Limiting potential imagination

[Althern]

I’m new, so guess my question goes here.

I wandered past a toy store recently and saw all the various LoTR figurines and paraphernalia in the window, which made me wonder: does it bother anybody else that now that the movies have been released, the visual identities of the principal characters have become fixed? When I first read the books (ages ago), I formed vivid mental images of the principals, which were subsequently modified with age and many re-readings, and now when I think about it, I have to be disciplined to retrieve those images, and not bug-eyed Elijah Wood.

And what of the new generation, who see the films first and read second? Will their experience of the books be less, given that somebody else has done the imagining for them?

[Lalaith]

Althern, this is a very important point, I'm really glad you've raised it.
The cinema is such a powerful and dominating medium that it can easily overwhelm the tentative figments of individual imagination.
I don't know if I will ever be able to conjure up my own personal vision of the places and people of Middle Earth in the same way again, either...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Welcome to the Downs, Althern! You're starting off with an interesting question, and I hope you get many responses. I agree that limiting the millions of imaginations to one picture would be a shame.

I read the book first, many years ago, so my inner images were there first. Some of them coincide pretty well with the movie characters - Gandalf, Bilbo, and Saruman, to mention those that occur to me right away. Some of those which are different don't bother me - Boromir was excellent, Gimli too, and so was Sam, for example - oh, and Gollum, of course! Éowyn and Éomer are fairly close, though not quite. I accept most of the others in the context of the movie, though they don't fit my images - Frodo, Aragorn and the Elves, especially Arwen, Elrond, and Galadriel.

As to locations, the Shire and Bag End are spot on, Rohan slightly different but fine, Helm's Deep good, Minas Tirith different but OK, Rivendell different but nice too, Lothlórien too different from my book image for my taste, the tower locations all pretty good.

Question is of course, will I be able to keep those images separate when I read the book again? I hope so!

There's a similar topic on the Books forum, which you might like to read: Still forming your own images of Middle-earth? Enjoy!

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:07 AM January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

[The Saucepan Man]

For me, the visual imagery of the films matches with that formed in my imagination in most cases, although where the two do diverge I have no difficulty in sticking with my own image when reading the book.

To some extent, it is not a novel issue. Artists have beeen depicting Tolkien's world ever since his works were first published, and many of their images have become well-known, almost part of the common Tolkien-fan consciousness. It is because Jackson drew on the talents of Alan Lee and John Howe that the film matches up so well to people's own imagined picture of Middle-earth. And the production team was no doubt inspired by other artists too.

I think that we form our own images when we read the book and adopt those that we see which match up with (or perhaps, sometimes, improve upon) those images. I recall having rejected images which did not click with me many times (the Brothers Hildebrandt spring to mind [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), and I still do this with aspects of the films (the depiction of Elves, for example) when reading the books.

But then again, I read the book first, before seeing any of these images. The difficulty, I suppose, arises when it is the externally produced image which comes first. I would be interested to hear on this issue from those who saw the films first and read the book second. I suspect that, in those circumstances, it maybe difficult to dislodge the imagery from the films.

So I don't have this concern for myself, more for my children. Will they ever go through the process of imagining it all for themselves, or will they just stick with the film images?

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:22 AM January 28, 2004: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Kransha]

I was lucky enough to have most of my pre-formed mental images agree with those in the movie. In terms of people: Gimli (except for the comic relief element), Bilbo, Gandalf, Saruman, Treebeard, Eowyn, Grima, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Boromir, and the Nazgul were all how i'd pictured them. On the other hand, Legolas, Frodo, Theoden, Denethor, Faramir, and some others were not, though that really depends on my pictures of them mentally, rather than my mental pictures of them (if that makes any sense).

In terms of places: Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Edoras, Helm's Deep, Bree, Moria, Rivendell, Orthanc, the Shire, and most of Mordor seemed accurate enough to me, except for minor details. In fact, I don't think any of the places were too inaccurate.

[Althern]

Estelyn: Thank you for the link to the thread. I thought about searching for something, but I could not immediately think of the right terms with which to search. In hindsight, ‘mental image’ probably would have sufficed. It was interesting to see opinions for both points of view offered by those who read the books either after or immediately before seeing the films.

Saucepan Man: The point you make about book inspired art is fair, and like you, I find that I quickly accept, assimilate or reject any given item or theme with my mental images. My point is that the movies require you to pay attention to an interpretation for over nine hours, and I argue that this has a far greater influence on your own impressions than looking at pictures, and that this influence would be overwhelming if you have not read the books beforehand. I think the point is that we care so much about LoTR that we feel the difference between our book-inspired images and the movie so keenly. I certainly have no trouble letting the film version of say, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird replace an old mental image.

As for individual discrepancies, there are too many to list, but the one that sprang to mind when I was writing my .sig was that NZ does not really boast a river that could be charitably described as ‘great’. In FoTR the mighty Anduin never looked so small (or so shallow).

[Meela]

I had a few images in my head before the films were released. In particular, Bilbo and Gollum, who have been stuck in my head for a long time.

I don't find that the films have changed the way I imagine things in the book. When I read, I find I still have a set of separate images that I can call upon, as well as the images from the films.
In particular, I had very specific ideas as to how Minas Tirith looked. The images of it in the film came as such a surprise, as they were rather contrasting to my own images, so I prefer to revert to my own ideas when reading.

[Sleeping Beauty]

I agree with everyone one else so far. The images I already had in my head are never going to be changed from I already had.

But as far as other people, I don't think it's going to effect the images of the ones that will remain fans of the series. Yes, you are going to have those who might read the stories once and just think of the characters. But the ones who will remain loyal to Lord of the Rings and Tolkien will begin soon to make their own images and ideas. It will just take some time.

[Lalaith]

People's imaginations work in different ways. In mine, the characters that peopled Middle Earth were quite clear and vivid, but the places were often shadowy and poorly defined. I had visualised Rohan as more flat and prairie-like, but that was about the only real discrepancy I can think of, I thought most of the settings in the film were splendid, and because I had no precise idea of them beforehand, I am happy to accept the film versions.
The characters are quite a different matter and my views on those are variable. the film Eomer and Gandalf were the most acceptable to my imagination, I think that the one I am most unhappy about is Theoden.

[Ainaserkewen]

Maybe I'm just odd but...
I saw the FOTR before I had even considered picking up a book. I was drawn in by the story and had met the characters for the first time. Oddly enough though, even today after watching the movies more than is probably good for me, I find that the characters from the books don't match the actors. I have no clear view as to what the book characters look like for me, they just don't match say...what did you call him "bug-eyed Elijah Wood". It's almost like it's a different story to me. If I were to put faces to the characters, I think I'd find that they looked more like the animated characters. Not as glamorous as the live actors, and even though they're animated, more realistic.

The movies were very powerful images, yes. But at least to me the visual and the imagination will always remain two seperate entities, never to amalgamate.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 6:27 PM February 03, 2004: Message edited by: Ainaserkewen ]

[zb]

Maybe I'm odd, but I don't have mental pictures of the books at all. If I were to read and concentrate on the character descriptions, I guess I could conciously make a picture in my mind, but when I'm reading, things tend to be shadowy, and I like it that way. I like the fact that I (in my lack of visual imagination) can't tell you what the heck "fair yet grim" looks like, or how it is that Gandalf and Aragorn manage the looking-taller-and younger looking-shorter-and-older trick. Until the movies, I couldn't even tell you what "one voice and terrible" sounded like, I could only tell you that the construction of that phrase gave me goosebumps and I'm sure the real thing sounded cool. (It did!)

So what I regret about having seen the movies is that I now have pictures of various places - which are excellent pictures, I might add, but still pictures. And I am most annoyed at the occasions when PJ tried to actually show things Tolkien said which I'd never have taken literally - think: Gandalf's "conjurer of cheap tricks" line; Bilbo's sudden Gollum transformation; Galadriel's radioactivity. (He seemed to get over this tendency after FotR, thankfully.)

[Gorwingel]

I have been able, even though I did see FOTR first, to create images of my own while reading the books. I think it is because when I read the book I found that many of the characterizations of the characters in the movie really didn't fit with the book (in the film the characters are much simplified, in the book they are much more complicated with more depth). When I read the book my Frodo is a much wiser, intelligent and less naïve character, much different than the annoying (at times), less intelligent (it seems), younger film Frodo.
And I have also been able to conjure up my own images of locations (like Rivendell), in which the film really didn’t match my personal image of what it should look like. And additionally I also agree with zb. Some of the things that Tolkien describes in the books are very hard to actually come up with an image of (my example being the lights on the Dead Marshes, or the Balrogs). I think that now I have actually been more affected with images of the villains than the good guys. I will always think of the film Balrog instead of an image that I could have come up with on my own if I would have read the books before the films.

[Imladris]

I must be a bit odd. Whenever I read anything, people are very hazy and I have only a "fuzzy" vision of them, no matter how well they are described (it is the opposite with land). So watching PJ's version of LotR has helped me. Like Elijah Wood fits my hazy vision of Frodo. Thankfully, PJ has dispelled my former vision of elves that I retained from the animated hobbit.

I do not believe that anyone who has seen the movie first and then read the books will be permanently stuck with the "PJ image". Maybe on the first and second and third reads, but gradually the images will fade and Tolkien's image will replace them to an extent.

[rutslegolas]

when i first read this book i too had differnt character sketches in mind and the chracters in the film were somewhat similar

i would also like to say that before reading the harry potter books i watched its first movie and then i really enjoyed reading those books because the characters were all there in my mind and while reading i had a sort of film going on in my mind with those film characters

but i guess the imagination is really ones own personal question,some like to form their own characters while others like the characters from the films,etc.

[Saraphim]

One thing i can't stand about the movies is Legolas. I can no longer read the book without the blond-haired, black-eyebrowed, arrow and obvious-comment spewing character invading my mind. This also happens with Frodo, but Elijah Wood does a better and more convincing character than orlando Bloom, so it's not as annoying.
Oddly, Gandalf and Aragorn looked and acted just as I had pictured them, and Gimli and the hobbits to a certain degree. So most of the actors did imprint themselves onto my imagination, some more unfortunatly than others.
(Sorry to any and all offended by my spiel)

[Kransha]

Actually, on the discussion of interpretations, take a look at those old Hildebrant Brothers' LotR pictures. I remember looking at those and being incredibly confused by their lack of Tolkeiniity. Others may not share this opinion, but I didn't like them.

For example, Gollum was a pudgy goblin who looked far more monstrous than pitiful. I knew he was still evil and mean, but they made him look like a shrunken troll.
-Orcs were once elves, right? Well apparently Melkor bred these deformed elves with pigs, since all the orcs and uruk-hai have giant pig snouts and swine tusks. I thought the film orcs made more sense visually.
-Actually, the Hildebrant Brothers originally had the blondie Legolas idea, depicted in their paintings. I just can't get over these two famou Tolkein artists' shortcomings.

Of course, I never let those pictures, or the films greatly influence my perception. Whenever I'm thinking about LotR nowadays, I paint out Legolas mentally. A character who is obvious the most action-ready, but has the least lines, and still maintains the facade of being a main character ought not to stick in there. Gimli should've been given more screen time, but he shined in FotR, had good pick-up lines, and kicked orc rump plenty of times for me to keep my faith in him.

[mark12_30]

I agree with Saucy, and I extend that to illustrations as well.

For me, the visual imagery of the films matches with that formed in my imagination in most cases, although where the two do diverge I have no difficulty in sticking with my own image when reading the book.

Basically, whenever I see something that is better than what I imagined, I adapt it. And if I don't like an image, it (eventually) gets tossed.

Very few of the Hildebrant pictures did my imagination any favors. But I have not retained a single Hildebrant image of a character as my own. Galadriel's mirror was almost okay, and for a while, I imagined Galadriel to look (a little) like that.

But now the Hildebrant Galadriel has been happily tossed in favor of Kate Blanchett. Dominic Moynahan has not replaced my Merry; Billy Boyd is encroaching on my Pippin but only partway; Elijah Wood is a separate and distinct Frodo from my book Frodo (but I enjoy both.) My Boromir tends to morph, occasionally taking on Sean-Bean-like qualities, but more often my own picture entirely.

My Aragorn and Viggo's Aragorn are two separate entities, although (as Frodo) I enjoy both. Likewise, Arwen; I enjoy both Movie-Arwen and Book-Arwen, but they are separate.

For Eowyn I have happily and almost entirely adapted Miranda Otto-- and am content.

My Legolas is fuzzy and indstinct, and morphs quite a bit.

PJ's Minas Tirith was magnificent and is now "mine." Likewise the beacons, although I still see them being lit as Gandalf and Pippin ride eastward.

Anyway, I could go on ad infinitum but you get the idea. I expect this progressive adaptation will continue as long as my interest in Tolkien remains.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 10:40 AM February 03, 2004: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Kransha]

In truth, almost all of the locations were accurate to the book and my perception. Barad-dur itself was rendered much better than many images I had, so I adopted that. Minas Tirith was flawless (except for the absence of Rammas Echor), Edoras was exact, as was Helm's Deep, Rivendell, etc.

Here are some cute little aspects to prove how twisted the Hildebrant interpretations are.

THAT'S a fellbeast??? It looks like a dinosaur!

It's a Balrog...but it looks like Beorn with bat wings.

Here are some of those pig-orcs I was talking about.

Treebeard......not touching this one.

[Lalaith]

You're right, they're dreadful!
But they are not ubiquitous...I for one had never seen them before. But the movies are I think becoming the definite version for most people.
We can be thankful at least that PJ's vision was in most respects far better than this illustrator's....

[Firefoot]

I'm with zb on this one. Unless I actually consciously try to envision a character or place, it just isn't there, with the possible exception of the very vivid and exciting scenes - for example at the end of Helm's Deep when it is describing how Gandalf came..."Down lept Shadowfax!...". Other than that I just don't see things when I read. When I think of a book character they are mostly described by their personality in my mind. In that way the book and the movie are definitely kept separate for me, for which I am glad.

[Armetiel]

I find most of the movie characters and places are actually almost the same as how I envisioned them, except for gollum, rivendell, boromir, faramir, and frodo, lothlorien, minas tirith and the winged steeds of the blackriders for example. However although I have adopted some of these images in my mind, they are only the ones that I had trouble picturing in the books, anything that I pictured in the books clearly that is different in the books, I still have kept my book image thankfully.

However, I imagine for anyone who hasn't read the books in years, and forgotten them, or seen the movies first, they probably would not come up with their own images, and most likely never will, because they would automatically see the movie image.


Also, if you'll remember, PJ based a lot of his imagery on pictures that had already been made, so that is probably why for many things the imagery is so similar to what we have read

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 2:39 AM February 04, 2004: Message edited by: Armetiel ]

[Kransha]

You can always find solace in the fact that some places have been left to your imagination. Some of the most beutiful, huge, wondrous places weren't seen in the movie; Gondolin, Nargothrond, Angband. Of course all of these are in the Silm. The only big Western 3rd Age Cities not seen yet are Dol Amroth, Pelargir, Laketown, Linhir, Dol Guldur, and some more. If the Hobbit is actually being made by PJ, we will see Mirkwood, Laketown, and Erebor soon enough.