Is all the "magic" gone?

[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?

[mollecon]

In a way I'm glad I read the books many times long before the movies came. I've noticed than when reading them now, I'm still having the 'old' pictures in my head. Not that PJ's vision of Middle Earth have left them abselutely untouched, but by & large, they're the same. And it's not cos I don't like the movies, I'm a 'confirmed admirer' just as Saucepan Man.

[Essex]

I would have agreed with most of what you guys say above, except for the final film.

This just blew me away. Everytime I see it, it just gets better and better. No way in a million years did I think anyone could pull this job off. When I was growing up, I always had a wish that if I won the pools or inherited millions of pounds I would do one of 2 things. I would a/ take over Arsenal Football Club or b/ make a live action movie of Lord of the Rings.

Mr Jackson beat me to b/, and I'm eternally grateful to him. Not even mentioning the first 2 which were fantastic, but ROTK just seems so RIGHT. The magic IS there. Maybe different to the books, but there all the same. I am still staggered by how well Jackson did it. I cannot put my finger on WHY it is almost perfect. All I can say is that the changes he made I have no problems with (omissions will hopefully be fixed by the EE).

You may think I'm going over the top, but all year long before rotk came out it was all I could think of. i.e. how good was the movie going to be? Could I dare to think it would be almost perfect? I did, and was rewarded.....

Anyone got a few million spare so I can realise my other wish?

[Vanya]

One of members of the other, Serbian forum that I visit, has this experience:
She didn' read the book befor FOTR and TTT, she was delighted, overwhelmed with films. But, then she did read the book, and did so twice, before ROTK. She said that she was very disappointed by it, that it was full of holes.... but she saw it several times after ffew month pause. The impression was totally different then. She loved it!
I already said that for me, knowledge of the legends, history and great characters of old days, makes the magic of Lotr( book and film). What actor doesn' say, I understand. What the history of some place is (such as Amon Sul or Argonath, for example), that felowshipp passes by, I know and understand it.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I shall agree with Meneltarmacil and say that the Entmoot was a particular area where I felt the magic was lacking. The funny thing is, I went from wonder to disappointment in a very short space of time, because when Treebeard was introduced I was astonished by how good he was, but I thought the gathering of Ents was just badly done.

Essex, I am delighted for you if you enjoyed The Return of the King so much. I, however, am more inclined to side with Bethberry in thinking that The Fellowship of the Ring was the film with the most magic and that, unhappily, it all went downhill from there. I have noted before that my vanishing optimism for the movies probably has much to do with spending so much time on the Downs, and thus hearing some excellent points from the anti-movie camp! These debates have definitely dragged me over from the 'pro-movie' camp to somewhere right in the middle.

[The Saucepan Man]

The magic IS there. Maybe different to the books, but there all the same.

I do agree with you, Essex, that there is magic in the films. And I think that it is slightly different from, and not as strong as, that evoked by the books. I found it to be at its most intense when the films were at their closest to my own personal visualisation of Middle-earth. Two particular aspects of the films stand out in my mind: the appearance of the Eagles and the Sammath Naur scene (and its aftermath). I NEVER cry in films, and yet tears were streaming down my face at these points. For me, these moments were almost perfect.

I am not sure that the films created any "magic" of their own (other than the SFX wizardry ). But, for me, they do at certain points powerfully reflect the "magic" of the books, although it is just a reflection - not the "real thing".