COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Wish I had seen the film or read the books so I could contribute to this thread. For what it's worth, I will say, as a Christian whom most would describe as a "right-wing fundamentalist", that I have zero problem with these films being made. Doesn't affect me one iota. I'm not gonna take my kids to them (assuming I have kids, which I don't, yet), but censorship is idiotic and immoral.

I don't see my God (the God of the New Testament and Old alike) as petty, vengeful, spiteful, or distant. Tolkien didn't either, and I doubt he would appreciate his Eru being characterized as such. But that goes way beyond this thread's topic.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Wish I had seen the film or read the books so I could contribute to this thread. For what it's worth, I will say, as a Christian whom most would describe as a "right-wing fundamentalist", that I have zero problem with these films being made. Doesn't affect me one iota. I'm not gonna take my kids to them (assuming I have kids, which I don't, yet), but censorship is idiotic and immoral.

I don't think censorship played any part in the movie's failure at the box office - this is a book which, in comparison to LotR, hardly anyone had read, so the fan base was fairly small. The trailer was too confusing & by removing the 'dangerous' message the movie was reduced to a bland adventure movie about a little girl & her best friend, a polar bear in a suit of armour. It wasn't going to attract the kind of audience New Line needed. Let's face it, the same people calling for a boycott of TGC called for a boycott of the Harry Potter movies - & look how far that got them.

Of course, I'm sure they'll claim it was all down to their boycott - though what effect that claim will have - whether it will be believed by the studios & lead to a situation where only movies (& possibly in the longer term TV series & books) that don't challenge religion get green-lighted - is something we'll have to wait & see about.

I don't see my God (the God of the New Testament and Old alike) as petty, vengeful, spiteful, or distant. Tolkien didn't either, and I doubt he would appreciate his Eru being characterized as such. But that goes way beyond this thread's topic.

The problem is, taking the books on their own, & seperating them from primary world elements/concepts//beings like God, one has to say that Eru is a very minor character who is not developed at all. The only thing Tolkien gives us is a few lines from him in Ainulindale & then the odd reference to him in some of the minor, posthumous, works - his two big moments are, one, the propounding of the Themes, in which he comes across as a kind of ultra petulant Beethoven, & the creation of Arda, in which he basically calls Arda into being, snaps 'Now see what you've done! Don't you think you should go sort that mess out?' & stomps off &, two, his totalling of Numenor, in which he comes across as more than a little trigger-happy, & less than a little creative, in his response.

The point is, if we avoid importing aspects of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(fill in the blank) Deity into Eru, we have a character who actually is 'vengeful, spiteful & distant', not to mention a major league egotist, & probably the least interesting character Tolkien invented - & one, as I've argued before, who seems only to exist in order to make the Legendarium a monotheistic mythology. When he does crop up its to be thoroughly irritating & the worst kind of deus ex machina.

[Lalaith]

the movie's failure at the box office

Hey, hold your horses, guys. Success and failure doesn't begin and end in the United States, there is a world out there....the film seems to have done really very well outside the US, and made $135m as of December 19th, and it hasn't even opened in Australia, Japan or Latin America yet.

I've got no axe to grind here, I haven't seen it yet, and I prefer Tolkien to Pullman, myself. But movie success shouldn't just be measured on US box office takings alone. The Passion of the Christ, for example was a huge hit in the US but it was more or less a flop everywhere else.

[Thenamir]

New Line will have to make $250 million on TGC in order to recover only the expenses and marketing. If in over two weeks of release they've made only half of that, I'd bet a fiver on the wager that they'll not make $250 million. Any takers?

[Aiwendil]

The point is, if we avoid importing aspects of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/(fill in the blank) Deity into Eru, we have a character who actually is 'vengeful, spiteful & distant',

You clearly have a deity who is 'distant'. But I think that when you say 'vengeful' and 'spiteful' you are actually reading the Judeo-Christo-Islamic God into Tolkien's work. As I argued earlier to Lalwende, the only Old Testament style smiting we ever see from Eru is the destruction of Numenor. Now that may certainly be interpreted as an 'evil' act (though that interpretation is not the only one), but I think it would be quite a stretch to say that this alone gives the reader sufficient insight into Eru's character to label him 'spiteful'.

As for your caricature of Eru's acts of creation, it might be countered by a different caricature: a loving Eru gave the wonderful faculty of creativity to the Ainur, propounded a theme to them out of which they fashioned a great and beautiful thing, and even suffered one of them to attempt to distort and destroy the Music. Then he showed them the beautiful thing they had made and, in accordance with their wish, brought it into being so that they might enter it if they wished.

Now, I don't wish to enter into a debate concerning the Ainulindale. But surely it will be granted that if a negative caricature is possible, so is a positive one. And I would say that neither is correct - the one is a humanist reading of the God of the Torah, the other a Christian reading of the God of the New Testament. Both bring in preconceived notions that derive from other sources than Tolkien's Legendarium.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

New Line will have to make $250 million on TGC in order to recover only the expenses and marketing. If in over two weeks of release they've made only half of that, I'd bet a fiver on the wager that they'll not make $250 million. Any takers?

Well, taking into account TV & DVD sales I suspect they will turn a profit on it - however, there are things working against a sequel: how much profit they turn - I suspect it won't be much at all, the fact that the next two volumes in the trilogy get increasingly bogged down in Pullman's Message, & while the ending may look spectacular on screen they whole 'death of God' thing itself is a bit of an anti-climax, given that he just whimpers & falls out of bed, & audiences for fantasy movies tend to be teenage boys in the main who won't shell out to see two hours of strange characters arguing about the nature of God & free will. And when you throw the implication of under-age shennanigans between Will & Lyra ....

In short, I can't see New Line, even if they do just go into profit on TGC - & as I say I'm sure they will deciding to risk another half a billion on two more movies - especially as they haven't really turned much of a profit on anything they've produced since LotR.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Now, I don't wish to enter into a debate concerning the Ainulindale. But surely it will be granted that if a negative caricature is possible, so is a positive one. And I would say that neither is correct - the one is a humanist reading of the God of the Torah, the other a Christian reading of the God of the New Testament. Both bring in preconceived notions that derive from other sources than Tolkien's Legendarium.

OK - maybe you have a point there. But... its difficult not to try & give some kind of character to such a figure, who is both a minor (in terms of his appearances) & major (in terms of his role) character in the Legendarium. Personally I find him annoying because you have an all powerful character who simply will not get off his backside & help those in need - those who are suffering because he chose to create Arda & allow Morgoth in there in full knowledge of the suffering & pain the would result. And why? Because it would redound to his greater glory. The horrific suffering of Numenor could have been prevented by one personal appearance, but he couldn't be bothered to pop up in time in a nice way - he pops up too late to prevent the tragedy of their corruption but in time to drown a good few thousand people.

As I've said before, I don't see any need for him to exist as a character - everything he does could be done by other characters or not done at all. The wrath of Ulmo is more acceptable & satisfying as justification for totalling Numenor than the intervention of a distant God who has finally decided to throw down his Newspaper & spank the naughty children.

[Lalaith]

Hmm... I will take your wager, Thenamir, because of Japan etc, and because the school holidays have only just started in a lot of European countries.

What's your axe against Pullman, out of interest?
Is it because you see him as a rival to Tolkien? I ask because I just spent some time at the work Christmas dinner, talking to two colleagues who were big Tolkien fans in youth and now have turned against him, much preferring Pullman and seeing the Prof as long-winded and dull.
I just don't feel the same way, I liked HDM a lot, but for me the trilogy just doesn't have the mythological grandeur and mystery of Middle Earth. I have no urge to find out more about Pullman's universe the way I did about Tolkien's when I first discovered it...I feel Pullman's already told me everything I need to know.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Hmm... I will take your wager, Thenamir, because of Japan etc, and because the school holidays have only just started in a lot of European countries. .

The question is will it make enough to pay for the sequel & a slap-up feast for New Line's Board of Directors (with pork pies, cream cakes & lashings of ginger beer)?

Seriously, I suspect it won't make enough to make it worth taking the risk on making The Subtle Knife - not as, rightly or wrongly, TGC is percieved by the public as a flop. I think that if New Line have a spare $250,000,000 to throw about they'll throw it in PJ's direction. If its a choice between handing it over to Chris Weitz to make TSN or to Jackson to throw at The Hobbit they'll go for the latter, even if it only gets used to make Smaug a little bit more dragony, Lake Town a little more Lake Towny & the Lonely Mountain a little bit more Lonely Mountainy.

Of course, it may be that the Hobbit duology makes so much money that New Line have no idea what to do with it, & so may decide to make TSN - though I suspect that given a choice they'd still use it to buy Jackson a solid gold trailer with a diamond encrusted toilet first...