|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 4:42pm
Post #51 of 81
(355 views)
Shortcut
|
Does it matter? I expect he read the Bible in Latin, although I don't know for sure.
His earliest exposure would have been the artwork in Catholic cathedrals. That was their purpose: to tell Biblical stories to the illiterate.
But his David is quite different from Bernini's, for example: They are both considered masterpieces, but they can't really both be "accurate" representations of the Biblical story (whatever that may mean).
They are windows into the artist's heart. Like the LOTR films are windows into Peter Jackson's heart. To expect them to be about Tolkien, or even more egocentric, to be about oneself, is absurd. Art is not a mirror. Art is communication.
Still, I guess it's true that some Christian sects don't approve of visual representations of Biblical events, and Islam (as I understand it) doesn't permit such representations at all.
A true Tolkien purist wouldn't want a film of Tolkien at all. Many unequivocally said so in the first age of the boards. (And for others it points up a certain hubris when they say "It doesn't look at all like the version in *my* head so it must be bad".)
That's my only point - no matter how "sacred" a text is, people will interpret it. Each interpretation adds new layers of meaning, some of them from the artist's own imagination and not necessarily what the author of the original text had in mind.
Great art is like that. It is built on the foundation of the art of others. Yes, even Tolkien's art
So perhaps there's a similar schism between Tolkien purists and non-purists on this issue.
Yes. The ugliness of religious intolerance and abuse is often sadly mirrored on Tolkien forums. Really, it doesn't matter how pure and good the source, there will always be people who will use their "passion" as an excuse for the basest of actions towards their brothers and sisters. Now *that* is what would truly cause Tolkien to spin in his grave.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on May 23 2008, 4:43pm)
|
|
|
Lunamoth
Rohan
May 23 2008, 4:43pm
Post #52 of 81
(350 views)
Shortcut
|
"Which translation would Michelangelo have used, do you mean?"
No, it isn't what I meant. What I meant is, what translation *anyone* chooses to use. But then, I'm not a Christian, so I look at it in the same way I look at English texts that get sold on the foreign markets, and require translation that carries over meaning from one culture to the other. Sort of like in the recent discussion about translating Tolkien's work into Spanish, for example. Sometimes other words/phrases are used to represent what he was trying to say, but there isn't an *exact* translation for it in that language. And sometimes the results can be interesting...
|
|
|
merklynn
Lorien
May 23 2008, 4:48pm
Post #53 of 81
(355 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Wow, quite deep without meaning to be
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think the point I was agreeing with (and I'm not even sure at this point thanks to all the philosophizing) was that the books will always be something like "a bible" not a religious bible necessarily, but a bible of canonical law/authority. In that sense then it will always be superior to its adaptations in that it came from the its creator's hand and the manner that they chose to publish it. The movies, radioplays and what-have-you will never equal the greatness of the original work. It is in that sense that I am agreeing on principal with N.E. Brigand comment.
A bible can be a television series "bible", a codex of history and conventions to adhere to. It descends from the Christian term "Bible" where it is best known. As "a bible" I simply meant a sacred book to which some franchise or stories belong. I was not meaning alternate version of THE Bible. I'd hate to wander foolishly into a relgious or philosophical debate without meaning to.
I also think that what I originally said about a movie (an LOTR one) will never be made simply for art's sake is valid, in that there will always be a commercial motivation due to the inherent costs of producing it. The argument that such an "art-centric" movie as opposed to a "commerically-centric" movie being better than the other is a good one, and it is entirely subjective anyway. An art film could be considered poorly if the director's interpretation is highly stylistic and deviant from that of the original material. An art film that follows the book as excatly as possible on film (a fantasy in itself) could well be amazing, or simply too slow or non-linear for even most fan audiences? No one knows. All I was getting at was that the commercial factors (Hollywood conventions) make it very difficult for that exact adaptation to ever exist on film.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
May 23 2008, 5:01pm
Post #54 of 81
(340 views)
Shortcut
|
Sort of like in the recent discussion about translating Tolkien's work into Spanish, for example. Sometimes other words/phrases are used to represent what he was trying to say, but there isn't an *exact* translation for it in that language. And sometimes the results can be interesting...
I certainly agree with you that an original and a translation are two very different things. No matter how hard a translator tries to be faithful, it's really an impossible task. "Traduttore, tradittore" (translator, traitor) as the Italians say. But, as you point out, that apparent "betrayal" can lead to some very interesting results...
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 5:03pm
Post #55 of 81
(349 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the point I was agreeing with (and I'm not even sure at this point thanks to all the philosophizing) was that the books will always be something like "a bible" not a religious bible necessarily, but a bible of canonical law/authority. In that sense then it will always be superior to its adaptations in that it came from the its creator's hand and the manner that they chose to publish it. The movies, radioplays and what-have-you will never equal the greatness of the original work. It is in that sense that I am agreeing on principal with N.E. Brigand comment.
Does not great art inspire greater art? Or to put it another way, a good father always hopes that his son will surpass him.
I also think that what I originally said about a movie (an LOTR one) will never be made simply for art's sake is valid, in that there will always be a commercial motivation due to the inherent costs of producing it.
Didn't Tolkien have a commercial motivation for writing LOTR? On the other hand, wasn't The Silmarillion written for art's sake? Honestly, which is better?
All I was getting at was that the commercial factors (Hollywood conventions) make it very difficult for that exact adaptation to ever exist on film.
More like impossible. And I think that even minus any commercial factor at all it would be impossible. Even the most devout fan would come to the film with their own agenda, their own impressions, their own visions. An objective adaptation of any work of literature is impossible simply because literature is subjective. The true world of Middle-earth is not on the page, but in a multitude of hearts.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
May 23 2008, 5:07pm
Post #56 of 81
(353 views)
Shortcut
|
"The true world of Middle-earth is not on the page, but in a multitude of hearts."
You rule!
Hanging out with the Lonely Isle elves.
|
|
|
Jazmine
Tol Eressea
May 23 2008, 7:30pm
Post #57 of 81
(344 views)
Shortcut
|
The Scouring was an integeral part of the books, BUT it wouldn't have worked as well on screen. While in the book it isn't at all just a second climax, to the average movie goer, that's what it would have seemed like. Plus, it would have been ALOT more footage to tack on to the end of an Extended Edition., you're talking at least 20 mins to half hour to make it work properly, and that would have made even the Extended Edition a bit too long.
And, just because we didn't see Sam put on the Ring, it doesn't mean he didn't. It cut away in places when he was going after Frodo, so he may well have done at some point? I'm only saying this because I've heard Phillipa Boyens say in an interview, that, just because they didn't get to show the hobbits visiting Tom Bombadil on screen, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. When you have a limited amount of screen time to use, you just can't show everything.
*Jazminatar the Brown*
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 23 2008, 8:18pm
Post #58 of 81
(336 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"just because we didn't see Sam put on the Ring, it doesn't mean he didn't"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When you have a limited amount of screen time to use, you just can't show everything.
But then why can't assume that just anything at all happened off screen? Like the part where Sam grew wings and learned to fly, but then his wings fell off? At least that's how I imagined it must have happened, in a scene that wasn't shown.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 8:44pm
Post #59 of 81
(341 views)
Shortcut
|
What Boyens was talking talking about was that just because an incident from the book wasn't shown on screen doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the film universe. So one can well imagine that Sam put on the ring in the film universe just as he did in the book universe. There's nothing in the film to contradict the text.
But I don't recall Sam growing wings and learning to fly in the book. You might want to check to see if your text is an authorized edition. ("Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other.") Then again, if you want to imagine that, why not? For my part I'm can quite imagine Eowyn taking more than a couple of showers just off stage.....
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 23 2008, 8:56pm
Post #60 of 81
(335 views)
Shortcut
|
...that viewers should assume that anything that was in the book but not shown onscreen actually happens in the film if it doesn't contradict something shown onscreen? So for instance, Bombadil rescued the hobbits from the barrow but did not give them swords there? But the reason he doesn't give them swords is not in the book -- should I therefore not make one up when imagining this unshown footage?
Also: there are certainly things in the film that were not in the book. If those are permitted, what makes my own offscreen additions less valid?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 9:27pm
Post #61 of 81
(333 views)
Shortcut
|
So was Boyens saying that viewers should assume that anything that was in the book but not shown onscreen actually happens in the film if it doesn't contradict something shown onscreen?
Isn't that what Jazmine and I said she said?
So for instance, Bombadil rescued the hobbits from the barrow but did not give them swords there?
Apparently not. Then again, we didn't see him *not* giving them the swords, did we?
But the reason he doesn't give them swords is not in the book -- should I therefore not make one up when imagining this unshown footage?
Why not? It's the same as in the book. I imagine quite a few scenes between the lines of the pages. You'd be surprized.
Also: there are certainly things in the film that were not in the book. If those are permitted, what makes my own offscreen additions less valid?
That's the nature of imagination. I'm imagining Eowyn in the shower, you're imagining Sam with wings. Your imaginings are just as valid but I prefer lingering over my own thank you very much. To each his own. I can also imagine that Legolas has dark hair, you can imagine it blonde. You can imagine Balrogs with wings, I can imagine them without. I can imagine Elves with pointy ears and you imagine them with round. You imagine Aragorn's appearance literally changing to appear kingly, I imagine it's just the subjective perception of an onlooker. Which view is valid? In the book Tolkien calls upon us to use our own imagination to fill in the blanks he has left. Why do you criticize Boyens & Co. for doing the same?
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
May 23 2008, 9:36pm
Post #62 of 81
(318 views)
Shortcut
|
IIRC, her comment was made kind of wistfully at a point where they were lamenting many of the things they liked about the books that they couldn't include in the films for the sake of time...
Her comment was along the line of, "well, there's nothing to prevent you from thinking the hobbits didn't meet Tom Bombadil, etc." -- that they felt that by leaving that part out you could still imagined it happened if you liked. It was pretty clear to me at least, though, that she was speaking with her heart and not her head here -- as in, if they had seen Tom B. and he gave the hobbits their swords, you wouldn't need the movie scene where Viggo gives them swords instead.
So the sentiment wasn't one of "the audience should assume that the things we didn't show happened", it was more "we feel bad we cut things that we liked, and the fans liked, and here's one way to deal with that" -- i..e, just because you didn't see it doesn't prevent you from thinking it didn't happen.
Hope this makes some sense and clarifies the context a bit!
Weaver
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
May 23 2008, 9:49pm
Post #63 of 81
(309 views)
Shortcut
|
..wistfully wishing that he could have somehow inserted the Arwen-Aragorn romance in the story. Instead we have to imagine most of it.
I also remember Jackson saying much the same as Boyens. For example, he contemplated having a glimpse of a feathered cap behind a hedge, signifying that indeed, the Bombadil incident had occured but just wasn't shown.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
May 23 2008, 9:55pm
Post #64 of 81
(315 views)
Shortcut
|
that viewers are encouraged to interpret the story in whatever way works for them. The movies leave a lot more details unexplained than the book does, and leave it up to the audience to fill in the blanks if they care to. I think the movies can be viewed on a number of different levels (but then the book can be read on a number of levels too).
Also: there are certainly things in the film that were not in the book. If those are permitted, what makes my own offscreen additions less valid?
I don't believe there's any "valid" answer to any question raised in this way - ambiguities are part of the effect of the story. I don't think any interpretation is not "permitted", although of course if an interpretation has no basis in the story at all, it would be unlikely to be very meaningful to most people.
As for Sam putting the Ring on, he says (in the movie) that he took it "just for safe-keeping", and personally I believe him. I don't think that's relevant to Changeitminimally's original point anyway, since I don't see that actually wearing the Ring is what qualifies a Ring-bearer to go to the Undying Lands. Indeed, I think this is one issue that the movies do leave open. Although nothing is actually said about Sam crossing the Sundering Seas, we see Frodo telling him something, and Sam lifting his head with an expression of hope and wonder, during their last goodbye. I think that is a true moment of ambiguity, where we can fill in the blanks and imagine, if we like, that Frodo is saying "your time may come". (And the song that follows, Into the West, hints at Sam's sailing too, especially with its "you and I will meet again" refrain. The theme of this song is first heard when Sam carries Frodo on Mount Doom - perhaps we can imagine that this is his moment of greatest service, and the one that qualifies him, in movie terms, for that journey Into the West.) But as I said, it's all open to interpretation. It's ambiguous in the movies, and it's ambiguous in the book - only in the Appendices to we learn that "the tradition is handed down" that Samwise passed over Sea.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 23 2008, 10:29pm
Post #65 of 81
(309 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, first I'll allow that Éowyn in the shower has more basis in Tolkien's text than Sam with wings (though it's interesting in this context to remember that the would-be LotR screenwriter, Zimmerman, imagined orcs with wings). More importantly, since film-Éowyn looked clean in at least some scenes, I think it likely. (The next question is, when is it necessary for films to show routine activity, like showering, or the removal of horses from the site of impending battle?)
In the book Tolkien calls upon us to use our own imagination to fill in the blanks he has left. Why do you criticize Boyens & Co. for doing the same?
That's not my intention. Rather I'm trying to establish which imaginings are most reasonable: how we may decide what to assume about offstage events. If the films don't show something that happened in the book, why should viewers assume that thing is more likely to have taken place in the film than something not in the book? And when is it necessary to assume a particular offstage activity, and when not?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
xxxyyy
Rohan
May 24 2008, 12:13am
Post #66 of 81
(324 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm reading the Hobbit now, and God, it's awful...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's the first time I'm reading the Hobbit. I have not finished it yet.
What can I say about it?
This book is a huge disappointment.
It seems to be written by a 10 year old child, foe a 2 year old one. I've read everything else by Tolkien and everything was brilliant, perfect.... you can add every other positive adjective you want. But this book... it just doesn't seem like Tolkien at all.
It's predictable, it puts the characters in, may I say, stupid situations, and the way out of these situations is even worse.
There's simply nothing about this book that reminds me of LOTR.
I hope PJ, Walsh, Boyens and Del Tore change this book as much as possible, because it would look just ridiculous on the big screen. I'm not afraid to say that I would be ashamed to go and see it if they don't change anything.
I repeat, I have not finished it yet. I hope it gets better at the end... but I'm near the end now, and I don't like what I read.
|
|
|
Lunamoth
Rohan
May 24 2008, 2:10am
Post #67 of 81
(309 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You realise it's a children's book, right? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 24 2008, 5:25am
Post #68 of 81
(302 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You've "read everything else by Tolkien"?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Including Mr. Bliss and Roverandom?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
May 24 2008, 10:37am
Post #69 of 81
(291 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In the book too there have been big changes...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You wonder why Éowyn is given so much space in the book as compared to Arwen?...
I learnt first here (= on TORn), and read later on myself in the HoMe books, why: for a long time there was actually no Arwen at all in the story, and it was Éowyn that Tolkien intended as the future Queen of Aragorn/Elessar!!!
But then Arwen stepped into the story quite by herself at some point (just as previously Aragorn/Strider himself had, by the way!...), and immediately imposed herself as the real Love of Aragorn and his real Queen-to-be; but by then it was impossible for Tolkien, however hard he tried, to work the story of their love into the book itself without ruining it, so he had to make a beautiful Appendix of it...
Quite a momentous change, isn't it?! It blew my mind to discover that!!! 
But as the whole book came to JRRT in that mostly unexpected and inspirational way, it isn't so surprising after all...
I personally appreciate the willingness of Tolkien as 'the author', to abandon altogether his first idea already so much worked upon and developed, and to put in its place a totally new inspiration it it felt 'right' to him!...
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
May 24 2008, 10:43am
Post #70 of 81
(298 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you for straightening things up regarding Sam:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'Samwise did carry the Ring, in both the movie and the book? And, they didn't show him travel over the sea because it didn't happen til much much later, when he was old.'
I was also surprised to find that mistaken reproach in that post, for I remembered things just as you describe them indeed.
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
xxxyyy
Rohan
May 24 2008, 2:40pm
Post #71 of 81
(284 views)
Shortcut
|
what I didn't know was that this book SEEMS to be written by a chlid.
I hope they don't turn this into a childish movie...
They succeeded, not always, in improving LOTR with the movies in some crucial parts (Mount doom, death of Boromir, Helm's deep, the army of the dead at Minas Tirith, Sam's not putting on the Ring at Cirith Ungol, and I can go on)
I hope for The Hobbit to get the same treatment, if not more.
|
|
|
xxxyyy
Rohan
May 24 2008, 2:42pm
Post #72 of 81
(290 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah!" you got... not that one...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Is it worse than The Hobbit?
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 24 2008, 3:23pm
Post #73 of 81
(281 views)
Shortcut
|
...on why you feel those scenes on film represent improvements over The Lord of the Rings as a book?
And how does The Hobbit seem like a book "written by a child" in ways that other classic literature for children, like Green Eggs and Ham, or The Wind in the Willows, or Winnie the Pooh, does not?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
May 24 2008, 3:27pm
Post #74 of 81
(295 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"The Hobbit" is a masterpiece of children's literature.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just my opinion.
This is not my opinion: Mr. Bliss and Roverandom are two books, not one. Both are aimed at children.
(I've only read the first, which is slight but not without some charms.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 19-25 for "Helm's Deep".
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
May 24 2008, 4:33pm
Post #75 of 81
(272 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Frodo's whispers into Sam's ears before going over the Sea...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well, your explanation of Sam's sudden appeased and almost happy look after that, is my own standard explanation of it to whoever views RotK with me and learns then from me what is said in that Appendix about Sam's sailing to come!... 
In the same way, the tiny scene when, just after Faramir goes out needlessly to his death with his riders, Gandalf is seen sitting alone and silent and concentrated for a brief moment in a little courtyard somewhere in Minas Tirith, is always for me the very important moment when he concentrates inwardly to save at least his beloved Faramir from this deadly mission, and preserve in him the only worthy heir of Numenor besides Aragorn.
Others may not agree with my interpretation of this brief little scene, but for me what I see in it makes total sense and satisfies me completely, and hasn't been denied by anyone that I know of in the commentaries, so I happily stick to it!... 
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
|
|
