|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
demnation
Nargothrond
Dec 20 2013, 12:56am
Post #1 of 7
(578 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Tolkien Nerd’s Guide to DOS
|
Can't Post
|
|
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/....html?c=y&page=2
While it's great to hear from noted Tolkien scholars John Rateliff and Michael Drout, there are a few rather amusing typos (the mysterious town of "Brie", Tauriel's "charter") overstatements ("23 pages devoted solely to describing Bilbo’s birthday party") and inaccuracies (it's certainly unfair to say that Tolkien said no female warrior elves EVER.) Still, it's interesting for those who are curious about DOS's deeper relation to the text.
Without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless
As far as any character is 'like me' it is Faramir–except that I lack what all my characters possess: Courage.
A small knowledge of history depresses one with the sense of the everlasting mass and weight of human iniquity
|
|
|
Fredeghar Wayfarer
Menegroth
Dec 20 2013, 4:39am
Post #2 of 7
(288 views)
Shortcut
|
|
“I liked it in its own terms, but it wasn’t the movie I wanted to see.”
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This! A hundred times this! Also agree on their suggestion to trim some of the "action fat" next time, that the 20-minute Smaug battle has no consequences, and that Legolas goes from fun cameo to basically taking over half the movie and distracting from Bilbo's story. I'm very much in Rateliff and Drout's purist camp.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Dec 20 2013, 4:50am
Post #3 of 7
(281 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That "Smithsonian" article links back to this forum!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Specifically, to this review of the film by HeadingSouth, which the article identifies as one of several fan responses that agree with film critic Chris Orr's verdict (correct in my opinion) that the film is "bad fan fiction".
As usual, I agree and disagree with some of what Drout and Rateliff have to say. For apparently praising the film's attempt to minimize the "ridiculous" aspect of the dwarves, without reference to how well that Jackson-diminished characteristic had worked for Kurosawa, I was tempted to again drag out Tolkien's description of Jusserand that I dropped on someone else yesterday, but Drout, bless him, goes on to say "The Arkenstone is not supposed to be a mechanism ... They’ve taken it and turned it into the Ring.” And Rateliff, who as in his blog review acknowledges his enjoyment of this cinematic installment, goes a bit farther with his caveats, stating, "It wasn't the movie I wanted to see"
Besides the several typos, this by the article's author isn't right: "It’s not until The Lord of the Rings Appendices that Tolkien expands upon this and reveals that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron." This is in fact made explicit in "The Shadow of the Past". And I don't think it's reasonable to describe the film's "albino orc" as being but a "seemingly small change" from the book!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Dec 20 2013, 4:53am
Post #4 of 7
(287 views)
Shortcut
|
Like I'd let them in my camp anyway.
Seriously, both Rateliff and Drout, if showing slight disappointment at the newest film, are generally counted among Jackson's fans in critical circles.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Dec 20 2013, 5:56am
Post #5 of 7
(265 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Drout too? I didn't know that.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And it's always wonderful to see you around!
Like I'd let them in my camp anyway.
Heh.
But I've always mantained that a true purist is not one who has a negative opinion of Jackson's films, but one who manages to separate the books from the films. I try to do so myself. Not always successfully - but I conflate the two far less than many Jackson-bashers who claim the title.
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Dec 20 2013, 7:09am
Post #6 of 7
(257 views)
Shortcut
|
|
that bugged me about the arkenstone
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
they did the same thi g with Anduril, apparantley that gave Aragorn some sort of power over the Army of the Dead beyond the symbolism of the reforged sword.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Dec 20 2013, 4:19pm
Post #7 of 7
(200 views)
Shortcut
|
... I was bemused and amused to see the Tolkien Estate referred to as 'libelous'. I think they meant 'litigious', as I don't think the Estate is given to libelling others!
|
|
|
|
|
