|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Aug 18 2012, 9:30pm
Post #126 of 245
(10418 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You made the original child analogy.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I did not think it the best analogy, but I was able to follow it. However there were errors in the comparison. The influence of being reinterpreted, altered and publicized anew is very different from merely being potentially influenced by outside viewing or reading material.
And yes, millions are comfortable with his approach. I myself loved most of it, only despising a small fraction of the whole. That isn't the issue in question.
There will be millions of people, literally, who will see these movies, and take them as cannon. They will never read the books. All they will ever know of this legendarium will be what they see in those films, and however much those films misrepresent or defy the source, so too will those viewers understanding be marred. Omissions and additions that do not challenge the essential structures of the work are one thing, but boldly contradictory deviations are another.
If a highly popularaized version of the film came out in which Gandalf temporarily fell to Sauron's influence and assisinated Galadriel and Elrond, and this rubbish deviation were represented as a straight representation of the tale, I rather think you would tire of having to tell ignorant friends and/or acquaintances, "NO! That NEVER happened!!!" I don't think I follow.
How do we obliterate the original tale? I am watching a new version of Murder on The Orient Express right now. It doesn't feature all of the same characters as previous versions or indeed the text. I don't see how anything is obliterated in multiple tellings where elements are different. It is instead interesting and offers new things with which to engage.
Movie audiences have demonstrated in their millions upon millions that they are comfortable with Jackson's approach to adapting Tolkien. I'm not sure we need to fear a change of mind just yet.
LR
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Aug 18 2012, 9:32pm
Post #127 of 245
(10386 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Kreacher was in the movies solely because JK said he had to be there.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The director wasn't going to include Kreacher in Order of the Phoenix, but JK said Kreacher had a key role in the story later on (which hadn't been published yet) so he had to appear.
So yes, she did have some influence on the HP films.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Aug 18 2012, 9:38pm
Post #128 of 245
(10590 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe I didn't address all of your points, but basically they all say the same thing.
Christopher Tolkien should just shut up and be happy about the films.
And I say maybe he cares more about protecting the integrity of his father's vision than about being "grateful" to someone else for giving them wider (but flawed) exposure.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
Phibbus
Rohan
Aug 18 2012, 9:40pm
Post #129 of 245
(10434 views)
Shortcut
|
The books had their peak sales between 1969 and 1974, the "Tolkien-mania" years, before there were ever any adaptations of any kind.
Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.
(This post was edited by Phibbus on Aug 18 2012, 9:42pm)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Aug 18 2012, 9:44pm
Post #130 of 245
(10423 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I read the book on recommendation from my Mum and sister
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If that helps 
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Aug 18 2012, 9:44pm
Post #131 of 245
(10390 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why? Do the people who don't read the books live in a social vacuum?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Are all the people who have read the books going to suddenly disappear and/or clam up?
The clear answer is no. Nothing is going to happen to the legendarium. More people will read the books because of the movies. Tolkien's writings are carried faithfully into the next generations. This is a good thing.
I'm curious as to where you're getting this hundreds of thousands figure from.
King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.
Tim: Quite.
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Aug 18 2012, 9:52pm
Post #132 of 245
(10364 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with almost all the steps of this
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But it is not a problem for me in the slightest. Some will read a wiki, some will come and post on boards like this, some will read the text, some will read around the text, some will do none of the above. If they are interested then there is nothing stopping them. If they aren't then so what?
I don't understand the problem or understand the urge to try and make sure nobody in the world has any misconceptions about Tolkien. I wouldn't have any urge to do that on a personal level beyond what interests me.
A good example is the Dark is Rising film. Not a good film in my view, and also one with lots of differences from the text. I have never felt any urge to sit someone down and correct them so that they can understand the true legendarium, be absolved from the the false lore or any of the rest of it.
Should we then move on to those people who have only started a book but not finished it for they will have misconceptions, and those who have read the plot on a wiki? What about the folks who've read them but don't understand them properly. I think this could be quite a big project!
LR
PS The analogy was about a protectionist view compared to being casual in two situations. But the child was not an analogy for the film. The analogy just demonstrates that one can be non-protectionist without being casual.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Aug 18 2012, 9:55pm
Post #133 of 245
(10433 views)
Shortcut
|
So you are saying the Tolkien Estate should not be compensated for (the increased) sales of the books - the original works upon which all else is based - if they don't like the movies? That's absurd. I'd like to see your source that defines a "massive increase" in sales.
Also, it's "Hear, hear."
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 18 2012, 10:01pm)
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Aug 18 2012, 10:01pm
Post #134 of 245
(10392 views)
Shortcut
|
I've been looking for book sales by year for a while without much joy. Would you point me in the right direction?
Thanks
LR
|
|
|
DemoElite
Rivendell
Aug 18 2012, 10:10pm
Post #135 of 245
(10445 views)
Shortcut
|
|
ROTK won an Academy Award for Best picture...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...just reminding all who think that it was a terrible movie. Many, many people will disagree with you. It matters not whether it was based on, loosely based on, inspired by, etc. It was a great film period. Not everyone has the taste for action adventure, I understand. But the argument on whether it was a quality picture or not should be quieted. Was it a great LOTR film? Not much to compare it to really. It was better then the animated films IMO. Yes, IMO.
The films kept the spirit of the book. Changes were made. We had extended editions made because the director tried not to cut anything out. He did his best I believe. He also had to answer to Hollywood. That is a tough crowd. I am sure there were many people hanging over his shoulder with threats "it better be successful" "it better be entertaining" "it can't be too long" "it can't be complicated" "its action adventure, make it fun". With those demands, he did his best to walk the line of entertaining, artistic, true to the spirit of the book with interesting characters, great storyline, and a great pace.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 18 2012, 10:14pm
Post #136 of 245
(10374 views)
Shortcut
|
Royd attended one of the ORC (One Ring Con) events in Pasadena in 2005. He mingled with the other attendees, spoke about his experiences in NZ, autographed things, and was generally open, personable, and (yes) cool. I got him to autograph my 50th Anniv. Ed. of LotR.
I don't think it's fair to categorize the entire family in any particular fashion. They're all individuals with their own tastes and preferences. The Estate, in contrast, is a non-profit organization with its directors and policies. Right now it has taken the position that it does not support film/TV versions of the books beyond those rights that were sold back in the day. That's a far cry from saying the family (or even Christopher) "hates" the films.
Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Aug 18 2012, 10:15pm
Post #137 of 245
(10380 views)
Shortcut
|
|
To many people, the Oscars mean nothing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...just reminding all who think that it was a terrible movie. Many, many people will disagree with you. It matters not whether it was based on, loosely based on, inspired by, etc. It was a great film period. Not everyone has the taste for action adventure, I understand. But the argument on whether it was a quality picture or not should be quieted. Was it a great LOTR film? Not much to compare it to really. It was better then the animated films IMO. Yes, IMO.
The films kept the spirit of the book. Changes were made. We had extended editions made because the director tried not to cut anything out. He did his best I believe. He also had to answer to Hollywood. That is a tough crowd. I am sure there were many people hanging over his shoulder with threats "it better be successful" "it better be entertaining" "it can't be too long" "it can't be complicated" "its action adventure, make it fun". With those demands, he did his best to walk the line of entertaining, artistic, true to the spirit of the book with interesting characters, great storyline, and a great pace.
Many rubbish films have won awards in the past, while excellent films haven't won any. 
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Aug 18 2012, 10:19pm
Post #138 of 245
(10539 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am shocked by some people's views on here
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Unbelievably rude about Christopher Tolkien, its disgraceful - after all he has done! People demanding he or someone in the Tolkien family sells the rights to The Silmarillion - something which would have never been published without his doing!
People are saying PJ has done so much for Tolkien, what about Christopher? For me he has done far far more than what PJ has done.
PJ has changed the books from what they were into something which has more general appeal to the most number of people. In most cases this is a good thing - people who have not read the books dont care what changes he has made, people who have read the books but dont really care how its adapted, dont care what changes are made (obviously), for some the book is something so good they dont want to see any of it changed for no other reason than they love the original and want it to be just like that, as that is what they like and makes them happy.
As for Christopher he can do or say whatever he wants, he has helped shape the middle earth we know giving us glimpses we would never have seen if it werent for him. He arguably understands ME more than any of us, and certainly understands Tolkien and his wishes better than we do. It is just sad that people seem to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge everything he has done and dont like him simply because he doesnt like the films (or what the films have done to people's understanding of ME). For him ME is far more diverse and has much more depth to it than PJ's trilogy and he thinks people dont understand the true beauty of his fathers works - he feels like people are only getting to see a shoddy imitation or only one side of ME - this is my opinion of course. I can see where he is coming from with that.
|
|
|
Dlanor da Great
Rivendell
Aug 18 2012, 10:21pm
Post #139 of 245
(10365 views)
Shortcut
|
...after having it being such a intimate part of my childhood, i would probably be to rigid in my thinking on how it should be portrayed.
Its like if you grow up on Transformers and have a certain image and feeling for who they are.
Then someone later makes a movie based on them that changes things up to the point that it goes against the feelings the original product conjured up in you. As well as conflicts with what image you have had in your head for the past 20 years.
Superman's costume has nothing to do with his powers ,but if movie makers tweak it even a little,, people will have strong feelings on the matter.
In this case , movies have lesser room for creative freedom than books do.
Im sure PJ could have made perfect adaptions if most people were willing to sit in a theater for a entire day listening to alot of poetic dialoge and exposition.
So you may not get the same fuzzy feelings that the book gave you. which could cause you to judge more harshly than the average person.
But no matter anyones negative opinions, PJ's film are not considered terrible films.
Flawed?.... Well how many movies are perfect?
|
|
|
DemoElite
Rivendell
Aug 18 2012, 10:23pm
Post #140 of 245
(10293 views)
Shortcut
|
My point was, was it a good film as far as quality, storytelling, etc and yes it was. Overall, the film industry, critics and the general population based on response and money said it was. Whether it was a great depiction of a Tolkien Middle Earth film, that is what we debate day after day to keep things fun. Getting back to the original post, does the Tolkien Estate "HATE" the films in general since that is what Peter Jackson said at Comic Con, and would they support "The Silmarilian" made into a movie in the future? According to Jackson, NO! THEY HATE THEM!...is that true or is it Jackson perception or is it a ploy to get Tolkien Estates to respond or be swayed in the public eye to release rights?
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!
(This post was edited by DemoElite on Aug 18 2012, 10:27pm)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Aug 18 2012, 10:33pm
Post #141 of 245
(10352 views)
Shortcut
|
You may view their record here. Last year they donated to:
AAH, MSF, Oxfam, UNICEF (Pakistan), King Edward's School Birmingham, and Future Hope.
Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
Dlanor da Great
Rivendell
Aug 18 2012, 10:38pm
Post #142 of 245
(10335 views)
Shortcut
|
... Tolkien himself said that LOTR was unfilmable, and most seem to agree.
Yet, many judge PJ's films on the bases of it not being enough like the books?
THE BOOKS ARE NOT FILMABLE. You can ONLY adapt them.
Different genre, different rules.
|
|
|
Spaldron
Rivendell
Aug 19 2012, 12:38am
Post #143 of 245
(10174 views)
Shortcut
|
...but your post was so full of pseudo-intellectual, pedantic tosh that I fell asleep halfway through and obviously completely missed the point. Or did I?
Oh and deliberately quoting me with a Comic Sans font (I see what you did there) and adding your own words with an oversized Times New Roman (because we all know writing with bigger fonts makes the words look more important) is just juvenile.
"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."
|
|
|
Spaldron
Rivendell
Aug 19 2012, 1:08am
Post #144 of 245
(10312 views)
Shortcut
|
So you are saying the Tolkien Estate should not be compensated for (the increased) sales of the books -
No I didn't say that. What I was trying to say was that if they're prepared to enjoy the fruits of Peter Jackson's labours then maybe they should lay off the criticism a tad.
the original works upon which all else is based
Didn't know that (sarcasm).
- if they don't like the movies?
They have been very vocal (their head CT, and various spokespeople) about their dislike/disdain of PJ's films. I know not all of them are against the works (thankfully) but the ones who hold the keys to the castle certainly do. Compare their involvement to that of J.K Rowling's more hands on approach to the HP adaptations. The real irony of course being that the HP films don't hold a candle to the LOTR films and yet the former are largely embraced by their creator and the latter are dismissed as "action movies for 15 year olds".
That's absurd.
Noted
I'd like to see your source that defines a "massive increase" in sales.
I don't have those detailed sales figures to hand right now I'm afraid as I'm not God (or the head of book publishing), I must have left them in my other coat pocket. But as you seem to be seriously doubting that the biggest film trilogy in history had any effect whatsoever on the subsequent sales figures of the source books it was based on then I honestly don't know what to say. Its not like book sales shoot through the roof for any tie in with a major film franchise right? You don't recall the rows and rows of bookshelves full of Tolkien in every book retailer between 2001-2004 because I certainly do (I worked for a major book shop at the time and remember how many LOTR we went through).
Or are you seriously suggesting that sales of LOTR remained unchanged throughout the whole time the films were conquering the world and not a single new reader was introduced to the world of Tolkien? Because I sure as hell know I was, I'm what they call a "film firster" and proud of it. 
Also, it's "Hear, hear."
Pedant. 
"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."
(This post was edited by Spaldron on Aug 19 2012, 1:13am)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Aug 19 2012, 1:50am
Post #145 of 245
(11398 views)
Shortcut
|
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
GoodGuyA
Lorien
Aug 19 2012, 1:59am
Post #146 of 245
(10275 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I feel like Harry Potter analogies aren't going to get you anywhere.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now get me wrong, I read both Harry Potter (1-4) and Hobbit/LotR literally right after another. I love both series to a great extent, but for different reasons. Many people looking retroactively on Rowling's work claim that it lacks depth. On a Tolkien forum, you're not likely to get people who think J. K. Rowling is anywhere near at odds with J. R. R. Tolkien, and to an extent they are right. It all depends on the different perspectives that you're looking at it from.
People need to remember that CTolkien was literally one of the first people to see these stories form. He has a literal emotional connection with them, and then he made it his entire professional life to see these stories morph and grow. It's completely understandable that if he saw something that didn't match to his interpretation of Middle-earth that he would naturally be aggressive towards it. He's also taught his family and those around him the closest possible intention that his father had for the work, and thus they take it upon themselves to being very astute in Tolkien knowledge. What he misses though is that his father did state publicly that the interpretations are meant to open for others to project on their own experiences. If people take LotR as the way PJ portrays it, then that should be fine. He certainly didn't bastardize the text beyond recognition. The key emotional moments are still there.
CTolkien has all rights to protect his father's work. Legal rights, moral rights, etc. We shouldn't look down on him for it. It's just the way he sees this world we all know and love.
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Aug 19 2012, 5:29am
Post #147 of 245
(10230 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I never said it was a terrible movie. I am personally rather fond of it. So much so
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that I strutted about for a week after it won all those Academy Awards. I was very happy for the films, the actors, the entire cast and crew, et al. And I felt at least a small, if naughty, measure of vindication against those who had not been on board with my claims of how wonderful the works were.
I did not even say they were bad adaptations. I think they were fairly good adaptations. That said, I absolutely believe they could have been better adaptations, and the result would, in some regards, have made for better films, though as films seperate from being adaptations they were great indeed.
And none of that changes the fact that, much as I love Arwen, and the majority of the added screen time she got, and the beautiful, sexy Liv Tyler's portrayl of her, still it pisses me off beyond words that millions of people think she aided Frodo against The Nine Nazgul while not knowing who the hell Glorfindel is. . . or that I continue to think it an sloppy oversight and flaw that, after making so much fuss about The Elves departing Middle-Earth, Peter didn't bother with the deep, rather thorough, and very lucid explanation that both Tolkien and Bakshi managed elegantly, eloquently, and almost heart rendingly in less than three paragraphs/two minutes of time.
Again, I am not a hater of Jackson's efforts. I actually deeply appreciate them, and think he did an admirable if sometimes flawed job. This does not stop me from finding it ridiculous and obnoxious when some behave as though the man defecates roses, or as though his every alteration was either a brilliant idea, or at least one that we should not dare to raise serious issue with. ...just reminding all who think that it was a terrible movie. Many, many people will disagree with you. It matters not whether it was based on, loosely based on, inspired by, etc. It was a great film period. Not everyone has the taste for action adventure, I understand. But the argument on whether it was a quality picture or not should be quieted. Was it a great LOTR film? Not much to compare it to really. It was better then the animated films IMO. Yes, IMO.
The films kept the spirit of the book. Changes were made. We had extended editions made because the director tried not to cut anything out. He did his best I believe. He also had to answer to Hollywood. That is a tough crowd. I am sure there were many people hanging over his shoulder with threats "it better be successful" "it better be entertaining" "it can't be too long" "it can't be complicated" "its action adventure, make it fun". With those demands, he did his best to walk the line of entertaining, artistic, true to the spirit of the book with interesting characters, great storyline, and a great pace.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Aug 19 2012, 5:35am)
|
|
|
Tigero
Rivendell
Aug 19 2012, 7:30am
Post #148 of 245
(10191 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOTR was not good film especially in terms of quality...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Swords falling out of scabbards, crew among orcs, stupid-looking Gimli double at black gate... And trilogy just ain't enough, especially when TTT is jammed with bland Frodo-Sam-Gollum stuff.
My point is, the books were polished to perfection, you can't make it better. The films just were rushed, while the books took a lifetime to make.
But of course you shouldn't be too demanding but go and tell that to Tolkien estate.
Pessimists have no disappointments.
|
|
|
Earl
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Aug 19 2012, 8:01am
Post #150 of 245
(10314 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Here's BBC's interview with Royd from 2003
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Link
The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.
|
|
|
|
|
