'An attrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book' - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Erulasto · 02-18-2003, 01:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sadly, I cannot. I thought that Tolkien's plot and characterisation were absolute genius; I think that they would have made a stunning trilogy (or better still a sextet) of films without any changes being made to characters' motivations or actions, without any changes to the order of events, and with a brilliant cliffhanger at the end of The Two Towers, in which everyone who hadn't read the books would think that Frodo had died, only to be flooded with relief when it was revealed not to be true, as I was when I first read the novel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I don't think this would have worked. What works in a book does not always work on film. Too much happens in TTT to translate it to screen directly while preserving dramatic tension, and ROTK would suffer if the encounter with Shelob took place at the end of the second movie - not much happens to Frodo and Sam after that, until they get to Orodruin. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What does this mean? That if we thought the film of The Two Towers was awful that we should just shut up and lump it? This forum is for the free exchange of ideas about Tolkien and matters relating to him, which means that anybody is allowed to express their opinion, whatever it may be. Be extremely careful what you say, as you are close to advocating censorship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, not censorship - self-control. I was shouted down with 'everyone has their opinion'. Yes, everyone does, and everyone has a right to express their opinion. This doesn't mean that I can't disagree with those opinions, especially if they're expressed in less-than-civil terms (i.e. 'it's horrible, a travesty, an insult). My point was that if you say something negative, be prepared to face the consequences. If someone has the opinion that my mother is a whore, they can express it just fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if I deck them for that opinion. (an extreme example, but I hope you get what I mean) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's funny, but I've noticed the same thing about people who loved the films talking to people who didn't. Why can we not all realise that our appreciation of books and films is not objective? Just because one person loved the film of The Two Towers and another hated it does not make either of them wrong, pathetic or unpleasant. For Eru's sake, we're all Tolkien fans here: don't let some films tear us apart; that's the last thing that the Professor would want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, and if someone simply says they did not like it, I wouldn't care one way or the other, and I certainly wouldn't start telling them they're stupid. 'An atrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book' is not saying you didn't like it. It's pure, bigoted viciousness, which anyone with a brain can see is NOT true.'The book is better' - I agree. 'The film is a piece of ****' - clearly it is not/ 'The film isn't faithful to the book' - Again, incorrect: it takes liberties with the plot, but it is INCREDIBLY faithful to it otherwise. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No it isn't. I find that for me imagining it excels seeing it "as the first of May doth the last of December" (Benedick of Padua in Much Ado About Nothing), especially as Tolkien knew exactly how things were supposed to look and described them with enough detail to convey his vision, but with enough left out to make everyone's idea of each place unique to them. This is why I never enjoy a film made from a book as much as I enjoy the book itself. But that's what works for me: it doesn't work for everyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We're not talking about the same thing here. Surely 95% of people PHYSICALLY saw something in the movies which was exactly like they imagined, and the wonder of this is what I was talking about. I still imagine Bree to be different, and the movie hasn't impaired my enjoyment of my own image of it.I find the movie got a very large amount of things right, in terms of atmosphere and details. Sitting in the theater, the lights going out, the New Line logo appearing... and then hearing elvish: 'I amar prestar aen...' THAT is the magic of Tolkien brought to life by Peter Jackson, and actually hearing and seeing affects people on a different level than imagination fuelled by words on paper. If this weren't the case, people would read travelogues instead of going to the places. And this movie is as close to going there as any of us are likely to get in at least 20 years (until VR technology takes off). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Me too. For Tolkien it was real: as real as ancient Rome or Anglo-Saxon England. He compared Venice to "A dream of old Gondor". He knew that his fictional places had never really existed, but he never lost the child-like magic of pretending that they were real. See? I hated the film of The Two Towers, you clearly loved it, but we agree on something. Isn't that better than insulting each other?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure it is. But how far would I get if I made a thread named 'The Two Towers book is a piece of trash not worth the paper it was printed on'? (to the intellectually impaired - i don't think this, i love the book, this was an example) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I quite agree. However, the way I see it if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it makes no difference to the length of the film how Théoden or Faramir behaves or why; if those things do not affect the three-film structure and filming the scenes is possible (with today's computer animation, I fail to see how any scene could not be), then why not just leave it the way Tolkien wrote it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There isn't enough time. The scenes would be weak and uninteresting to anyone who hasn't read the books. A Ralph Bakshi-style 'Greatest Hits of LOTR' is not something anyone other than hardcore fans wants to see. It would be a poor film. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>After all, it's easier on the script-writers that way. Changing things for other reasons just looks frivolous and unnecessary to me, but a lot of you clearly didn't mind and that's good for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're wrong about the frivolous and unnecessary nature of the changes. They're quite necessary to make the story work on FILM. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can't agree there. I loved the fact that the white flowers grew on the mounds in the film, but for me the way in which Théoden behaves and his motivations are part of who and what that character is. To me if he behaves differently, or for different reasons, then he is no longer Théoden, but somebody else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's where we differ - to me, the characters, while being well-written and interesting, were not what made LOTR the book that it was. The very fact that Tolkien talked of these flowers, and named them simbelmynë, and that the word was Anglo-Saxon for 'evermind', and that Anglo-Saxon represents the linguistic parent of Westron, which ties into 'holbytla' being the archaic form of 'hobbit', a word which reputedly just came to him from nowhere... That is pure and utter magic. And I'm incredibly glad that Peter Jackson understands this. What Théoden was like is purely secondary. There are thousands of writers who can create good and interesting characters. Only Tolkien has ever managed to make a world so incredibly real. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hear hear. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that it's wrong to say what we dislike about them, just as we would with an illustration that we didn't like (I prefer Tolkien's to most others, because he and he alone knew for certain how everything was supposed to look).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to disagree - Tolkien was a prolific writer, but hardly a prolific visual artist. Just because he knew what herbs and stewed rabbit tasted like doesn't say that I'd prefer his cooking over a 5 star chef's. If you get my meaning.I never said it was wrong to say what you dislike about the movies - I do think it's wrong to say the movies were AWFUL. I think you're looking at them from the wrong angle, and a lot of people don't give credit where credit's due. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have to get back to work now. I used my lunch break to type this and haven't eaten. Please, fellow Downers, don't make me have wasted my time by shouting at each other about some films. It really isn't worth it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, but I'll defend the films as much as I defend the books - because I love them both, and I'm sure you wouldn't stay quiet if someone said Tolkien was a hack and his books are terrible tripe.(again, intellectually challenged people should note that in the first part of that sentence I stated that I love the books)

02-18-2003, 01:47 AM	#11
Erulasto Pile O'Bones Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Estonia Posts: 15	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sadly, I cannot. I thought that Tolkien's plot and characterisation were absolute genius; I think that they would have made a stunning trilogy (or better still a sextet) of films without any changes being made to characters' motivations or actions, without any changes to the order of events, and with a brilliant cliffhanger at the end of The Two Towers, in which everyone who hadn't read the books would think that Frodo had died, only to be flooded with relief when it was revealed not to be true, as I was when I first read the novel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And I don't think this would have worked. What works in a book does not always work on film. Too much happens in TTT to translate it to screen directly while preserving dramatic tension, and ROTK would suffer if the encounter with Shelob took place at the end of the second movie - not much happens to Frodo and Sam after that, until they get to Orodruin.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What does this mean? That if we thought the film of The Two Towers was awful that we should just shut up and lump it? This forum is for the free exchange of ideas about Tolkien and matters relating to him, which means that anybody is allowed to express their opinion, whatever it may be. Be extremely careful what you say, as you are close to advocating censorship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, not censorship - self-control. I was shouted down with 'everyone has their opinion'. Yes, everyone does, and everyone has a right to express their opinion. This doesn't mean that I can't disagree with those opinions, especially if they're expressed in less-than-civil terms (i.e. 'it's horrible, a travesty, an insult). My point was that if you say something negative, be prepared to face the consequences. If someone has the opinion that my mother is a whore, they can express it just fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if I deck them for that opinion. (an extreme example, but I hope you get what I mean)<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's funny, but I've noticed the same thing about people who loved the films talking to people who didn't. Why can we not all realise that our appreciation of books and films is not objective? Just because one person loved the film of The Two Towers and another hated it does not make either of them wrong, pathetic or unpleasant. For Eru's sake, we're all Tolkien fans here: don't let some films tear us apart; that's the last thing that the Professor would want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed, and if someone simply says they did not like it, I wouldn't care one way or the other, and I certainly wouldn't start telling them they're stupid. 'An atrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book' is not saying you didn't like it. It's pure, bigoted viciousness, which anyone with a brain can see is NOT true.<P>'The book is better' - I agree.<BR>'The film is a piece of ****' - clearly it is not/<BR>'The film isn't faithful to the book' - Again, incorrect: it takes liberties with the plot, but it is INCREDIBLY faithful to it otherwise.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No it isn't. I find that for me imagining it excels seeing it "as the first of May doth the last of December" (Benedick of Padua in Much Ado About Nothing), especially as Tolkien knew exactly how things were supposed to look and described them with enough detail to convey his vision, but with enough left out to make everyone's idea of each place unique to them. This is why I never enjoy a film made from a book as much as I enjoy the book itself. But that's what works for me: it doesn't work for everyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We're not talking about the same thing here. Surely 95% of people PHYSICALLY saw something in the movies which was exactly like they imagined, and the wonder of this is what I was talking about. I still imagine Bree to be different, and the movie hasn't impaired my enjoyment of my own image of it.<P>I find the movie got a very large amount of things right, in terms of atmosphere and details. Sitting in the theater, the lights going out, the New Line logo appearing... and then hearing elvish: 'I amar prestar aen...' THAT is the magic of Tolkien brought to life by Peter Jackson, and actually hearing and seeing affects people on a different level than imagination fuelled by words on paper. If this weren't the case, people would read travelogues instead of going to the places. And this movie is as close to going there as any of us are likely to get in at least 20 years (until VR technology takes off).<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Me too. For Tolkien it was real: as real as ancient Rome or Anglo-Saxon England. He compared Venice to "A dream of old Gondor". He knew that his fictional places had never really existed, but he never lost the child-like magic of pretending that they were real. See? I hated the film of The Two Towers, you clearly loved it, but we agree on something. Isn't that better than insulting each other?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sure it is. But how far would I get if I made a thread named 'The Two Towers book is a piece of trash not worth the paper it was printed on'? (to the intellectually impaired - i don't think this, i love the book, this was an example)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I quite agree. However, the way I see it if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it makes no difference to the length of the film how Théoden or Faramir behaves or why; if those things do not affect the three-film structure and filming the scenes is possible (with today's computer animation, I fail to see how any scene could not be), then why not just leave it the way Tolkien wrote it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There isn't enough time. The scenes would be weak and uninteresting to anyone who hasn't read the books. A Ralph Bakshi-style 'Greatest Hits of LOTR' is not something anyone other than hardcore fans wants to see. It would be a poor film.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>After all, it's easier on the script-writers that way. Changing things for other reasons just looks frivolous and unnecessary to me, but a lot of you clearly didn't mind and that's good for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You're wrong about the frivolous and unnecessary nature of the changes. They're quite necessary to make the story work on FILM.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can't agree there. I loved the fact that the white flowers grew on the mounds in the film, but for me the way in which Théoden behaves and his motivations are part of who and what that character is. To me if he behaves differently, or for different reasons, then he is no longer Théoden, but somebody else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's where we differ - to me, the characters, while being well-written and interesting, were not what made LOTR the book that it was. The very fact that Tolkien talked of these flowers, and named them <I>simbelmynë</I>, and that the word was Anglo-Saxon for 'evermind', and that Anglo-Saxon represents the linguistic parent of Westron, which ties into 'holbytla' being the archaic form of 'hobbit', a word which reputedly just came to him from nowhere... That is pure and utter magic. And I'm incredibly glad that Peter Jackson understands this. What Théoden was like is purely secondary. <P>There are thousands of writers who can create good and interesting characters. Only Tolkien has ever managed to make a world so incredibly real.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hear hear. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that it's wrong to say what we dislike about them, just as we would with an illustration that we didn't like (I prefer Tolkien's to most others, because he and he alone knew for certain how everything was supposed to look).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree - Tolkien was a prolific writer, but hardly a prolific visual artist. Just because he knew what herbs and stewed rabbit tasted like doesn't say that I'd prefer his cooking over a 5 star chef's. If you get my meaning.<P>I never said it was wrong to say what you dislike about the movies - I do think it's wrong to say the movies were AWFUL. I think you're looking at them from the wrong angle, and a lot of people don't give credit where credit's due.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have to get back to work now. I used my lunch break to type this and haven't eaten. Please, fellow Downers, don't make me have wasted my time by shouting at each other about some films. It really isn't worth it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed, but I'll defend the films as much as I defend the books - because I love them both, and I'm sure you wouldn't stay quiet if someone said Tolkien was a hack and his books are terrible tripe.<P>(again, intellectually challenged people should note that in the first part of that sentence I stated that I love the books) __________________ Nîn o Chithaeglir, lasto beth daer! Rimmo nîn Bruinen dan in Ulaer!