|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Sep 24 2012, 6:14pm
Post #201 of 255
(1849 views)
Shortcut
|
It is a fallacy to call any derivation not sanctioned or otherwise legitimized by the original author "correct." The closest anyone can come is "done in the spirit of," "inspired by," or the exasperatingly misleading "based on."
Of course we can debate whether additions/changes are near misses or wide of the mark all we want to (and we should be free to do so without having our integrity questioned). Technically though, no one other than JRR Tolkien (from beyond the grave) can call any change "correct" ...and even he might not be a reliable judge since his works are larger than himself.
All this is to say, it is not strictly a slight against PB to say her changes are never "correct."
Want to display a The Hobbit cover of your own? Click Here
Thank you Magpie!
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 24 2012, 6:15pm
Post #202 of 255
(1837 views)
Shortcut
|
The books (the original works) are still intact, despite the movies. In your example, the original work was seriously damaged.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Sep 24 2012, 6:17pm
Post #203 of 255
(1835 views)
Shortcut
|
Metaphors and analogies aren't meant to be literal. To point out the lack of physical attack unfairly ignores that.
I would have countered that the book still exists.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Sep 24 2012, 6:19pm
Post #205 of 255
(1839 views)
Shortcut
|
"Poor comparison - Boyens isn't mentally disturbed"
She thinks she's a better writer than Tolkien. Delusional.
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Sep 24 2012, 6:21pm
Post #206 of 255
(1862 views)
Shortcut
|
for them to invoke Tolkien's intent when trying to justify their changes. I can see how that would be offensive to some who are concerned over Tolkien's honour or that his memory should remain intact.
Still, culture is rather elastic; those who swim in creative waters must be prepared for the ravages of popularity. The trouble here I think is Tolkien isn't around to defend his vision. (And according to some, even CT hasn't always published according to his father's intent... though obviously he does try very hard to do so.)
Want to display a The Hobbit cover of your own? Click Here
Thank you Magpie!
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Sep 24 2012, 6:23pm
Post #208 of 255
(1838 views)
Shortcut
|
What objective proof is there that Philippa's contributions to the movies made them worse?
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Sep 24 2012, 6:24pm
Post #209 of 255
(1839 views)
Shortcut
|
There is also evidence that Tolkien was quite capable -
[In reply to]
|
|
|
Technically though, no one other than JRR Tolkien (from beyond the grave) can call any change "correct" ...and even he might not be a reliable judge since his works are larger than himself.
- of changing his mind - at least when it came to his works, otherwise we'd still have the original version of the Hobbit.
I wonder how Tolkien would have reacted to the current era.
(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Sep 24 2012, 6:27pm)
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 24 2012, 6:28pm
Post #210 of 255
(1829 views)
Shortcut
|
your point of view, so I didn't realize you were trying to start an argument.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Sep 24 2012, 6:28pm
Post #211 of 255
(1834 views)
Shortcut
|
The books (the original works) are still intact, despite the movies. In your example, the original work was seriously damaged.
Is it not the case that now and henceforward the vast majority of those who read the books will have done so only after seeing the films, and have their perception incurably polluted by PBJ crud?
It's rather like the problem any modern has reading the Nibelungenlied or Volsungasaga- one simply can't do it free of the Wagner taint, at least not without incredible firmness of will.
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Sep 24 2012, 6:34pm
Post #212 of 255
(1804 views)
Shortcut
|
Toth declared he was Jesus Christ. Unless Boyens sits at her desk screaming: "I am Tolkien reincarnate", then that's an unjustified suggestion. 
Boyens does sit at tables at conventions saying she's a better writer than Tolkien.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Sep 24 2012, 6:36pm
Post #213 of 255
(1804 views)
Shortcut
|
She thinks she's a better writer than Tolkien.
- actually said that?
That's quite a claim.
(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Sep 24 2012, 6:41pm)
|
|
|
Solicitr
Gondor
Sep 24 2012, 6:38pm
Post #214 of 255
(1820 views)
Shortcut
|
your point of view, so I didn't realize you were trying to start an argument.
just observing that the long, long litany of foolish and destructive changes, from Refusing Ents to Elves At Helm's Deep to Arwen Is Dying ad nauseam, is so well-rehearsed as not to require recitation.
It would be far more efficient to list those which improved anything.
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 24 2012, 6:39pm
Post #215 of 255
(1820 views)
Shortcut
|
but I think many who find the books because of the movies will be capable of enoying both. I have been on these message boards for over 10 years, and I can feel confident in saying that the majority of LOTR movie-firsters love the books and can easily distinguish between the books and the movies.
I'm not at all worried about future Hobbit-movie-firsters.
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 24 2012, 6:43pm
Post #216 of 255
(1843 views)
Shortcut
|
And how do you get an objective measurement of whether the changes are negative?
I completely understand that someone doesn't like parts of the movies - there are some parts I don't like. But my opinion is not objective proof.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Sep 24 2012, 6:47pm
Post #217 of 255
(1808 views)
Shortcut
|
It is more accurate to say she implies it in the words and deeds of the collective writers, for whom she usually speaks, but they usually defer to her. If no fact of the book is changed, it suggests they believe Tolkien wrote it best. It suggests they believe to the contrary when there are any changes at all. This is not to say they must literally transcribe the book into a movie. It just means they don't change quotes or significant story plot and devices unless they believe they can do it better.
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Sep 24 2012, 6:50pm
Post #219 of 255
(1813 views)
Shortcut
|
What I'm most interested in is the degree to which the film makers remain true to their own vision here; also that they should not feel compelled to implicate Tolkien when they are backed into a corner over this or that decision they've made.
As I said elsewhere, we must consider that for the purposes of TH:AUJ, the Gollum of LOTR is the base Gollum (I know we're sort of talking about Tauriel here, but bare with me). The Gollum of LOTR is the Gollum the current Gollum [rightly] will be measured against. More generally, concerning Tauriel, the Middle-earth of LOTR is the Middle-earth TH will be measured against by "most" fans. Based on the M-e of PJ's LOTR, the addition of Tauriel is more than acceptable, imho. (And as a bonus, isn't too hard on the eyes either.)
To my mind, how far PB&J will depart, or have already departed, from Tolkien's vision is a separate issue. The best we can do when discussing their changes is to talk about them being either acceptable or unacceptable. Of course opinions vary widely on both points...
Now, more specifically to your point: As has been noted many times before, even Tolkien abandoned a complete overhaul of The Hobbit.
Want to display a The Hobbit cover of your own? Click Here
Thank you Magpie!
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Sep 24 2012, 6:53pm)
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens
Sep 24 2012, 6:54pm
Post #220 of 255
(1792 views)
Shortcut
|
I had been rather looking forward to replying to this thread but return to find it has descended silliness. Person x is never ever right, my opinion is an objective fact etc.
What a shame.
LR
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Sep 24 2012, 7:03pm
Post #221 of 255
(1794 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Amateur writers do have a tendency to inflate their skills, and disparages their sources
[In reply to]
|
|
|
While Philippa Boyens never outright declared her superiority to Tolkien, she does sometimes implicitly suggest that Tolkien's storytelling was not up to snuff.
In my experience, this kind of arrogance is particularly acute among aspiring amateur writers, who are still too green to be secure enough in themselves to not disparage their sources.
As I understand it, Boyens had absolutely no screenwriting experience prior to writing for the LOTR films, though she had taken a creative writing course...
So, I would classify her at the time of writing LOTR as an amateur writer, and IMO, it really shows in both her comments (droning on about screenwriting 101 ideas such as 'dramatic reversals, ect), and the product (the actual scripts).
However, I think it is misleading to suggest that she has actively declared her superiority to Tolkien. As far as I am aware, she never actually said that.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Sep 24 2012, 7:10pm
Post #222 of 255
(1791 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I see the LOTR films as having been made -
[In reply to]
|
|
|
- in not quite ideal circumstances for PJ and Co.. I imagine the decision to alter a two-film script to accommodate three movies, rather than start from scratch, was due, at least in part, to time constraints.
With the Hobbit movies, PJ and Co have had more control and more time. Hopefully, they can do a decent job with both the Bilbo and Necromancer storylines.
And if the White Council/Necromancer segments of the films work, then we can start lobbying for a War in the North movie.
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 24 2012, 7:12pm
Post #223 of 255
(1744 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the inclusion of Tom Bombadil is often cited as a pointless storyline, and there are many, many Tolkien fans who dislike the character. So there might be some agreement with Philippa that not all of Tolkien's writing is up to snuff.
I love Tom, so I would not be one of those who agree with her on that particular point.
|
|
|
Escapist
Gondor
Sep 24 2012, 7:17pm
Post #225 of 255
(1768 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You assume so much about the elvish society under Thranduil.
[In reply to]
|
|
|
Although much of medieval history is filled with predominantly male heroes of battle and warlords, there are some examples of societies and legends that include female hunters, warriors, and high-level leaders (Joan of Arc, Boudica, Amazonian women, Artemis) . Albeit less common, but not non-existent or impossible.
I don't think the details of Thranduil's particular stance on this were given in the book? It seems like a lot to assume that it was impossible or to assume that the elvish society matched well known medieval society patterns or that the difficulties Eowyn faced in Rohan would have been present in the same fashion uniformly across middle earth.
And I think those assumptions are coming from yourself and not from the book ... I hope you realize ...
While I think that it would sometimes detract from the characterization of females who truly do challenge the "old boys club" wherever it is found to obscure the existence of social limitations (which may exist for a reason), I wouldn't just blandly assume that all societies in middle earth operate that way.
There is much that remains undisclosed about the working of Thranduil's army - too much to rule out the possible existence of female leadership. They aren't Rohirrim such that a known limitation or gender-derived role assignment system exists. Neither should they assumed to be exactly like to the legendary knights in King Arthur legends necessarily - in some ways they are already clearly decidedly different so why can't they be different in other ways?
Actually - if a more legendary irish/celtic slant is given to the elves of Mirkwood, I would argue that female leadership and warrior-maidens / maidens wielding bows is not really far of the mark at all.
|
|
|
|
|
