Lord of the rings question

JonClarke · Aug 14, 2005

hraccts wrote: "I have read about a guy that has read LOTR over 10 times, or once a year. Now that, to me, is a little excessive to my way of thinking." Well, by your standards, I must be excessive. I have read LOTR about 20 or 30 times. This is not unusual, most of my favourite books I have read 10 or 20 times on average. But then, I am a voracious reader, averaging a book a week, both fiction and non fiction. In the last month for example I have read the latest Harry Potter novel (and got half way through a second reading before it was loaned out), a book about the year 1000, the official history of the Woomera test range ("Fire across the desert"), Steve Squyres' book about the MER rover missions, re-read "The day of the triffids". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Aug 14, 2005

Larper wrote: "I thought this is where Jackson shined most of all. I felt tremendous respect for the source material coming from the movie." How does reducing the moral depth of almost every character show respect for the source material? Gimili, a member of the ancient and noble race of dwarves, turned into a figure of low humour? Aragorn turned from the king who shows compassion on his enemies into a thug who says "show no mercy for you will be shown none?" Boromir changed from a person whose prime failing is over confidence to someone whose failing is an infantile desire to be shown worthy to his father? denathor, changed from a figure is tragady is surrender to dispair into a disgusting oaf who fiddles while Minas Tirith burns? Larper wrote: "If the movies don't 100% represent the subjective and personnal idea of each single reader in the world, then it's not the director's fault. He's not a mind reader. It's his movies, his project, his vision. Pleasing everyone is impossible." This is not my point, has I have sxplained earlier on many occasions. I don't expect a movie producer's vision to be the same as mine. I do expect him or her to produce a film where the characters are recognisable from the surfce material. It's not hard and has been done for many a good adaptations. Jacon et al did not, and did so deliberately. I think this is a dishonest choice and the films are worse as a result. Larper wrote: "Those who think he was disrespectful of the books can go out and film their own versions of the movies." By this argument only those who can duplicate the effort should criticise. So only authors should have opinions about books and only cooks views on restaurants. Fortunately, the reality is different. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

relaisterre · Aug 14, 2005

People must realize that making a movie from a book isn't simply to copy the dialogs, paste them into a script and have the cameras rollings. Scenes, characters and pacing must be changed when the medium changes. (EDIT: To whom was asking, my signature roughly means "At the end of the day, the author finishes his work.") <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This difference is not a question of interpretation but a deliberate choice by Jackson and his script writers to redefine the character. I find that unacceptable.<hr /></blockquote> Not accepting something is a choice people make. It's not the director's fault. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I suspect the changes were made because Jackson et al. thought they could tell a better story than Tolkien. <hr /></blockquote> No one can claim or even suspect to know what Jackson was thinking when he made the movies.

hracctsold · Aug 14, 2005

In answer to several people. Flynn, thanks for the heads up on the dvd of LOTR. I have seen it around but thot. it was just about the same as I have. Will have to again look at it, and see if Blockbuster has it for rent. Relaisterre, thanks for the translation of your quote, that was good. But there are sometimes that authors do not get to follow through on some books. I probably am wrong but I wish that Louie LaMor would have finished up on a book of his I read before he died. It was called "Last of His Breed," and it is a modern story of an Indian in the military who gets stuck in Russia chasing the bad guy in the wild in the middle of the winter, or something of that nature. It has been a while, but it was a good read, and could have been followed up on with little trouble. Jon, either you are a supersonic reader, not just a speed reader, or you do have some time to comfortably spend on non-essential things. There are just a few books I have dedicated that kind of time and energy to, but it is worth the effort to do so. This is by no means a slam or negative comment at all. I guess there are also some things I am personally wrapped up in as it seems you are about the way someone else has protrayed something you have put much effort and time into, (i.e. the 20-30 times you have read the books). More power to ya.

JonClarke · Aug 14, 2005

relaisterre wrote: "People must realize that making a movie from a book isn't simply to copy the dialogs, paste them into a script and have the cameras rollings. Scenes, characters and pacing must be changed when the medium changes. " Who said it was this simple? Certainly not me. There is often neccessary condensation, addition of bridging material, changes in perspective, as well as creative interpretation in the hurculean task of translating a book into a film. None of this requires changes to the characters and their motivations, or major changes to the story. If these changes are made that is the deliberate choice of the director and his or her script writers. And we, the watchers, pass judgement on wether or not this is a good decision. relaisterre wrote: "Not accepting something is a choice people make. It's not the director's fault. " Not a choice, but a judgment. Not perhaps the directors fault (we are not dealing with a criminal case), but responsibility. relaisterre wrote: "No one can claim or even suspect to know what Jackson was thinking when he made the movies. " Jackson and his script writers can. In several interviews they have said they thought they could improve on the story. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Aug 14, 2005

Yes, I am fast reader, and often skim read and then go back and read more slowly, savouring the book. But I would not under most circumstances, regard reading as non-essential. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

chebby · Aug 14, 2005

As to character casting, the only suprise for me was the role of Boramir, the human. I can't say why, but he was just not what I was thinking of in that role. I liked the movie version of Boramir much more than the book one. He was more evil in the book. In the movie you can't help but like him and feel for his cause when he asks for the ring. I get very sad each time I watch the part where he gets killed (and he gets killed for 20 damn minutes!) Sometimes I think Jackson should have changed the story and left Boramir alive to help throughout the whole movie. Now the book fanatics will let me have it <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

JonClarke · Aug 15, 2005

That's a very interesting observation, chebby. My first reaction on seeing FOTR was similar, that Bormir came across as a more sympathetic character than in the book. However why this should be so is not immediately clear. Boromir is not fundamentally evil in the book, nobody is this Tolkien's moral universe. Book Boromir is a kind, resourceful brave man and great military leader, admired and loved by his people, the members of the Fellowship, his father, brother, and those under his command. Is weakness is that he believes that the ends justify the means and is confident that he can wield the ring to military victory without compromising what he believes. The last third of FOTR is witness to this internal struggle within Boromir that pits his conscience, knewledge and the advice of the Wise against his own desire for victory and self confidence. On Amon Sul he sucumbs to temptation and tries to wrest the Ring from Frodo by force. Film faramir's temptation is, as I see it, very different. It is his fear of failure and a desire to prove himself a capable leader to his father that drives him to the confrontation with Frodo. Now it may be that the contemporary audience finds insercurity more sympathetic than hubris. However I suspect the reason for people warming to film Boromir is the way he was interpreted by Bean. I suspect had be been given the book Boromir Bean would have similarly interpreted him. Certainly the film loses by changing the exchange between the dying Boromir and Aragorn. No longer does Boromir confess his guilt and failure at trying to take the Ring, or Aragorn explain that he has not failed but rather conquered and that few had gained such a victory. Why? because Boromir of his own free will overcame the desire for the Ring, a moral victory that transcends his physical failure to protect merry and Pippin and is own death. While the film exchange is still very moving, it lacks the moral dimension of <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

jmilsom · Aug 15, 2005

Excellent discussion. I must say having read the books many times, I did cringe a little at parts of the films and agree mostly with JonClarke. The way some characters were misportrayed upset me. It shows what a simplistic, spoon-fed society we have become that we consistently sacrifice good charaterisation to make films popularly palatable. Aspects I loathed: the abuse of Gimli's character - inexcusable, Elrond's lack of grace, Legolas surfing on the Oliphant, Faramir, Aragorn the heart-throb rather than Aragorn the noble king of the book. Aspects I liked, the visualisations of Middle Earth - many were surprisingly as I had imagined. Gollum, the ents and the balrog were quite good (interesting that most of the monsters were done better than the humans). Gandalf, Sam, Saruman and, I agree Boromir were quite well done. My views on the rest, including Frodo were mixed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

hracctsold · Aug 15, 2005

Jon, It was interesting to see the post-script at the end of one of the last postings you have given, "hopefully not fanatical," for that deals with the seemingly misunderstanding made to this response post. Reading IS essential, just non-essential reading, (i.e. "fluff", fun, entertaining, and other such items), are not to be put first in life, just as dessert is great, but not as a main course. I use SF, fantasy, action and other books as a break or reward for doing or seeing accomplished other essential work needed to be done. What I was trying to say was that it was good to see that you had so much "fluff" time to spend on things not essential or needing to be put first in life, unless critiquing books and films IS your main business in life. I do agree with you when you say that you savour a good book and linger over the good parts of it, that is what makes it so memorable years later. I do find it sad that nowadays many are letting the TV or other visual means determine what they think or how they should react to situations in life, without ever thinking it through for themselves. But I guess that can apply to many other things as well, and that I have never chosen to be like a dead fish willing to float downstream just because it was easier to do. Up with reading good FLUFF books, and the shows they hopefully will gender.

larper · Aug 15, 2005

None of those quotes are mine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

JonClarke · Aug 15, 2005

I quoted from your post on 08/12/05 at 08:03 PM. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Aug 15, 2005

Yes, let's make more time for reading! I admit that I watch less TV than most, and when I do often read in the ad breaks <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Sadly, I can't critique books and films for a living although since I enjoy what I get paid to do very much I can't complain. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Aug 15, 2005

Very interesting comment about the monsters being better done than the characters. Is this because of the modern obession with effects over plot? Because Jackson is more interested in horror and monsters than people? Or because he is not a subtle enough director to produce good characters? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

larper · Aug 15, 2005

You wrote: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Larper wrote: "I thought this is where Jackson shined most of all. I felt tremendous respect for the source material coming from the movie." <hr /></blockquote> No, I did not write that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

jmilsom · Aug 16, 2005

I suspect that it has something to do with the advances in film technology special effects. All the focus these days is on visually impressing the audience. A good comparison is the original Star Wars (episode IV) and the first of the remakes (episode I). The special effects were not really there at the start so you had to have good charactersiation and plot development to carry the film. When it came time to make episode I, Lucas was thinking "oh wow I'll really be able to impress everyone with these special effects" - characterisation and plot development were flushed and the result was a viusally appealing but utterly atrocious film. A feeble shadow of a movie compared to the great original. So yes, I think it is the modern obsession with effects over plot. The second obviousy follows, the monsters are special effects so get more attention. Given that for years prior to the release of the films - they were constantly saying "we're going to be true to the books," I suspect there is some truth in your last point too. If they were really trying to be true to the books, then Jackson clearly does not have the ability to produce characterisations worthy of critical acclaim - for the books certainly have adequate material. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Aug 16, 2005

Good points. The irony is that the technology of the original SW series was quite up to the task. No suspenion of disbelief was required in this department from them, unlike, say for a movie 10 years earlier. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Aug 16, 2005

You are quite right larper. It was relaisterre. My sincere apologies. (Jon goes off muttering about early demetia...) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

chebby · Aug 16, 2005

For some reason I expected elves to be very graceful, light and have thin facial features. Legolas actually fits that description nicely. However, when looking at Galadrial's big nose or Arwen's chunky cheeks, I am not convinced at all they come from elven folk. Please note that I am not dissing them, I think both actresses are beautiful in their own ways. I think Paris Hlton would have made a good elf...as long as she doesn't have any spoken lines <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Btw, I'm watching Two Towers now... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

lunatio_gordin · Aug 16, 2005

I keep trying to watch them all in one day, back to back, but i never seem to quite make it past part 2...

chebby · Aug 16, 2005

I did it once, but that was before I got extended editions. I wouldn't dream of doing it now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

lunatio_gordin · Aug 16, 2005

I wish i had known they were going to make extended editions before we got the regular versions...

chebby · Aug 16, 2005

You are not a true fan unless you get them <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (just kidding) Only a LOTR geek like me would buy it on Valentine's Day <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> She baked the muffins.

hracctsold · Aug 17, 2005

I know what you mean. That is like trying to read all three in one day, no one but JonClarke could do it. Hey, Jon, have you done that in one day with your supersonic speed reading? Edit: That is a good picture of those muffins(?) to put my post under. UMMMMMM good!!!

avaunt · Aug 27, 2005

You know, I can't stand to watch the second part without hitting fast forward everytime the Rohirrim children and womenfolk are shown cowering in Helms' Deep. Eorls' children do not cower !. It would have been as wrong for them to do so, as it would be for English children to torture puppies, Japanese children to be rude to their elders, or American children to honour learning. Only social misfitted children would do so, Rohan bred no cowards. They may as well have shown emotional Elves, or hasty Ents, or intelligent Orcs. And you know, i have imagined Dernhelms' stand, and Eowyns' revealing Her Glory and daunting the witchking so very often, I can not for the life of me, remember if it was included in the movie. Must be old age!. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

Lord of the rings question

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

relaisterre

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

chebby

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

jmilsom

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

larper

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

larper

Guest

jmilsom

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

chebby

Guest

lunatio_gordin

Guest

chebby

Guest

lunatio_gordin

Guest

chebby

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

avaunt

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page