Is all the "magic" gone?

[Vanya]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Imladris]

As has been said before, in a movie your imagination is severely limited.

However, everybody has their own imagination that molds the magic of what Tolkien himself wrote. I wouldn't be surprised if each one of us envisioned Galadriel differently, the Shire differently, the wargs differently, the orcs differently, heck, we probably each had our own vision of Gandalf's staff. And when PJ made the movie, he did it according to his own imagination. Therefore, it's his view of Tolkien's magic -- not ours. So that is, in part, why movies based on books do not have that magic.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am a confirmed admirer of the films, but I do agree that they do not hold the same "magic" as the books. I think that this is an inevitable consequence of the transformation of the story to the silver screen, not just because of the alterations to the story and characters, but also (primarily?) because (as others have suggested) the "enforced" visualisation (marvellous though it was, in my opinion) robs us of our own opportunity to visualise the events and characters portrayed. Like others, I find it hard to put my finger on it any more than that, but it is perhaps related to the concept of "enchantment" (or loss of it in the film-making process) discussed here.

I do not, however, believe that seeing the films robs us of our ability to be enchanted by the books. At least it has not for me. Perhaps it might be different for someone who saw the films before reading the books. Anyone care to comment?