Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Deadline.com: Orlando to reprise Legolas in 'Hobbit'
First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

JWPlatt
Grey Havens

Dec 12 2010, 5:25am

Post #251 of 269 (13256 views)
Shortcut
     The Will of the Author [In reply to]  


In Reply To
tumhalad: Legolas is not in The Hobbit. The literary work that was published in 1937 and which predated The Lord of the Rings does not feature Legolas. We are not adapting the Appendices. Nor should we be.

Wow, something got trimmed in a big way. I loaded the page, took a few hours break and <snip>. I had a reply saved up and don't want to waste it, so:

tumhalad: "Not all opinion is equal, or equally worthy of attention."

I can't say I enjoy fundementalism, such as adherance to the literal word of The Hobbit, in any context. It is too maladaptive. But, you know, I really like that statement. If there's anything here for me to agree with in what you say, that would be it. "Let's agree to disagree" has always been a disturbing sentiment to me; unilaterally calling a draw when one was not offered.

tumhalad: "Apology accepted."

You forgot to append "Captain Needa!" to that. LOL.


Finally, to the point, don't the Appendices (or rewrites) show the will of the author?


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Dec 12 2010, 5:30am)


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 12 2010, 7:15am

Post #252 of 269 (13181 views)
Shortcut
     yea [In reply to]  


In Reply To

Quote
We are not adapting the Appendices. Nor should we be.



We aren't adapting anything. Peter Jackson and his team are. Your preference would be that they stick with a straight adaptation of The Hobbit as written by Tolkien (though you reference the work being published in 1937, I presume that you would be okay with using the version that Tolkien subsequently produced that changes the Riddles in the Dark chapter). As it happens, that would be my preference, as well. But it is not up to us. Moreover, the legal agreement that give the filmmakers the right to make these films don't limit them to sticking to the text of The Hobbit. In fact, they are perfectly within their legal, moral, and artistic rights to create an adaptation of The Hobbit as seen through the filter of LOTR. While that would not be my first choice, I certainly respect the reasons why they made that decision (at least some of which were the same reasons that Tolkien himself set out in 1960 to rewrite the work to make if more in tune with LOTR).



Okay, they are not adapting the Appendices, or they should not be doing so.



tumhalad
Bree


Dec 12 2010, 7:24am

Post #253 of 269 (13205 views)
Shortcut
     ah-hu [In reply to]  

 

In Reply To
Wow, something got trimmed in a big way. I loaded the page, took a few hours break and <snip>. I had a reply saved up and don't want to waste it, so:


Yeah, the battle of wills between Flagg and myself was derailing the thread. Fair enough, I suppose.


Quote

tumhalad:
"Not all opinion is equal, or equally worthy of attention."

I can't say I enjoy fundementalism, such as adherance to the literal word of The Hobbit, in any context. It is too maladaptive. But, you know, I really like that statement. If there's anything here for me to agree with in what you say, that would be it. "Let's agree to disagree" has always been a disturbing sentiment to me; unilaterally calling a draw when one was not offered.

tumhalad: "Apology accepted."

You forgot to append "Captain Needa!" to that. LOL.


Laugh



Quote

Finally, to the point, don't the Appendices (or rewrites) show the will of the author?

Well, of course, to a degree, but the will of the author was for the Appendices to remain seperate from The Hobbit itself. The Appendices do not form a part of the literary work that is called The Hobbit.


macfalk
Valinor


Dec 12 2010, 9:20am

Post #254 of 269 (13171 views)
Shortcut
     Tumlahad [In reply to]  

Legolas is not in The Hobbit.

Yes, Legolas is not mentioned in The Hobbit but he was alive, that's for sure, and he's hundred of years old. So Thranduil should be there by himself? Where would Legolas be? Collecting flowers in Lothlorien? I think not!

I understand your take on it but I feel it's necessary to make an exception and include Legolas in The Hobbit. What are the movie-only-folks going to say when they watch FOTR:

Haldir, (in Elvish): Well met, Legolas, son of Thranduil!



To ignore Legolas existance in The Hobbit is a bad call, I think. Even if Tolkien never mentioned his name, he was in-directly there.




The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 12 2010, 9:21am)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Dec 12 2010, 9:48am

Post #255 of 269 (13175 views)
Shortcut
     It all depends on how you look at it. [In reply to]  

The problem here is that both sides are right. The "Adapt The Hobbit as written" side and the '"nclude the extra information provided by Tolkien" side have valid points of view. Neither is right or wrong if only they recognize the validity of the opposing point of view. The bad arguments for either side come out of the rather narcissistic belief that ones personal viewpoint is the only valid one. I even believe you could make a valid argument for including things made up by the adapters for the occasion. The point of all this? Well...I guess that I think a lot of this is very relative but also very interesting if you are willing to really think about the well reasoned opposition.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 12 2010, 11:03am

Post #256 of 269 (13147 views)
Shortcut
     Yes, I understand [In reply to]  

the argument that Legolas should be around at the time of The Hobbit. Once again, I reiterate my literary/historicity distinction. "Historically", Legolas should appear in Mirkwood at the time of The Hobbit. It would make sense, yes. But in the literary text that is The Hobbit, Legolas as a character does not make an appearance. So what? Neither does "Thranduil" actually. There are only the wood-elves, and the Elvenking. "Thranduil" makes his appearance later, as a "historical" character. There is no particular reason for Legolas or "Thranduil" to appear, just because it might be appealing. But we only get the "historical" Thranduil and the "historical" character of Legolas after The Hobbit, as a literary text, was created and published. Once again, Legolas does not "appear" in The Hobbit - he is not mentioned, he does not speak, no one acknowledges his existance - precisely because in the world of The Hobbit as literary text, he does not. It is only in the later timeline that he is conceived as being the son of a certain "Thranduil" who is the Elvenking. But in the purview of The Hobbit as literary text, "Thranduil" does not exist. We don't know, and cannot know, the Elvenking's name. He is just "the Elvenking".


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Dec 12 2010, 11:28am

Post #257 of 269 (13159 views)
Shortcut
     Your viewpoint is perfectly clear and I cannot find fault with it. [In reply to]  

But so is the view that the story in the novel The Hobbit was only the beginning of the whole story as suplimented by the author in Unfinished Tales (for which rights are not available to the movie production) or the Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings (which can be used freely}. It is all a matter of personal preference as to which you want to happen. Well since it has been stated by knowledgeable members of the production that plan B is in effect. Your case is valid but it is a moot point. At this time I feel that it is more important to discuss what is actually about to happen rather than what has all ready been eliminated by those making the movie(s.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


geordie
Tol Eressea

Dec 12 2010, 12:03pm

Post #258 of 269 (13163 views)
Shortcut
     Mind you, [In reply to]  

Tolkien didn't originally intend that the changes to Riddles in the Dark should be published. (letter 111). It was only intended as a specimen of re-writing. It came as a shock to him to find these changes in page-proof some three years later. (letters 128, 129). But on reflection, he thought it all came out well in the wash. Though it did mean adding an explanatory note to the second edition of 1951 (letter 130 -my copy with this note inserted is dated 1955).

Though personally, I have a soft spot for the original Gollum, as in my 1946 first edition reprint...

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Dec 12 2010, 12:11pm)


dormouse
Half-elven

Dec 12 2010, 2:29pm

Post #259 of 269 (13171 views)
Shortcut
     Mmm..... [In reply to]  

But you will always have that Gollum on your bookshelf and in your imagination, won't you? Seems to me that's the thing to hold onto in all this maelstrom of what each of us wants, hopes for and dreads in the new films. They won't please everyone at every point, but no matter what changes the filmmakers introduce, all those of us who love the books will always have the books and the things we really love about them can't be hurt by the films.

Seems to me it's inevitable that having made three successful films of Lord of the Rings, and now taking on The Hobbit in the light of that success, it's inevitable that the new films will have a Lord of the Rings perspective. Hence the inclusion of Radagast, Galadriel, Legolas, the naming of the Elvenking as Thranduil, and so on. Tolkien himself made that inevitable in the writing of his sequel to The Hobbit - he was the one who developed and defined things which he hadn't thought of before. And you can build up perfectly valid, Tolkien-based arguments for making these changes to The Hobbit, though not everyone will agree with them.

I'd love answers to two unfathomable questions; if Peter Jackson had made The Hobbit first, how different might the adaptation have been, and if Tolkien were alive now, and able to see how the world, the admirers of his writings, and the technical capabilities of film-making had changed, what would he feel about it? (I truly don't think we can come up with a complete answer to this from his published letters. Times change and people and attitudes change with them. Before anyone strangles me or throws turnips, I'm not trying to say that he would or wouldn't have approved of any of this - I don't know and I never will. I would just love to be able to hear his reaction.)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Dec 12 2010, 3:51pm

Post #260 of 269 (13119 views)
Shortcut
     Quite true [In reply to]  

I would have have loved to have seen Tolkien's face when he saw those page proofs. Smile But, as you you say, he concluded (correctly in my opinion) that the revisions were an improvement and approved them.

Regarding the 1960 revisions, some have pointed to the fact that Tolkien failed to complete that revision as an indication that the concluded that revising the book to make it more in line with LOTR was not the way to go. I don't think it is that clear. As Carpenter and Rateliff both point out, when the publisher asked for revisions of The Hobbit in 1966 to preserve the copyright (after the unauthorized versions), he looked for the 1960 revisions but could not find them. Given that he found much of the book to be "poor" I think it is reasonable to think that there is a good chance that had he found those revisions, we would have a very different "official" version now.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Junesong
Rivendell


Dec 12 2010, 5:39pm

Post #261 of 269 (13141 views)
Shortcut
     Historical versus Textual [In reply to]  

I'm joining this argument late - but I did my homework and I read through the thread first. Now Tumhalad seems to be constantly drawing the line between historical and textual in his responses - as in, just because WE, as an audience know some more details about The Hobbit plot from subsequent Tolkien writings, doesn't mean it's in THE HOBBIT book and so it shouldn't be in The Hobbit movie.

That makes sense to me sort of. If we were in a court room you could prove all those points. You have text to back it up. You make very valid arguments. I'm just not sure why? It seems to be because you think there's "no need" to.

Is that because you are an extreme fan of the book The Hobbit? We know there is more than one version of The Hobbit in print and that the authors intentions with his original story are unclear... but still I'll give you that. You're a fan of the book and you want the book you love to be adapted on to screen. You define adaptation as a process of transferring book to screen as faithfully as possible (you're ok with changes, as long as they seek to faithfully transpose Tolkiens The Hobbit onto the screen) I still seem to be understanding you're argument no?

So, here's my issue: I don't know what the problem is?

You KNOW that Jackson and co were both faithful AND wildly UNfaithful to Tolkien for LOTR. (the most terrible and glaring example to me is Gimli smoking on Denethors steward chair in MT saying "Let him rot!" about Sauron - which is just completely preposterous in so many ways to the cannon and I"m sure Tolkien himself is probably still spinning in his grave as a result). but you also know, I should hope, that the films were beautiful and occasionally captured spot on the magic of Tolkien (the Argonath, Balrog, Minas Tirith, the music, Gollum, etc)

So, I think it's safe to assume more of the same this time around.

There is never going to be an adaptation of The Hobbit just as it is. Even in 50 years if someone makes The Hobbit again, it will be made with LOTR in mind, and parts of the story will serve to set up a bigger mythology.

The text, in essence, has been swallowed up by Tolkien's greater mythology. We will never see The Hobbit as you want it. And I don't think we ever should.

Think about it - the story of The Hobbit is about Bilbo - just like you say. It's a great little story, more light hearted and about greed and bravery and courage etc. I know, I've read it hundreds of times. But it's also about Bilbo finding the ring. Read it however you want in your own time, but once you've read LOTR you know that the events surrounding the ring take on more meaning.

It's not textual, but it's historical. And those two cannot now be separated.

The pure, simple story of The Hobbit sits now forever in the shadow of all the other works Tolkien wrote - it now belongs IN the world he created and it cannot be separated.

Jackson certainly doesn't want it separate - he wants to be able to connect the two stories and I'm excited to see it. Not just because I'm excited to see the Necromancer etc but because that's how I see those stories. They are one.

Now, in the words of The Dude, "that's just, like, my opinion man.."

But I think it would be silly to adapt The Hobbit word for word from the book and leave it completely detached from LOTR as it was when it was first published.

It doesn't make sense dramatically, financially, or even fanatically (from a fan's perspective).

So... are you just arguing rhetorically about tying The Hobbit into LOTR because you think it's greedy? Or are you just disappointed because you think The Hobbit story will be short changed? Because, the movies are being made, and in a lot of ways they will be better than we could imagine - and in many ways I'm sure they will add or change things from the story that will makes us cringe.

But what is certain... is that The Hobbit story will be told. This is The Hobbit after all - I don't think we need to worry about that. I still consider LOTR to be impossible to film and I would HATE to see LOTR as some kind of 50 hour, word for word adaptation where every single thing is shown. Movies and books should be different. And Jackson did that with LOTR - I love it and I hate it. If I'd never read the books I'd probably just love it.

So - all that said - and I said too much - Tolkien movie adaptations are for us (the fans of the books) and for them (the people who have never read them) and they are made to make money, and they are made because Peter has a vision of how to adapt the story. And they are made because he has the ability to do it and we don't.

"Tim... Canterbury... Canterbury Tales... Chaucer."


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Dec 12 2010, 6:42pm

Post #262 of 269 (13114 views)
Shortcut
     A clear voice in a murky landscape [In reply to]  

as usual. Well said.

Interesting idea here:

Quote

if Peter Jackson had made The Hobbit first, how different might the adaptation have been


Well for one, there would likely be no Legolas in TH. That means no Bloom and the cloud of films that followed that role.

Right now we might be discussing whether LOTR could handle more Dwarfs or not. Some back story to Balin's eventual entombment?

Maybe Viggo would have played Bard? We would be discussing the merits of him turning aside his ascension to King of Dale so he could reveal himself as the Ranger Strider in LOTR?

One thing is for sure, the world would be a different place. TH may have passed barely noticed if it had been made first...



macfalk
Valinor


Dec 12 2010, 6:56pm

Post #263 of 269 (13089 views)
Shortcut
     I don't think so [In reply to]  

If The Hobbit would have failed in the alternate past you speak of, I'm fairly sure any LOTR-plans would have been sidelined. Look at the other franchises out there that failed, the planned sequels are often placed in the can. (Though I hate to call LOTR + The Hobbit a franchise, the suits love to)



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 12 2010, 6:57pm)


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Dec 12 2010, 6:57pm

Post #264 of 269 (13112 views)
Shortcut
     Perhaps PJ would have handed LotR off to GdT. [In reply to]  

I'm not sure if they would have expanded The Lord of the Rings into six films, though. That seems almost too ambitious and risky, regardless of how successful the single-film version of The Hobbit might have been.


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 12 2010, 11:15pm

Post #265 of 269 (13094 views)
Shortcut
     Literary vs. Historicity [In reply to]  

 

I'm joining this argument late - but I did my homework and I read through the thread first. Now Tumhalad seems to be constantly drawing the line between historical and textual in his responses - as in, just because WE, as an audience know some more details about The Hobbit plot from subsequent Tolkien writings, doesn't mean it's in THE HOBBIT book and so it shouldn't be in The Hobbit movie.


Sort of. We don't "know" more about the plot of The Hobbit - we already "know" that from reading it. Subsequent of Tolkien's writings don't shed light on the plot - and this is the point. They shed light on the "history", but I am arguing that the filmmakers should not be adapting the 'history' - they should be adapting the literary work, The Hobbit.


That makes sense to me sort of. If we were in a court room you could prove all those points. You have text to back it up. You make very valid arguments. I'm just not sure why? It seems to be because you think there's "no need" to.


Because they are adapting The Hobbit, supposedly. Why else? Why interpolate events that do not take place within the plot, within the purview of the literary work, The Hobbit?


Is that because you are an extreme fan of the book The Hobbit? We know there is more than one version of The Hobbit in print and that the authors intentions with his original story are unclear... but still I'll give you that. You're a fan of the book and you want the book you love to be adapted on to screen. You define adaptation as a process of transferring book to screen as faithfully as possible (you're ok with changes, as long as they seek to faithfully transpose Tolkiens The Hobbit onto the screen) I still seem to be understanding you're argument no?


Yep, that's correct. I understand there was an earlier publication, and later revision. It makes most sense to adapt the official version as we have it now. Already, it is clearly set in Middle-earth, and it retains a kind of whimsicality.


So, here's my issue: I don't know what the problem is?

You KNOW that Jackson and co were both faithful AND wildly UNfaithful to Tolkien for LOTR. (the most terrible and glaring example to me is Gimli smoking on Denethors steward chair in MT saying "Let him rot!" about Sauron - which is just completely preposterous in so many ways to the cannon and I"m sure Tolkien himself is probably still spinning in his grave as a result). but you also know, I should hope, that the films were beautiful and occasionally captured spot on the magic of Tolkien (the Argonath, Balrog, Minas Tirith, the music, Gollum, etc)

So, I think it's safe to assume more of the same this time around.


Exactly, and that's what I'm afraid of. More needless extraposition; mindless slashings, and pointless plots.


There is never going to be an adaptation of The Hobbit just as it is. Even in 50 years if someone makes The Hobbit again, it will be made with LOTR in mind, and parts of the story will serve to set up a bigger mythology.


Why not? As I've said repeatedly, no one will have any doubt that we are in Middle-earth. An intelligent filmmaker who knows all Tolkien's texts well should be able to film an adaptation of The Hobbit that does not pander to the extravegences of the LOTR film trilogy.


The text, in essence, has been swallowed up by Tolkien's greater mythology. We will never see The Hobbit as you want it. And I don't think we ever should.


Then that is a great and needless loss. There is no good reason not to see a faithfull adaptation of The Hobbit. Being swallowed by the legendarium is not a good reason, because it's already clear that the book takes place in Middle-earth, as it is. We see plenty of familiar characters. Why Galadriel and Legolas? I mean, please.


Think about it - the story of The Hobbit is about Bilbo - just like you say. It's a great little story, more light hearted and about greed and bravery and courage etc. I know, I've read it hundreds of times. But it's also about Bilbo finding the ring. Read it however you want in your own time, but once you've read LOTR you know that the events surrounding the ring take on more meaning.


The Ring as it appears in The Hobbit is not the one Ring, in a literary sense. On film, sure, audiences will understand its significance, but within the film it should have no greater role to play than it does in the book.


It's not textual, but it's historical. And those two cannot now be separated.


I disagree.


The pure, simple story of The Hobbit sits now forever in the shadow of all the other works Tolkien wrote - it now belongs IN the world he created and it cannot be separated.


The Hobbit story is neither pure nor simple. It is already in the world he created, and to a degree, sits outside of it, just like Tom Bombadil. So? Why should its unique atmospherics be sacrificed on the alter of market research?


Jackson certainly doesn't want it separate - he wants to be able to connect the two stories and I'm excited to see it. Not just because I'm excited to see the Necromancer etc but because that's how I see those stories. They are one.


No, they're not "one".


Now, in the words of The Dude, "that's just, like, my opinion man.."


fair enough...


But I think it would be silly to adapt The Hobbit word for word from the book and leave it completely detached from LOTR as it was when it was first published.


It was never "completely detatched from LOTR". Once again, it clearly takes place in Middle-earth.


It doesn't make sense dramatically, financially, or even fanatically (from a fan's perspective).


I think that's a silly statement.


So... are you just arguing rhetorically about tying The Hobbit into LOTR because you think it's greedy? Or are you just disappointed because you think The Hobbit story will be short changed? Because, the movies are being made, and in a lot of ways they will be better than we could imagine - and in many ways I'm sure they will add or change things from the story that will makes us cringe.


I have no idea how they will turn out. If they are anything like LTOR films I will be dissapointed. And yes, they will make me cringe in places, I'm sure.


But what is certain... is that The Hobbit story will be told. This is The Hobbit after all - I don't think we need to worry about that. I still consider LOTR to be impossible to film and I would HATE to see LOTR as some kind of 50 hour, word for word adaptation where every single thing is shown. Movies and books should be different. And Jackson did that with LOTR - I love it and I hate it. If I'd never read the books I'd probably just love it.


We'll see. Movies that are adaptations of novels should adhere to the source material as faithfully as possible.


So - all that said - and I said too much - Tolkien movie adaptations are for us (the fans of the books) and for them (the people who have never read them) and they are made to make money, and they are made because Peter has a vision of how to adapt the story. And they are made because he has the ability to do it and we don't.


Exactly-they are made to make money. Peter has the ability and we don't? True, but so what? That doesn't absolve him of responsibility to be faithfull to the adaptation.



Junesong
Rivendell


Dec 13 2010, 1:34am

Post #266 of 269 (13074 views)
Shortcut
     follow up [In reply to]  

Not a huge fan of my opinions being called "silly" - "silly" being a strange choice of word... connotative of what exactly? But I understand you better now at least.

We just fundamentally disagree.

You maintain that we owe nothing to Jackson and yet that he owes us (and Tolkien) a faithful adaptation to The Hobbit (the book, not the story) and that anything added to the story from Tolkiens other works is going to make you mad. You say "the filmmakers should not be adapting the 'history' they should be adapting the literary work" - but says who? Says You? Says me? Does the "should" mean that to do so is right and to do something else is wrong? Where is this "should" coming from? Because they are adapting The Hobbit? The Hobbit is part of a larger story - indisputably - the author himself took great pains to make it so. So I just don't understand the "should". I don't think we have any right to say "should" about this.

There are many right ways to adapt the book, The Hobbit, and Jackson's way won't please all of us - but I don't think we have the right to say SHOULD. Especially when the changes in question are based in the Tolkien cannon and not just from Jackson's own imagination.

It looks like I also disagree with you about Jackson's LOTR films and thought that for all their faults (and there were many) the films reflected the heart of the books and were gorgeous to look at. I (I say I, not we) owe him a great deal of respect and gratitude for that because EVERY other attempt to adapt Tolkien (beyond the mediocre Rankin Bass Hobbit) were terrible. And most of the projects never got off the ground. He succeeded and the work ethic and bar of excellence that his crew maintained was like a gift to me. Those movies were brilliant. For that, I'll give Jackson my respect and my gratitude. Gladly. In my opinion he earned it. He was a faithful guardian of stories I had thought were unfilmable.

So, if you didn't like LOTR and if you're dreading The Hobbit than you have my pity. But I understand. As a Tolkien fan I really do. Movies will never do the stories real justice... but as a movie fan I can't agree with you.

Tolkien built a world that went beyond his books - his stories connected in complicated and brilliant ways. The events of The Hobbit, while innocuous in their own tale, had enormous impacts on his world and his mythology. Personally I can't wait to see what Peter does with it.

"Tim... Canterbury... Canterbury Tales... Chaucer."

(This post was edited by Ataahua on Dec 15 2010, 8:26pm)


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Dec 13 2010, 6:22pm

Post #267 of 269 (13016 views)
Shortcut
     Faithfulness [In reply to]  


Quote
Movies that are adaptations of novels should adhere to the source material as faithfully as possible.

Should they? That's the purist perspective, but I don't believe what an adaptation 'should' do is quite that indisputable. What if the source material is flawed? Should the adaptation deliberately preserve the flaws rather than attempting to iron them out? What if the director has a vision for his own version that is significantly different from that of the original author? For example, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, or Ridley Scott's Blade Runner? Both films take enormous liberties with their source material, but both are regarded as masterpieces in a way the original books are not. Do you think that these films should not have been made, or that the directors should have restricted themselves to faithfully adapting the books, or that the films should have been made by other directors whose vision is more similar to the source material?


Arwen Skywalker
Lorien


Dec 13 2010, 9:32pm

Post #268 of 269 (12981 views)
Shortcut
     Yes [In reply to]  

I'd also like to add The Wizard of Oz to the list. Much of the material at the beginning and end of the movie is not in the book at all. There are more liberties taken but anyone can go to Wikipedia for that. That didn't stop the film from becoming a critic's darling and now, it is a frequent textbook example of a great classic movie. I wish Dorothy was less of a damsel-in-distress when I found out how much her character was changed from the Sarah Connor Chronicles. But I did like the the subplot where she ran away when Miss Gulch wants to euthanize Toto. It gives more significance to "there's no place like home." It seems to me like it's been common practice for filmmakers to add fanfiction material to adaptations since the beginning of the industry (though I see this as neither an inherently good or bad thing). I wonder if people who are purists (not just towards Tolkien's works but all adaptations) ever had the experience of seeing the films first and liking something that's not in the book. Or even liking how a certain aspect was done in the film better than the book. Then again, if someone really is a hardcore purist about Oz, they probably wouldn't give a crap that the movie is considered a classic.


willowgreylock
Lorien


Dec 14 2010, 7:34pm

Post #269 of 269 (13201 views)
Shortcut
     Return of OB/Legolas [In reply to]  

Laugh So very HAPPY to hear this good news!!
I most definately expected at least a cameo,
perhaps Legolas standing by his father's
throne as they bring in the Dwarves to be
questioned. But now we hear it's going to
be a larger role, EVEN BETTER!!

WELCOME BACK OB!!! Heart

Crazy ps please quit sweating it that he is going to
replace Bard. They haven't cast a number
of roles yet, it doesn't mean they've been
replaced by other characters.

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.