|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 11 2016, 12:32am
Post #126 of 174
(1016 views)
Shortcut
|
You're wrong; I got it! Sorry I didn't acknowledge the clever wordplay.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 11 2016, 4:13pm
Post #127 of 174
(969 views)
Shortcut
|
|
IMO it doesn’t matter if Tolkien thought that his books could not be turned into films.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He was hardly an expert in film making so his opinion isn't really relevant.
Presumably the purchasers of the film rights had read the books and knew what they were buying. They were the experts and it was up to them to figure out how to make movies of the books.
It’s not like Tolkien tried to fool or defraud anyone.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 11 2016, 4:49pm
Post #128 of 174
(960 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you, for stating the case more clearly than I did. The Hollywood movie guy was not trying to buy a pig in a poke. He (or at least one of his people) had already read The Hobbit and had a good idea of how hard or easy it would be to adapt. The concept art by Arthur Rackham also suggests that the proposal might have been for an animated film, which solves a lot of production issues right away in terms of make-up, models and special effects.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Feb 12 2016, 1:45pm
Post #129 of 174
(926 views)
Shortcut
|
I get the feeling that Tolkien was generally comparing the art (whatever he saw) to Arthur Rackham as opposed to Disney type pictures.
I'm not aware that A. R. did any actual concept art for the proposed film. If he did it would probably be on my wall right now (well, reproductions), right next to my print from The Ring of the Nibelung.
Unless that's what you meant 
(This post was edited by Elthir on Feb 12 2016, 1:51pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Feb 12 2016, 2:01pm
Post #130 of 174
(919 views)
Shortcut
|
That is certainly what I have always taken his statement to mean.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 12 2016, 5:51pm
Post #131 of 174
(899 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Rackham or not Rackham - LotR Adaptation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I get the feeling that Tolkien was generally comparing the art (whatever he saw) to Arthur Rackham as opposed to Disney type pictures.
That certainly seems possible. Reviewing some of Tolkien's other letters, it seems that I was mistaken and this proposal was for an animated film of The Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit.
198 From a letter to Rayner Unwin 19 June 1957
[An American film-maker had enquired about the possibility of making a cartoon film of The Lord of the Rings.]
As far as I am concerned personally, I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization; and that quite apart from the glint of money, though on the brink of retirement that is not an unpleasant possibility. I think I should find vulgarization less painful than the sillification achieved by the B.B.C.
In subsequent letters Tolkien expresses reservations about the synopsis for the proposed film (letters 201, 202, and especially 207 and 210 for his comments on the treatment by Morton Grady Zimmerman).
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 12 2016, 5:58pm)
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 12 2016, 9:02pm
Post #132 of 174
(884 views)
Shortcut
|
Certainly, true & fair enough on many of your points, but then again, they could've made them look more like traditional dwarves and have some other things to distinguish them from one another. I guess one or two of them could've been the ones to wear hoods all the time, perhaps two (or three) close relatives. They could've given one of them a helmet - not one like Gimli's, but maybe a helmet forged by the dwarf himself, or the remains of a helmet which he kept after the Battle of Azanulbizar. But regardless of anything like that, they - like you also agreed with - should've had larger individual roles. There should've been dwarves who ended up wounded from the escape from Goblin-town, who Oin ends up helping out, him being the apothecary and all. And the supposed banker of the group, Gloin (as said in BTS videos, same for Oin being sort of an apothecary) could've taken care of finances or such things. And they could've made it clearer that Bombur was responsible for the food, and so on... much more favourable than having as many other characters as possible... Oh well. Maybe a different adaptation will show this, some day, in the future.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Feb 13 2016, 12:01am
Post #133 of 174
(862 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm looking at this from the Rackham side too
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As a fan of AR I have many of his illustrated books, and a number of books about the illustrator, and I never recall any work for Tolkien even been mentioned.
I remember because I love both artists, and would have loved to see a Rackham (or Dulac or Flint) Silmarillion... although of course we didn't have that book until 1977.
Some say (or at least one critic I seem to recall) that AR couldn't handle the "heroic" as well as he handled Peter Pan or Rip Van Winkle, but I think his work for Wagner's story says otherwise.
Anyway AR passed on in 1939, well before The Lord of the Rings was published in the 1950s.
Gustaf Tenggren (worked for Disney at one point) lived beyond that, but it seems he gave up his "Rackham-esque" style at one point.
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
Feb 13 2016, 7:08am
Post #134 of 174
(841 views)
Shortcut
|
...it is weird that the Dwarves had so much backstory and character development in theory, but hardly any of that made it into the films. Gloin being a banker, Bifur's toys, Nori on the run from the law, the bit about Dori, Nori, and Ori being only half-brothers, among other things.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 13 2016, 12:15pm
Post #135 of 174
(828 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hmm... is it so very weird, though?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd tend to see the dwarf backstories along the same lines as all the detailed artwork we don't really see except in the background material. Costume details, carefully thought-out bits and pieces the dwarves (and Bilbo) carried in their packs, inscriptions written on swords and axes. All those things inform the performances and fill out the world we see on screen, making it feel real.
And if you think about it, some details do just sneak in to the edges of the film. Toy making? Balin mentions it early on. Gloin as banker? Who does Thorin turn to when Bard needs to be paid? Nori the thief? His 'souvenirs' of Rivendell spring to mind - also his lock-picking skills. It's subtle but it's there, and because it's only hinted at it points - as Tolkien so often pointed - to a whole world existing beyond the immediate story. It leaves room for the imagination to play.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Feb 13 2016, 1:18pm
Post #136 of 174
(814 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd tend to see the dwarf backstories along the same lines as all the detailed artwork we don't really see except in the background material. Costume details, carefully thought-out bits and pieces the dwarves (and Bilbo) carried in their packs, inscriptions written on swords and axes. All those things inform the performances and fill out the world we see on screen, making it feel real.
And if you think about it, some details do just sneak in to the edges of the film. Toy making? Balin mentions it early on. Gloin as banker? Who does Thorin turn to when Bard needs to be paid? Nori the thief? His 'souvenirs' of Rivendell spring to mind - also his lock-picking skills. It's subtle but it's there, and because it's only hinted at it points - as Tolkien so often pointed - to a whole world existing beyond the immediate story. It leaves room for the imagination to play.
The character back stories were created for/by the actors for the benefit of the actors, to help them in their portrayals of their characters. We didn't really need to know.
While the lovingly created minute details of the design of these movies may not be perceived by the conscious mind of the viewer, I believe that we do take in more than we realize and that those details add to the richness and reality of the Middle-earth that PJ et al have created.
|
|
|
Ilmatar
Rohan
Feb 14 2016, 11:44pm
Post #137 of 174
(765 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree that more of the dwarves backstories would have been nice to see, but I see the point that dormouse made about them being there in order to make the world more real, as well as Noria saying that the stories were for the benefit of the actors. Personally, selfishly - yes, I would have liked to see considerably more of that in the films.
But I don't think they went for "having as many other characters as possible" - there were as many characters as there were in the book (as long as we are still talking about *dwarves*). In the end I suppose I would rather see "too few" scenes and stories with characters I have come to care about, than "too many" scenes with characters I don't care about or can't even distinguish from one another. (And a different adaptation does not really "help" me because I specifically care about these versions of the characters.  )
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 15 2016, 3:29am
Post #138 of 174
(758 views)
Shortcut
|
Its obvious they felt they needed to "sex up" the characters in order to A) Make the love triangle thing seem more realistic, and B) Make the movies more palatable to a female audience. Ignoring the female demographic would have been a huge loss financially. So from the studios perspective I can see why they did it this way. However, as a fan of the book, I do not believe these are the dwarves Tolkien had envisioned.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 15 2016, 3:56am
Post #139 of 174
(750 views)
Shortcut
|
Its obvious they felt they needed to "sex up" the characters in order to A) Make the love triangle thing seem more realistic, and B) Make the movies more palatable to a female audience. Ignoring the female demographic would have been a huge loss financially. So from the studios perspective I can see why they did it this way. However, as a fan of the book, I do not believe these are the dwarves Tolkien had envisioned.
Yes, but it is one thing to say that since we are including several, new supporting characters, at least one of them should be a woman. I can fully appreciate that. However, if I was a woman I do think that I would be insulted by the idea that she had to be part of a love story. As it happens, my wife agrees with me on this.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 15 2016, 4:13pm
Post #140 of 174
(730 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't for a second agree with 98% of the decisions made in the filming of these movies. And altering the story in this way in order to appeal to the modern female demographic not only belittles the intelligence of women to be able to appreciate a classic story without silly modern embellishments, it is also disrespectful to the author. Unfortunately however, it has appeared to work, as there are many women who are fans of the movies, largely due to the sexiness of certain dwarves as can be evidenced by the countless examples of fan art and fan fiction all over the internet.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 15 2016, 5:15pm
Post #141 of 174
(721 views)
Shortcut
|
At the same time, I think that 'sexy Thorin' has a far more vocal female fandom than does his youngest nephew.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 15 2016, 5:52pm
Post #142 of 174
(708 views)
Shortcut
|
Sexy Thorin is a hit with the ladies. Just google image search "sexy thorin" and behold the horror.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 15 2016, 10:18pm
Post #143 of 174
(685 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually pretty common to have unpublished backstory
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...it is weird that the Dwarves had so much backstory and character development in theory, but hardly any of that made it into the films. Gloin being a banker, Bifur's toys, Nori on the run from the law, the bit about Dori, Nori, and Ori being only half-brothers, among other things.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Feb 16 2016, 12:33am
Post #144 of 174
(674 views)
Shortcut
|
Oh the horror of people finding characters attractive and expressing that they do 
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Feb 16 2016, 12:36am
Post #145 of 174
(671 views)
Shortcut
|
After all, isn't that why Tolkien wrote the appendices, and why JK Rowling is doing Pottermore website, to share those character and world details that didn't or couldn't make it into the story proper?
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 16 2016, 12:44am
Post #146 of 174
(667 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe not so much horror, rather soul destroying cringe.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Feb 16 2016, 12:49am
Post #147 of 174
(664 views)
Shortcut
|
Because if someone says they think a character is attractive, that is the only reason they would watch and like a movie... They can't legitimately like the story and other things about it, if they do sexy fanart or fic. If that's what you're saying, then man do I have news for you.
And so what if someone sees a movie because an attractive actor/character is in it? That doesn't mean they only like it for that after they've seen it.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 16 2016, 1:24am
Post #148 of 174
(659 views)
Shortcut
|
I wouldn't presume to know what other aspects of the movies the creators of fanfic/art like or do not like, nor do I really care. Fanfic/art is merely a byproduct of pop culture...and that basicially is what Peter Jackson's hobbit is. I just find it sad to see a classic work of literature reduced to such a base level entertainment.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Feb 16 2016, 1:25am
Post #149 of 174
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You could say that about any book-to-film adaptation with that logic...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on Feb 16 2016, 1:26am)
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 16 2016, 1:27am
Post #150 of 174
(652 views)
Shortcut
|
but some pull it off better than others.
|
|
|
|
|
