![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Lalwende ... this is really quite simple. Either JRRTolkien was a human being like the rest of us or he was a God. If he was a human being, then he was not perfect and his work was not perfect. It would be the worst sort of pride and hubris to think that one cannot be improved upon.
I do not believe Tolkien was a god, God or GOD. And thus, I do not believe his work was perfect allowing not an iota of room for improvement. In point of fact, there are plenty of people who have written posts over the past six years who make thier case that - for them - Jackson did improve some things in the film over the way it was presented in the book. That has been stated here in a variety of threads. It has been stated repeatedly and often on at least five other Tolkien related message boards as well over the last six years. You may feel that this is impossible for you. But clearly others do not feel that way. And it worth noting that the area of improvement is not in the books of JRR Tolkien. Peter Jackson and his writing team did not attempt to rewrite the books of JRRT. The process of adapting a book to film was well known to Professor Tolkien. He sold the rights with the knowledge that changes would be made. Nobody makes a change because they believe that the change will make the product worse. They make changes believing they are improving the product. JRRT was a very smart man and he fully was aware of how the process worked. And he sold those rights of his own free will knowing that he had no further part in the adaption process. The areas of improvement were in the medium of film, not in the books. Last edited by Sauron the White; 01-15-2008 at 02:50 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Perhaps we could move away from this 'lots of people liked it' argument & you could offer a proper defence/refutation?
I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously, let alone considers them to have improved on Tolkien's work. Shippey has said some positive things about them, but has also offered much thoughtful criticism & has never claimed them to be superior. No-one in their right mind would say that it is impossible to improve on Tolkien's work - he himself acknowledged its imperfections. You're introducing a complete red herring here. The point being made is that the scriptwriters did not improve on Tolkien, & have demonstrated no evidence that they have that capability. Your position seems in fact to be that while neither JRRT or Peter Jackson is God, Jackson is far closer to divine status, & less deserving of any criticism. The Lord of the Rings movies are adaptations of Tolkien's work & as such they stand or fall by how well they present Tolkien's work, not by how much money they made, how many awards they won, or how many people like them. Are they a worthy tribute to Tolkien? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Quote:
And what is it that I am suppose to refute? Your contention about the Galadriel line? I have told you repeatedly that it is only a very small number of people who seem to share your ire about this concern. And that is some six years after the film was released with that line in it. Quote:
And I am not claiming the films to be superior to the book. I have said many times in many posts that the books and the films are very different things. One cannot fairly compare the qualities of a cinder block and an orange. Yes, I have said that the movies did improve in some ways upon the way things were presented in the book. Many other people have said the same thing here and in other places. That does not make them superior to the books. It simply means that the filmmakers did their job and came up with some innovations which improved the story as told in the medium of film. Quote:
I could do a few hours of research and come up with it but lets save the trouble and just go the the post from minutes ago directly before yours. From Lalwende, whom I believe you know. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have asked for refutation. I humbly attempted to oblige you sir. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
![]() ![]() |
I'm not a Tolkien fundamentalist, and as far as I'm concerned, there are certain things that work brilliantly in the films.
For example, Eowyn and Aragorn exchanging looks, with a fluttering banner of the white horse on the green field falling to the ground, combined with Shore's haunting Rohan theme. That moment tells you a very great deal about Eowyn's concerns about the fate of the house of Eorl, about why she developed her "soldier's crush" on Aragorn, etc. All *without* corny dialogue. Then, there's scenes using Tolkien's language - Gandalf on the bridge, "Flame of Udun", for example, so memorably. And moments that were not in the book at all but also worked, for me - Eowyn's lament over Theodred, for example. And, hell, yes, Arwen at the ford. It looked fabulous. But I don't like film-makers assuming I'm stupid. I got that feeling a lot in the LotR trilogy....LOOK THIS IS HOW X IS FEELING RIGHT NOW all-spelt-out-in-your-face-dialogue. And, to get this thread back on topic, ahem. I also got it a lot in Compass. There, I felt the film-makers weren't even trying to talk to me, just show me a whole bunch of stuff, really fast so I wouldn't get bored. What with me being so stupid and having such a short attention span and all. I didn't get that feeling in Stardust, in that movie it felt like the film-makers were treating you like an adult, and taking you into a private joke. But maybe I would have felt differently if I'd read the original Gaiman novel. I don't know.
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Loremaster of Annúminas
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,330
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Yaaa-wwww-nnnnn.
Yes, we've heard the rant before. Is Tolkien a deity? No. Is his work perfect? No Could it, hypothetically, be improved upon? Possibly. But could this brilliant writer's work be improved upon by writers as mundane, insensitive, cliche-ridden and tone-deaf as Jackson, Walsh and Boyens? Not by a hundred leagues. But the capper is this: Quote:
And you know what? I don't give sweet buggerall if a bunch of Hollywood writers took PBW's script for Shinola rather than what it was. Hollywood writers- yeah, there's some real arbiters of artistry. I'm not in the least surprised that denizens of the Hollywood tripe-factory are utterly oblivious to Language. Their little gold statue is to my mind about as meaningful as a painting award from the Black Velvet Artists' Guild.
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Shade with a Blade
|
pwnd!
![]()
__________________
Stories and songs. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
from WCH
Quote:
In case you have forgotten or never knew in the first place... a book is one thing and a film is quite another. Or maybe on some elemental level you knew it but just cannot accept the truth of it because it causes so many inner and intellectual conflicts. And get ready to call the thought police. Because I dare. I dare over and over and over again. And when you tire of it. I will dare some more. Sorry for the hyperbole but I am just trying to get into the spirit you showed here of going way over the top and being ridiculous. Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
You wanna play nice - we can play nice. You wanna be a jerk - we can do it that way too. I prefer nice. How about you? Last edited by Sauron the White; 01-15-2008 at 07:01 PM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Art is not perfect. Fact. Taking Tolkien apart to find the bricks and rebuild them into some perfect tower would for some involve the removal of Tom for example. To me, that would destroy it. Tom alas, is not suited to the modern taste. Tastes which are governed by all kinds of things which are not necessarily artistic choices. Politics for example. I note that Jackson was rumoured also to be remaking the British classic Dambusters and there was plenty of discussion about whether he would rename Guy Gibson's dog; the conclusion was he undoubtedly would. And even Susan's treatment in Narnia may be something I hate but I would never be so presumptious as to think if her end were forever Bowdlerised out of future editions then it would be OK. Because it wouldn't be OK at all. It would be wrong. But such things are entirely and utterly subjective. Your improvements to Tolkien are not mine. Mine are not yours. Who is going to decide which is 'correct'? I'm sure you appreciate the kind of subjectivity and tail chasing this can only result in. The easy answer to which improvements are 'best' or 'appropriate' is that ultimately, none are. They are not 'improvements', it would be sheer arrogance to claim your own version was better. They are instead 'versions' or 'interpretations'.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In a flower
Posts: 97
![]() |
After reading this thread once again, I have to ask a serious question here, because the thread brought it to mind and for some reason I think I have been told this before.
Were not Tolkien's LoTR books highly criticized by his own peers...i.e. English Professors?
__________________
Lurking behind Uncle Fester |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |