Think about it. Please.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Maybe it's not just us Downers?

Noes! You means we Downers isn't as unique and witty and clevers as we thinks we is?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

alatar, thank you for those interesting links! I read the articles with great enjoyment, especially the comments on the Pride and Prejudice movie, as I'm one of the enthusiastic readers who watches the film versions very closely. (They mentioned only the Hollywood movie, not the one and only visual interpretation - the BBC series.) And of course the book is better!! After all, the readers' taste in men is different - I can imagine Mr. Darcy to look exactly as I want him to!

Oh, and any article that manages to use "persnickety" - one of my favorite words! - has my full approval.

I do not agree with the author of the second linked article on the subject of the LotR movie being better than the book, but there's no accounting for tastes, as my old Gaffer would say...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Noes! You means we Downers isn't as unique and witty and clevers as we thinks we is?

Bb behave.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

I do not agree with the author of the second linked article on the subject of the LotR movie being better than the book, but there's no accounting for tastes, as my old Gaffer would say...

Agreed. Like stated, watch LotR with the sound off. You tend not to get as choked up. Can you read LotR (or any book) with the 'sound off?' Is this the difference?

[Sauron the White]

Wouldn't watching LOTR without the sound be a bit like trying to read the books with one eye closed wearing very dark sunglasses? Its just not the same complete experience.

I did read the second linked article where the author says the book LOTR was not as good as the film. Again, you cannot compare apples and cinderblocks so I do not join here on that. I will say that I once read the book FOREST GUMP and then saw the movie. No comparison. The book was racist and offensive in places. The film was uplifting and life affirming.

So there is something to all of this.................


I just am not sure what it is.

[Boromir88]

The best learning occurs when you bring people who have different opinions, personalities, morals...etc together and get them discussing about a topic.

"Group work" is something that is used in a lot of classrooms (at least in the States, I don't want to speak for others). The groups that create the best products are not the ones that all agree and say what a great idea this is. They might all get along and play nicely but they most likely won't have the best finished product, because of the lack of diverse opinions. Where if you put a group together where the people are almost completely opposite (as far as opinions, morals...etc) they might not be best buddies, but they will have a finished product that tells the full story, not just one side of it.

I don't know why either, and maybe it's just a human thing, why we obsess with getting a clear, correct answer. It would probably make me live longer if everyone would just agree with me ( ), but not everything needs one "correct" answer, one "correct" definition. The great thing about interpretting literature, movies, or even history, is it's all about personal taste. Some are going to like it, some are not. Tolkien had his fair share of critics, I disagree with them, but there have been several who I think make good supportive arguments for feeling the way they do (I might get hung for saying this but The Silmarillion is giant bore to me). Personally, I enjoyed all the movies (and yes I mean that), but I will be blunt, I don't care if 500 million people and film critics thought these were the best things since sliced bread. If I don't like something with the movies, I'll say it.

In this forum, we have people from around the entire world, and I'm sure I can find one thing I disagree on with every member. Raynor, Mith, Matthew, davem, Lal, Nogrod, Thinlo, Sauce...the list goes on of fellow members I've had little disagreements with. However, just because we all disagree, does not mean we can't play nicely.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In searching for other information, I came across three articles in The Encyclopedia of Arda. They compare the movies to the book, doing so not because they disapprove of the movies, but to help those who saw them without being familiar with Tolkien's books.

Here's a passage that fits into this discussion:

From viewers who have never read the original books, the response seems to be almost universally positive. For those of us who know Tolkien's tales well, though, while we can certainly enjoy the movie on its own level too, it's probably true to say that there's a general sense of discomfort at its distance from the original work. It's beyond the aims of this article to try to judge the rights and wrongs of such changes, but they've generated such a response that it would be remiss not to comment on them, however briefly.

At one extreme of this argument is the view that sees the movie of The Two Towers purely as a work by Peter Jackson and his colleagues. This view was succinctly expressed by the commentator Mark Lawson in his column for The Guardian newspaper. Writing of negative responses to The Fellowship of the Ring, he expressed the view that 'This hostility to interpretation is anti-cinematic. The point of movies is to rip up the words and reassemble them as pictures which may - which should - differ in key details.' It has to be said that - at least in a general sense - he is absolutely right about this. One recent popular example of this is the adaptation of Ted Hughes' wonderful fable The Iron Man, which was turned into an animated feature film, The Iron Giant, in 1999. That film jettisoned almost every character and situation from the original book, deleted its entire second half, relocated the action in time and in space: in fact, it fundamentally modified the original in almost every way, and yet the result was a charming and engaging tale in its own right (to the extent that visitors to the Internet Movie Database consider it the 198th best movie ever made, at least at the time of writing). So, there clearly isn't anything intrinsically 'wrong' about making radical changes like this.

But this freedom of interpretation must surely be valid only up to a point. If we were to see a film version of Romeo and Juliet with a happy ending, say, it's hard to imagine the critics accepting that 'reassembly' in a positive light. When Thomas Bowdler attempted to revise and adapt Shakespeare's works to his contemporary (early nineteenth century) audience, his reward was to be immortalised by the scornful word 'bowdlerise'. So, there is a line beyond which an adapter strays at their peril, at least for some exceptional works.

Of course it would be preposterous to compare Tolkien to Shakespeare (or Peter Jackson to Thomas Bowdler!), but it can be argued that his work has a particular exceptional quality of its own. Tolkien is unique in that his stories take place in a fully realised universe, and one that (to a great extent) pre-existed the stories themselves. The Lord of the Rings is an historical novel, and the trivial fact that its history is a fictional one is really beside the point. Its consistent adherence to its own underlying reality is a key (perhaps the key) strength of the book. Even the tiniest of changes within the story can potentially have profound effects on the fabric of its universe, and it's that universe, as much as the stories he set in it, that is Tolkien's true legacy. Perhaps that consideration can help define what's a reasonable change to the original story - the extent to which it enhances or diminishes the broader tapestry into which the story is woven.

For those who would like to read the comparisons, here are the links: A Movie-goer's Guide: FotR, TTT, RotK

[davem]

We had a discussion a while back on a decision the makers of the Middle Earth on-line game had made, to allow 'interracial' marriage & gay relationships in their Middle-earth, & whether there was line which shouldn't be crossed as regards what should & should not be allowed - or rather what could be allowed in to any manifestation of Tolkien's world, if it was to remain in any way faithful to the original.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13903

Can an adaptor of a secondary world into another form/media do just anything they want, or should they stay within the limits set by the creator? If Jackson had introduced aeroplanes or guns into 'his' Middle-earth, would that have been acceptable 'because books & movies are different things', or should there have been a line drawn somewhere to keep the movies 'in the spirit' of Tolkien? And if you believe that there should have been such a line (wherever you'd have drawn it) aren't you inviting a comparison between the book & film & admitting that the book in some way determines what the film can & cannot depict?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

.... and many of those same people had some sort of axe to grind, some sort of personal antagonism towards the film(s)

There you're being unfair. I had no axe to grind about the movies: I anticipated them eagerly, and nobody wanted them to succeed artistically more than I. I was even prepared to discount the rumors that leaked from the set like Wizard-fu and the Round Spiked Wheelie Dealie. I really, really looked forward to them: and I was let down. I realize you are one of those who want to detach film adaptations from the originals, to stand completely on their own (although there are elements where the films fail by themselves without external reference); but for me they always were and are a derivative extension of the books, and cannot be (in my mind) separated from them any more than a finger from a hand.

I love movies, and I have (I think) pretty good standards of judgment. Again, PJ disappointed me: for all his admitted logistical brilliance in putting it together, as a writer and director he proved to be hamhanded, unsubtle, excessive, and self-indulgent. A second-rate Spielberg.

Consider for a moment how, say, Kurosawa would have done it! Or John Ford. Or even Coppola Or or or.


(BTW, GWTW was an improvement on the book because, face it, Mitchell's novel was a potboiler. If written today it would have Fabio on the cover).