the people who make films, they are of a very high importance. They are also an expression of a degree of quality.

So you did not like TITANIC. That is your right. It did garner 11 Academy Awards and is the top grossing film of all time. Does this mean that every one of those persons who paid over $1.8 billion US dollars for a ticket is a raving idiot or cretin? If they do not like what you like they are those who dwell at the bottom of ignorance? Obviously, the people who make films felt that it was done well, was a quality film, and rewarded it. Of course you have the right to not care for it. But it looks like TITANIC was a huge success for its makers and for the vast majority of people around the world who purchased tickets to see it.

That leaves the professional critics. However, of that body of critics, some have never read Tolkien, most read him years ago and barely remember the book, and none are students or scholars of his work. Now it's not to be denied that Jackson's movies are fairly decent by big, splashy Hollywood standards- but it's no good appealing to film critics as to their legitimacy as renditions of Tolkien. You can't deny that with one or two exceptions the Tolkien-scholar community has been unremittingly hostile to these films- do not their opinions count?

It is not the job of the professional film critic to be an expert on the source material of any film if it is adapted from a previous source. It matters not a bit if they had read LOTR a dozen times or not at all. Their job is to be educated in the standards of what makes a good film and to be able to apply and employ those standards to what they see on the screen. Being a scholar or a member of the Tolkien community is irrelevant to thier job and profession.

In fact, you ask if the opinion of the Tolkien community counts, and I would say it is irrelevant to the question of the films quality. That has already been decided - and decided rather overwhelmingly in landslide fashion - by the three types of measurement used in the film industry.

The idea that some in the Tolkien community have adopted - (and I stress the use of the word some because it has never been demonstrated that this is the dominant opinion) - that the films are failures because they are not faithful enough to the books IS A STANDARD THAT CAN NEVER BE SUCCESSFULLY MET BY ANY FILM MAKER ADAPTING A BOOK. A book and a film are two different things. Period. They are like comparing apples to cinderblocks.

I remember seeing the film FOREST GUMP some years ago and enjoying it. Then I read the book upon which it was based and found it horrible. Besides being not especially well written, it had strong tinges of racism throughout it that I found disturbing. The filmmakers had cleansed their film of that undercurrent, had strengthened the story greatly, and had produced a very successful film by the three normal indicators of measurement. I shudder to think what the film would have look liked had it been a "faithful" adaptation.

The idea of a book being "faithfully" adapted is immaterial and irrelevant to the success of a film as a film.

Ah, you call this 'snobbery.' No, it isn't. It is perhaps slightly defensive. For half a century we've been assailed by sneering Literati (the real snobs) who dismiss the Lord of the Rings as merely an exciting adventure story- likened to Boys' Own or even Biggles. What is maddening is this lot's utter lack of perception, a failure or refusal to see beneath the surface, to get beyond mere chases and fights and monsters. But nearly as maddening is the indisputable fact that many Tolkien 'fans' are similarly blinkered, failing to see that JRRT differs not only in degree but in kind from hacks like Brooks and Eddings.

Ah. So this is some type of payback then is it? The Literari dismissed something you liked - LOTR in book form - so now its your turn for payback since the film experts embraced and rewarded LOTR in film format. Not the strongest or most noble of motivations.

If all you see in the Jackson films are monster and fights then I think you have not seen the same three films that I and millions of others have seen. Perhaps you are a "glass is half empty" type of person ? Perhaps you watched it expecting that anything less than a slavish page by page translation to the screen would be less than acceptable?

There is beauty in the films. There is the subtle and the sublime. There is the history and lots of backstory that the vast majority of filmmakers would have never included. There is characterization of true human emotion. Its all there if you look with an open mind that was not made up. It also helps not to view the films with eyes, mind and heart locked in with standards that are irrelevant to a films success.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

[QUOTE=Sauron the White;530679]

Awards such as the BAFTA's and the Academy Awards are a public expression as to how the people who make up the motion picture industry feel about quality films. You are being flippant when you claim it is hardly better than the measurement of box office. To the people who make films, they are of a very high importance. They are also an expression of a degree of quality.

Do you have any idea what really goes into Academy voting? A mixture of well-financed PR campaigns, politics, logrolling, backscratching, outright bribery...and that's just when the AMPAS members (who may or may not have actually seen the films nominated) don't delegate someone in their entourage to fill out the ballot

The idea that some in the Tolkien community have adopted - (and I stress the use of the word some because it has never been demonstrated that this is the dominant opinion) - that the films are failures because they are not faithful enough to the books IS A STANDARD THAT CAN NEVER BE SUCCESSFULLY MET BY ANY FILM MAKER ADAPTING A BOOK. A book and a film are two different things. Period. They are like comparing apples to cinderblocks....The idea of a book being "faithfully" adapted is immaterial and irrelevant to the success of a film as a film.

I take no issue with this- but it's the wrong argument. human intellect is of one nature whether a book or a film is being observed, and certainly can distinguish the degree to which it is being challenged, fulfilled, or fed junk food.

As to 'some'- I suggest you cross-reference those authors who have published scholarly books on Tolkien, or articles in Tolkien Studies or Mythprint, with their opinions on the MythSoc site or elsewhere on the Net. Aside from Shippey's (qualified) approval, and Salo who's hardly disinterested, you'll find that Hammond, Scull, Hostetter, Drout, Garth, Flieger, Croft, Rateliff etc etc etc are all *strongly* condemnatory.

Ah. So this is some type of payback then is it? The Literari dismissed something you liked - LOTR in book form - so now its your turn for payback since the film experts embraced and rewarded LOTR in film format. Not the strongest or most noble of motivations.

No, not at all. You misunderstand me. The problem is that Jackson has succeeded (on a massive scale) in reinforcing the critics' false impression of LR as 'simplistic'. Anyone who saw PJ's movies without having read the book would be entirely justified in believing Wilson and Toynbee and Greer et al were right all along- because, ultimately, PJ found no more in the book than they did.

Perhaps you watched it expecting that anything less than a slavish page by page translation to the screen would be less than acceptable?

An old strawman, and you know it. Adaptation is of course the operative and entirely necessary word here: but adaptation, one would have hoped, by a writer and director who actually understood what Tolkien was on about in the first place.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Not meaning to interupt the stream of the current conversation, but I will toss in my pebble if you will kindly picture it further up the river rather than smack in the middle of the on going discussion regarding how to measure a film's success. (Though I believe that particular debate hinges on which definition of success you are using!)

At anyrate, reading though this thread, it stuck me how well Tolkien suggested Frodo's internal battle. If I remember aright, he didn't dwell overly much on the emotive aspect, but left the reader's imagination fill in the blanks. It was an effective approach that I think may or may not have worked well in a film. It would be a lot harder to get across, certainly, but would have lent a more depth to the production. As it was, most of the struggle was somehow externalized, through visual clues and discussions. We were told what was going on with Frodo, rather than discovering it for ourselves, through Frodo's process of discovering it for himself.

I still have problems reconciling the 2 Frodos, and admit it was rather shock when I first saw Elijah up on the screen. But I do understand that in making a movie the conciderations are far different than in writing a book.

[Sauron the White]

from wch

Do you have any idea what really goes into Academy voting? A mixture of well-financed PR campaigns, politics, logrolling, backscratching, outright bribery...and that's just when the AMPAS members (who may or may not have actually seen the films nominated) don't delegate someone in their entourage to fill out the ballot

Two words - so what? Unless your point is that only Jackson and the LOTR film crew engaged in these practices to garner their 17 Academy Awards and countless other awards, then its an meaningless point. Every studio does a PR campaign to push their films. Just like every candidate seriously running for office spends big bucks in a campaign. In the end its still the value of the films after all the ads are printed and forgotten. Campaigning and PR is part of the process. By itself it means nothing either good or ill. If you have proof that voters were bribed to vote for the LOTR then I would like to see the evidence of that charge.

Aside from Shippey's (qualified) approval, and Salo who's hardly disinterested, you'll find that Hammond, Scull, Hostetter, Drout, Garth, Flieger, Croft, Rateliff etc etc etc are all *strongly* condemnatory.

There are plenty of sites which have many posts of longtime readers which praised the movie. Restricting your argument to a small handful of academics who wrote books which very few have ever actually read is an extremely narrow definition. Perhaps some of this comes down to (as do many of these internet debates) a definition of terms. I would have considered people like Alan Lee and John Howe to be members of the Tolkien community. Does their participation in the films disbar them or cast them out? Or is there a new membership requirement now being applied - namely public loathing of the Jackson films?

Anyone who saw PJ's movies without having read the book would be entirely justified in believing Wilson and Toynbee and Greer et al were right all along- because, ultimately, PJ found no more in the book than they did.

Quite possibly true .... BUT only if they saw the three films through the very same limited scope that you yourself viewed them through. You seem to have watched them with a predetermined bias or huge chip on your shoulder. You saw a glass only half filled or empty and condemned it. You missed the beauty, subtelty, and all that was good about it. There is far more to these films than "monsters and fights" and I find it sad that you fail to both see it and admit it.

Hilde Bracegirdle has a valid point in saying

Though I believe that particular debate hinges on which definition of success you are using

When I cited the criteria of
1- box office revenue
2- acclaim by professional critics
3- awards from those within the film industry

I was using the three areas that those who make up the film industry, those who follow film as an art form, and those who follow film as a form of popular culture hold dear to themselves. They are the three most commonly accepted measurements by which a films success is judged.

By all three rubrics, the LOTR films were a huge success and have joined the pantheon of films considered as great. I notice that recently the AFI included FOTR as one of the 100 best films ever made over the past 100+ years. In fact, its ranking at #50, was the highest of any film released over the past nine years. Of course, your small group of academic writers were most likely NOT part of the AFI panel. The people that made up the AFI panel were are film experts or make their living in film. That is what they were judging - a film.