COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

How dare you presume to comment on Tolkien if you actually think that Language is a 'very minor thing'?

You really get yourself worked up in quite a lather over nothing. But your righteous indignation only proves one thing. You have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be under the delusion that we are arguing about the writings of Tolkien. The books. No way Jose. The discussion was about a line in a movie written by a screenwriter.

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.

For Tolkien Language was the beginning and core of *everything.

Actually, language is one way to communicate meaning. And thats about it. Just because the author who wrote my favorite book believes something does not mean I suddenly convert to his value system. I will leave that to the True Believers, toadies and sycophants.

Tell me, why the hell do you read Tolkien? Pearls before swine. Stick to David Eddings

And you went to college for how many years to be able to express yourself like that? Now I completely understand all those sardonic lawyer jokes. Swine indeed!

Their little gold statue is to my mind about as meaningful as a painting award from the Black Velvet Artists' Guild.

Again, your own statements show your lack of knowledge. It matters not if you do not have any respect for the Oscars. The film making world certainly does. And that is what this thread is all about movies.

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?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Actually, language is one way to communicate meaning. And thats about it.

Hopeless. Simply hopeless. I suppose therefore we should render Shakespeare into modern idiom, because nobody talks like that any more, and the only function of language is purely utilitarian?

Language was an essential part of Tolkien's artistic technique. *You* don't have to subscribe, but anybody who presumes to undertake an adaptation of Tolkien had bloody well better understand what he's doing.


Yes, I know, I know, I know, movies are not books. I get it. But you act as if that that truism provides a convenient excuse for any act of vandalism in the name of 'adaptation.' Well, I ain't buying. An adaptation can legitimately be judged on how competently it translates its subject into a new medium. PJ's is a poor translation- which is unsurprising, given an interpreter without fluency in the original.

p.s. Lack of knowledge? Oh, no- this particular True Believer, toady and sycophant knows all too well how Oscar voting works, including the screenplay awards. You are aware, aren't you, that *every* person with a single writer credit gets a vote? Including those responsible for Porky's 3 and Ernest Goes to Camp. Survey your local Blockbuster for a grasp of the standards applied.

[Sauron the White]

Weird thing about this is if I posted an angry over the top raving post asking you "what the hell" and calling you a "swine" I am sure I would get a very angry email telling me I am no longer welcome here. Instead, you, get a fan raising a flaming video game control in tribute. Go figure.

You don't like my defintiion of purpose of language. Check out the start of the entry on Wikipedia

A language is a system of visual, auditory, or tactile symbols of communication and the rules used to manipulate them. Language can also refer to the use of such systems as a general phenomenon. Though commonly used as a means of communication among people, human language is only one instance of this phenomenon.

Sounds like a ten dollar way to say the same thing I did - language is a way to convey meaning.

But instead you wrap it in the shroud of JRR Tolkien and invoke his love of language. So what?

And now you parrot davem (lots of that going around too) in saying

An adaptation can legitimately judged on how competently it translates its subject into a new medium.

Oh really. Please cite the authoritative and objective source which states that you judge the success of a movie by its slavish faithfulness to the book that it originates from? Do you guys just make up your rules as you go along?

You want competence in translation. Sit on this for a bit. JRRT may have sold 50 million books in fifty years. Then Jackson does his films and suddenly over 500 million tickets are sold to see them. And he did that in only three years and that is not counting DVD sales which were considerable. Peter Jackson translated the books of JRRT to an entire new audience who did not previously know LORD OF THE RINGS from LORD OF THE DANCE. Scratch that. More people probably knew LORD OF THE DANCE.

To most people who recognize LORD OF THE RINGS, they are a series of very successful movies. And that is by a ratio of 10 to 1 in terms of sales.

You added this after my reply so i will reply to the addition.

You are aware, aren't you, that *every* person with a single writer credit gets a vote? Including those responsible for Porky's 3 and Ernest Goes to Camp

Imagine the total injustice of a sytem which allows professionals within the business to actually nominate the best in their own profession. WOW!!! I can see why you are outraged. Professional screenwriters judging the work of other professional screenwriters. What a concept.

Of course, every screen writer has to begin somewhere, even with entry level silly comedies. Of course, such writing can never be compared to the Shakespeare like lines

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong? hop along! fal lal the willow!

Who could ever improve on that?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Any reply at this point would be wasted pixels. You simply don't get it. I strongly suspect you can't.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - a good nights sleep must have helped you a bit. At least this morning you did not call me a swine. Pixels are not like mushrooms or fish of which there is only a limited supply. I do not think the pixel community will go into mourning if a few more are sacrificed upon the altar of debate.

What is it that I "do not get" or somehow am incapable of getting?

It has been my experience in the past that when people resort to the "you just don't get it" reason what they usually mean is that "you do not share my particular way of seeing this issue because of a different mindset". Or - "I have exhausted all my arguements and you still don't see it my way".

But please, elaborate.

[Essex]

anyway back to the Thread.

The Golden Compass has not translated as well across to the screen as Lord of the Rings because the source material is an inferior piece of writing and plot compared with Lord of the Rings

It's still a good tale, but is no where near as good as LOTR (to me anyway) and yes I have read Pullman's trilogy

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Essex

anyway back to the Thread.

The Golden Compass has not translated as well across to the screen as Lord of the Rings because the source material is an inferior piece of writing and plot compared with Lord of the Rings

It's still a good tale, but is no where near as good as LOTR (to me anyway) and yes I have read Pullman's trilogy

Interesting idea, Essex, that the difficulties of the movie derive from faults in the original material. It sort of puts screen writers and directors in an inferior position, but I'm sure there are script writers (or hopeful script writers) here who would take issue with that idea.

However, it is your claim of Pullman's inferiority that I want to think about. Of course all of us here on a Tolkien board would naturally favour Tolkien, but I wouldn't want it said that such preference would blind us or make us incapable of reaching an informed, perceptive and intelligent response to any other author, especially one who appears so clearly to be in a rival camp.

Pullman's His Dark Materials is not pure fantasy/fairie as is Tolkien's work. While Pullman clearly points to Blake and Milton as his inspiration, there is another English writer whose work clearly is a forerunner in the mode of fantasy. That is Jonathan Swift. His Gulliver's Travels is equally difficult to place within a genre. It isn't pure allegory. It isn't pure fantasy. It isn't pure philosophical fable. It isn't pure travel story. (Travel stories were of some interest back when Swift wrote.) It's an amalgm of all of those.

The readerly history of GT shows this--often expurgated to omit the Yahoos for children and to focus on the Lilliputians and secondly the Brobdingnagians. The third book is often regarded as the least appealing. Interestingly, it is the third book which is the most overtly philosophical. (I do get a kick out of the idea of philosopher's thought balloons though.) Movies of GT follow this line, often limiting themselves to the first one or two books only.

There is something to be said for literary works which don't adhere to pure aesthetic demands for uniformity, consistency, overarching coherence. I think Pullman's triloogy follows Swift in this regard. Thus, quite possibly it isn't as you say inferior writing which mars Pullman's work and makes it fail to translate to the screen, but that it is a different kind of work. And to force it into the fantasy/adventure/blockbuster movie genre is to demonstrate misunderstanding of its original nature.

Of course, the same can be said of PJ's work on LotR, that he forced Tolkien into the movie blockbuster mode and in doing so damaged the original work.

Cheers!