Announcement, all new members read: Keeping the Books and Movies separate

[Comic Book Guy]

Recently I've seen a lot of posts about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies in this thread, the movies are influencing judgements, dislike/like of characters, perspectives etc in Lord of the Rings books discussions. I have also seen obvious discussions about the movie in threads that should be about the books.

The books and the movie are separate, that's why we have two forums for both of them, when discussing the books use the Books forum, when discussing the movies use the movies forum. When the movies start being discussed in threads of this forum I will now consider them off-topic and I will take the usual procedure with very off-topic threads.

[Comic Book Guy]

I've opened this annoucement to allow some feedback.

[Lizra]

It is important to keep them separate. If I go to the movie part and someone starts talking about the books, it becomes pretty meaningless and vice versa. Keep it just the way it is and when people get excited and forget, just politely remind them. Thanks for your effort in doing this thankless task!

[Jador]

I'm new to this site,so I havnt been involved in any discussions
yet..But what you are saying makes sense.

:)

[galadriel88]

For once I agree with you on something, CBG! :p Seriously though, We really do need to keep them separate. Of course, references will come up in discussions, i.e. differences between the books and the movies, but if you're gonna start a thread about the books, don't stick it in the movie forum, and vice versa.

[Aragorn_iz_cool]

I agree. The thing that annoys me most is that some people make Legoles their fave, just becouse he looks good in the movie.

[LuthienTinuviel]

hey, i liked legolas way before themovie.
all the elves in general i liked.
it IS annoying isn't it?
"i liked legolas, cause he was blond!" is getting REAL old REAL quick.
did you post this in the movies forum too CBG?

[Comic Book Guy]

hey, i liked legolas way before themovie.

Whats that got to do with anything? I never said you couldn't post about liking Legolas, just any associated with the Movie.

[Spock]

Oh, heck, as long as you keep them "separate" it's fine with me.

[samwiselvr2008]

it's okay to discuss the diffrences, but not while the movie is playing, b/c that messes up the movie!:p

[Faramir]

Some things could be movie or book related right? Like Frodo in the movie versus Frodo in the Book?

[Samwise Gamgee]

Yeah, bt ur just being prickly, Faramir! :D
Oh, and just because this REALLY annoys me, I'll say it here: LURTZ IS NOT IN THE BOOKS! KEEP HIM OUT OUT OUT OF HERE! Ahem. Thankee, kind master.
________
Herbal Vaporizers (http://johan-luis.tumblr.com/)

[Comic Book Guy]

Like Frodo in the movie versus Frodo in the Book?

That would be suited to the Lord of the Rings movie forum.

[Archbob the Elder]

The movie was dissapointing and can't be compared to the richness and detail of the book.

[TinuvielChild]

Definitely agreed about separation of movie and book. V. good idea. I think I made that mistake once. Once. Never again.

[Elbereth]

i agree with you, CBG. maybe you should adress this in the welcome thread, too.

[bropous]

Agreed that it would be beneficial to keep the book and movie discussions separate. However, sometimes it's a hard call, such as when someone is attmepting to contrast and compare the two....into which category would that variety of discussion be classified, CBG?

[BeardofPants]

That would be the movies forum as stated above, Bropous.

[bropous]

Fair call, BoP. I must have missed that post. Thanks.

[BeardofPants]

Absolutely welcome, Bropous. :D

[joe]

I say - join the film and LOVE the book!! The book of JRR must be better than the film, that could not tell the HOLE story and could not describe the FULL characters of the fellowship the ring. Forgive him!!!

[Giladrial]

:confused: Ok I remeber as a Kid watching The Hobbit cartoon evin Playing The tsr games I never got to reading jrr tolkings Novels I PROMICE I WILL I HAVE THEM SAVED AT The Libray Ok I got The dvd I am Planning On getting The collectors edition. I do Beleieve That a world Like This dose or at least could exsist. call me a dreamer I found My self cheering for frodo and His companions and Then yelling at The end of The MOVIE WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED! welol here I am If One of you wounderful Knolageable people who have read The books can Help Me I would be More Then greatful

[Lizra]

Hi Giladrial, Really. it would be too much hassle to tell you what happens to Frodo, You'll just have to take some time and read the books! Trust me, you'll be glad you did. :)

[Sicirus]

I agree CBG. The books are quite more important than the movie.
(I finally get how to work that placement thing.)

[Lady Legolas]

I have a friend who keeps asking me that! It's just not the same if someone tells you what happens. You have to read the books.:D It's way better that way!


¤Lady Legolas¤

[LegolasSoulMate]

Originally posted by joe
I say - join the film and LOVE the book!! The book of JRR must be better than the film, that could not tell the HOLE story and could not describe the FULL characters of the fellowship the ring. Forgive him!!!

I agree...

[Rhûnboy]

Grrr... I just typed a long, complicated reply, and it didn't make it through, so now I get to type it all over again. Anyway, I must seem like Mr. Disagreeable, mumbling dissent all over the place (and maybe this is why nobody's replied to any of my posts here...)

Still, I think I'm going to be the voice of dissent here as well.

In principle, I agree with what you're saying. Off topic discussion is a problem, first, because it wastes time (you spend time reading something you aren't looking for) and second, because it wastes space (a lot is unnecessarily repeated).

For these reasons, posts that are explicitly off-topic should be closed or deleted.

However, I find that with regards to the book vs. movie, there has to be some flexibility. Because the movie is adapted from the book, and because they share essentially the same plot, characters, and much dialogue and exposition, many things about the movie are definitely "on topic" about the book, and vice versa. You cannot expect these two subjects to always be mutually exclusive.

I might sound like I'm being picky, but this has bothered me in several threads I've read tonight. The most extreme case was a thread dealing with "inspiring quotes" from the book and movie. The administration first chastized people for leaving quotes from the movie (some which are very similar with lines of dialogue from the book), suggested a parallel thread be opened in the movie forum to deal with movie quotes, and ultimately threatened to close the thread.

I think this is both counterproductive and overreactive.

I say above that wasted space is a problem of off-topic discussion, but think of how much space is wasted by having two seperate threads in two separate forums to deal with one topic, that is, inspiring quotes.
I also say that wasted time is a problem, yet think of how much time is wasted when someone has to go to two different forums to read up on one subject.

I think a much more reasonable expectation is to say that any thread in the Books forum must say something relevant to the books, regardless of whether the movie is involved or not. This will save time, save space, and it will be a lot less confusing to someone who wants to post an ambiguous subject relevant to both the movie and book.

Dissentingly yours,

Connor (Rhûnboy)

PS. Edited, because my HTML code was bunk! :P

[Hannah]

I agree with with all great literature and films made about them there a great differences and indeed large bits left out in the films which can change the overall opinion of ther charactyer for someone who hasn't read the boo:)

[Aeryn]

Yeah! Okay!

[Lollypopgurl]

Yeah, I agree with you. Peter Jackson did a great job making the movie, but it's still no book, and will never be.

[Nurvingiel]

The book is an endless well of discussion topics, and can easily be discussed independant of the movie.

The movie is adapted from the book, so it's inevitable that in the discussion of the movie, it will be compared to the book, or quotes from the book will be added etc.

Because of this, I think any thread that mentions the movie should be in the movie forum.

[OrlandoFan234]

Aragorn_iz_cool,
__________________________________________________ __
I agree. The thing that annoys me most is that some people make Legoles their fave, just becouse he looks good in the movie.
__________________________________________________ __
Why do you say that? I mean Legoles is good in the book also. (As well as in the Movie!!!) Just wondering I thought it was interesting that you and some others would say th at!
~OrlandoFan234~

[Nurvingiel]

I'm with you guys... but I know it's easy to go massively off-topic! I've sure done that a few times... but we just have to try to keep 'em seperate! ;)

[Eothain]

I agree.

[Herooftheworld]

can some of you show me how this place works?

[azalea]

I would suggest introducing yourself in the newbie thread in the General Messages forum, and then just explore the board a little. After you've read some of the threads, you'll get the hang of it. Also, refer to the Frequently Asked Questions. There's a lot of helpful info there.:)

[congressmn]

ya, one more peice of advise. I have been here only for a while my self.
But yes, I have had enough of my threads closed down. SO DONT POST NE RUBBUSH. Azalea and the others will shut them down immediately.
If u want proof.
goto LORD OF THE RINGS: BOOK and look for Iluventmoot, or azalea-not so good----
or goto Middle Earth and look for : SEXy Shelob, all closed down.


So i hope u get the message.

[Jonathan]

Haha, most of congressmn's threads have been closed down! I find that quite amusing :D

[congressmn]

i see jonathan, u r finding it too funny that my threads have been closed down eh.

[Jonathan]

Well, I guess that when you name your threads to funny names like "Sexy Shelob", "azela, not so good moderator", and "Iluventmoot" and keep posting the threads in the wrong places, then you have to count on that the threads are being closed :D

[Narsil's Master]

it is good because some people haven't read the books

[Finrod Felagund]

THE MOVIES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE BOOKS! IN SOME WAYS AT LEAST!

[Narsil's Master]

why do you make them separate?

[azalea]

It's important to keep discussion of the movies out of the book forum because the movies are but one facet of the world of ME, and are someone else's interpretation of it at that. This forum needs to be kept "pure" of movie related stuff, because, well, they aren't the book, and cannot be used to discuss matters relating to the book. The book, however, is the basis for the movie, so of course you'll have book references in the movie forum. It just makes sense that if you wish to discuss ME as portrayed in the movie, you would post in the movie forum, which was specially made for that, and has many threads on many topics relating to the movie "world." It also helps to keep the discussion from being confusing, because you know what the posters are talking about when the two are kept separate, but when it gets mixed up, it's hard to tell sometimes. I hope this explains it sufficiently. And I want to thank all the 'mooters for helping out with this, it sure does make things easier!:)

[Sir Gram]

I have the un-abridged Hobbit, LOTR and the Return of the King on CD rom and would trade any one for a copy of Un-Abridged Two Towers. Un- Abridged means exactly as the author scribed it. Not a word changed, all foot notes and additional material in the books are included in the spoken word version of the books. These little devils are kind of spendy so lets barter, and see if we can keep each other out of the lockholes for being broke. I also have the BBC version of the Hobbit on CD, the 1979 Soundelux Audio (condenced) version of LOTR on CD and the Decca Demetriou production of the hobbit on Vinyl record. Yes I said record.
Look I'm not out to rip the publishers or family of Tolkien off, I just want to trade any of the above (except for records) for a copy of the Two Towers CD. NO more No less.
Being new I hope this has been posted in the correct section. If this is inappropriate or frowned upon please let me know, with things, and times being as hard as they currently are I really don't think old JRR would mind a little trading to share his vision and words. Sir Gram

[azalea]

Actually this isn't the right thread for that. There's a LotR merchandise thread, which I believe is in the Movies forum. There are also a couple of threads about recordings of the books, etc., which you might want to do a search to find.

[littlemissjess]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Recently I've seen a lot of posts about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies in this thread, the movies are influencing judgements, dislike/like of characters, perspectives etc in Lord of the Rings books discussions. I have also seen obvious discussions about the movie in threads that should be about the books.

The books and the movie are separate, that's why we have two forums for both of them, when discussing the books use the Books forum, when discussing the movies use the movies forum. When the movies start being discussed in threads of this forum I will now consider them off-topic and I will take the usual procedure with very off-topic threads.

good idea

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Welcome to the Entmoot! :) It's a great place to have fun and discuss the works of a stupendous genius, and a literary giant. :D

[Lady of Rohan]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
...discuss the works....

For some reason, I like to think of them as masterpeices. ;) :)

I think that the books are WAY better then the movie, and it IS important to keep them seperate (but I'm sure that that has already been said).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ditto. Keep the books in a shrine, and the movies under the couch. :D

(I had to throw out several ruder places before I came up with couch...;))

[Mrs. Maggott]

The problem I am finding, especially among younger people, is that there is a confusion between the two. I have seen posts in the "book threads" on other forums which have identified character traits or plot devices that were limited to the films but I have never seen the reverse - that is, scenarios from the book being brought up in the film threads except as a matter of making a comparison between the two.

There can be no doubt that the images from the films are very persuasive and stay in the mind even for those who have read the book for years before the films were released. For instance, certainly the scenery in the films has supplanted most of our "imaginations" of the book's setting and the same can be said of the actors, costumes and sets. How many of us can envision anyone other than Ian McKellen as Gandalf after viewing the films? Again, many of us had our own interpretation of the physical aspects of the characters before the films that have been supplanted by their visual impact.

There is nothing inherently bad about the above, but it should be a warning to Tolkien lovers that many of those who are coming to the book after the films are going to labor under considerable confusion given the very large differences (especially in the character development) between book and films. I think much of what has been spoken about in this thread (people posting references to the films in the book threads) is a result of this basic confusion in the minds of many for whom exposure the book has been subsequent to their exposure to the films.

[Wayfarer]

There can be no doubt that the images from the films are very persuasive and stay in the mind even for those who have read the book for years before the films were released. For instance, certainly the scenery in the films has supplanted most of our "imaginations" of the book's setting and the same can be said of the actors, costumes and sets. How many of us can envision anyone other than Ian McKellen as Gandalf after viewing the films?

Well, I, for one, do not see the images of the films when I think about tolkien's world. ]:-)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Well, I, for one, do not see the images of the films when I think about tolkien's world. ]:-)
Then you are one of the fortunate few for most of us have been influenced by these films and especially the younger viewers who have yet to read the book or at least not read it with the understanding of someone who is more mature. The problem here, however, is not the "images" but the context in which the images were projected, the devolution and deviation in the characters and plot which have yet to be fully realized until the last film is released. I tell you that Jackson may well have Gollum's fall into the Fire be an act of self-sacrifice rather than simple accident - and that changes everything as far as the meaning of the story is concerned.

[Elfhelm]

Interesting point! If they had change EVERYTHING, as Spielberg did with The Minority Report, it wouldn't be possible to co-opt the reader's mind. When you read the Minority Report, there is just no chance that ANY image from the movie can fit the actual text. So PJ is damned for deviating from the book, and damned for adhering to it. It sure makes it easy for me to be a snob now. Thanks. :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Interesting point! If they had change EVERYTHING, as Spielberg did with The Minority Report, it wouldn't be possible to co-opt the reader's mind. When you read the Minority Report, there is just no chance that ANY image from the movie can fit the actual text. So PJ is damned for deviating from the book, and damned for adhering to it. It sure makes it easy for me to be a snob now. Thanks. :D
Minority Report does not compare as a work of literature or as a "cult classic" to LOTR. If Spielberg changed "everything" about the plot and characters (and I wouldn't know as I didn't read the book), then that was his choice. I daresay he was funded because he was Spielberg and not because he was filming Minority Report.

On the other hand, Jackson was most definitely funded and supported by the audience because of LOTR and not because he was Jackson. Under those circumstances, he owed it to both his backers and his audience to make every effort to remain faithful to the original source at least as far as was possible given the difference in medium - and frankly I don't think anyone can make that assertion at least with a straight face!

[Elfhelm]

Tell that to a Phillip K. Dick fan. I personally find Dick to be one of the top writers of the 20th century.

Anyway, this is the books forum. ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Sorry! I was "advised" by e-mail of the post to which I responded and did not look at the forum. Naturally, I assumed since the film was mentioned, it was a film forum. Again, my apologies.

I have begun the "His Dark Materials" books by Philip Pullman. I have really only started the first book (about 100 pages or so) and it is very interesting - and certainly no one could accuse Pullman of aping Tolkien even with Oxford as one of his settings!

[Turambar1982]

I have begun the "His Dark Materials" books by Philip Pullman. I have really only started the first book (about 100 pages or so) and it is very interesting - and certainly no one could accuse Pullman of aping Tolkien even with Oxford as one of his settings! [/B][/QUOTE]


Those books are awesome! you can't compare to LOTR. but still

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Turambar1982
I have begun the "His Dark Materials" books by Philip Pullman. I have really only started the first book (about 100 pages or so) and it is very interesting - and certainly no one could accuse Pullman of aping Tolkien even with Oxford as one of his settings! Those books are awesome! you can't compare to LOTR. but still

Pullman is/was an atheist. He wrote His Dark Materials as a challenge/protest not to Tolkien, but to C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. He wanted a definitely secular science fiction fantasy series for children to counter Lewis's profoundly Christian effort. Frankly, having read it, I think it falls far short of Lewis's work if for no other reason than it ends without hope - which, if you consider it, is the entire problem with a totally secular philosophy. :(

[Nerdanel]

I'm VERY new on this site, and this was the first thing I saw.

It's absolutely very important to keep them apart. If you've never read the books, you can't see the deapth in the movie. One can't describe the feeling you get from reading the books.

Also, I think that it isn't good to see the movies before you read the books. I unfortunately did that with the first LotR book, and it sort of stops you from making your own pictures of the characters. But somehow I managed, maybe because I saw the big difference between the characters described in the books vs the ones in the books.

Love to all Tolkien-lovers!:D

[azalea]

Welcome to Entmoot!:) (You can introduce yourself in the newbie thread in the General Messages forum if you want to.)

[trolls' bane]

I don't have to worry about that. I only saw the Fellowship and part of the Two Towers. Didn't like either one at all. Their not even close (though I often worry about smaller details) to the books.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Maybe there could be a thread where you discuss the books and the films and their similarities and differences?

[BeardofPants]

There's LOTS of them in the movie forum.