The "definitive" look of Middle-Earth

[Black Breathalizer]

One of the things that has always bothered me about Tolkien artwork over the years is how crappy most of it was. I'd look at the old Tolkien calendars by the Hildebrandt Brothers or other artists and think, "how in the world can this artist come up with THIS STUPID VIEW based on Tolkien's descriptions?!?!?"

During the past fifty years, artists have been giving us glimpses (good and crappy) into the world of Middle-Earth. But the films changed everything. Alan Lee and John Howe were always considered by most Tolkien fans to be the best of all the Tolkien artists. So when I first heard that PJ was using them as his design team on the LOTR films, I knew this was going to be a quality attempt to capture the fans' vision of Middle-Earth.

Whether we like it or not, the film images have now become Middle-Earth. We no longer "guess" what M-E looks like--thanks to Jackson and the incredible WETA design team, we now "know." You can hate this, disagree with it, or even pretend Jackson's images have nothing to do with your vision of Tolkien, it doesn't matter. The day that Middle-Earth became a part of our popular culture, Jackson's view of Middle-Earth became the "definitive" view of the majority of people around the globe.

Frodo is Elijah Wood. Gandalf is Ian McKellan. Aragorn is Viggo. Treebeard is now Jackson's Treebeard. Gollum is Jackson's Gollum. Helm's Deep is Jackson's Helm's Deep set....and on and on. I'm not here to argue that this is the way Tolkien himself would have presented it if he were still alive. He may or might not have agreed with Jackson's presentation. I'm just saying that is the way Middle-Earth and its people will be viewed, for now and forever more.

Agree or disagree?

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

i agree. People will always view the characters and middle earth as they are in the movie

[Celebréiel]

Ever hear of something called your imagination? :p I disagree, nothing PJ does or has done could come close to how those that first read the books pictured the characters they love in their minds.PJ's Treebeard and Entmoot will never replace how I view those characters (which im eternally thankful for!;) )
But yeah, I do feel bad that most people that see the movies first will probably picture them first, but that sucks.
So yeah...Pjs own view of ME is probably the definitive for most people, but it will never be for me! *trumpets blare* sorry if that sounded..bleah. :rolleyes:
~Celebréiel

[Cirdan]

That conclusion requires too many asumptions about how and what millions of other people experience.

[Lizra]

I keep the movie images stored in my mind, but I have other, earlier images already there. The hobbits looked great in the movie, but too "human" (I wonder why!) to use when "I'm" thinking. I don't picture Rivendell that way.....the depiction of the elves helps me, as I was never to sure what to think there. I don't imagine the book Boromir as wonderful as the movie Boromir. (he wasn't :D ) Lothlorien is more natural, yet more magically beautiful, in my mind I DO NOT picture the orcs so hideous. That was over the top! So.....I keep the movies and books separate, probably because I had read the books many times before the movies. Though I love movie Aragorn, I picture my fictional guy differently. I agree with Cirdan! Love the movie though! :)

[BeardofPants]

That depends: Does the "definitive" look entail a big picture of Peter Jackson's lumpy, hairy arse?

[Coney]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
That depends: Does the "definitive" look entail a big picture of Peter Jackson's lumpy, hairy arse?

Is this the crack(s) of doom I see before me?:eek: ......explains the poisonous gas anyway;)

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

Originally posted by Coney
Is this the crack(s) of doom I see before me?:eek: ......explains the poisonous gas anyway;)

yes

[Lizra]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
That depends: Does the "definitive" look entail a big picture of Peter Jackson's lumpy, hairy arse?

Please! That's one picture too many. KEEP OUT! :eek:

[squinteyedsoutherner]

The fact that you think future readers will be unable to imagine a middle earth different from the film says more about you than it does about others - it is mighty hard to believe you are much of a reader, despite your claims to the contrary.

"how in the world can this artist come up with this stupid view based on Tolkien's descriptions?"

Too easy.

[LuthienTinuviel]

god i swear you are PJ.

that's not a compliment, on my part.

haha crack of doom. not just that, he's ceratinly big enough to be middle eath.. haha his beard can be the forests..

ok, im stopping now. i need to go get gas in my car

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I believe you are partly correct. I believe certain aspects of the movie were so "dead on" that it is almost impossible to imagine them otherwise now. Other parts not so. Some examples of this, at least to me:

Gandalf IS Ian McKellen. It couldn't have been done any better.

Treebeard and the Ents are great in my opinion. I always had trouble imagining them in a "believable vision," and PJ achieved it for the most part.

The Hobbits and even the faces of Frodo, Sam, Pippen Merry and definately Bilbo are etched permanantly in my mind as THE hobbits of LOTR.

Sauron and the Eye, though debatable on some points are now my view as well. I had trouble envisioning them before.

Middle-Earth in general...the movie definately captured it.

Gollum...excellant

But...

Aragorn and Legolas are on the fence in my opinion. They were awesome in the movie, but I'm re-reading the books now, and I can go back and forth between the movie vision and my imagination with no problems.

Saruman...see above.

Galadriel and Lothlorien...very well done. My vision as well now.

And of course, my favorite. The Balrog. Though somewhat different from the book, I thought it was simply mindblowing. I still feel like screaming from the adrenaline rush everytime I watch it. I couldn't imagine it any other way.

I'll probably think of more.
In general, I agree with your view, BB.

[Elf Girl]

*sigh* Some people are so willing to lock up their imagination and never let it out... if they ever had any... Or maybe it's being to weak to uphold their own ideas against popular culture... again, if they ever had any of their own ideas.

I am too brain-fuzzed to come up with a long eloquent post as I did in the new logo thread. I'll have one tomorrow or the next day, I promise!

Tell me, BB, did you seew the movies before you read the books or vice versa?

[Wayfarer]

Jrr Tolkien envisioned middle earth as a complete, pan-cultural world. It was rich, diverse, and painstakingly detailed. Peter Jackson has reduced it to psuedo-medieval knockoff fantasy crap.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
I believe you are partly correct. I believe certain aspects of the movie were so "dead on" that it is almost impossible to imagine them otherwise now. That is exactly my point, B_o_M. We all probably envisioned some things in the films differently, but the fact is that many things were so well done that the films will forever be viewed as the definitive images now.

I can read the Wizard of Oz, but the "wicked witch of the west" will always be hag from the film version. I can read James Bond books or watch the later film versions, but 007 will always be Sean Connery. The Kris Kringle from the original Miracle on 34th St. will always be the definitive Santa. They may have other actors play "Indiana Jones" in the future, but the real guy will always be Harrison Ford.

My bet is that 50 years from now, someone will think its time to "modernize" the telling of LOTR with a new film version--but it won't work. The reason will be why so many remakes of classic films don't work--generations will have grown up with images of Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Ian Holm as Bilbo, etc., and won't really accept any other images as being the "real thing".

[mithrand1r]

I would generally disagree (at least for myself).

My vision of what the characters look like is influenced to some °Degree° by PJ's FOTR/TTT, Bashki's LOTR, and R&B's Hobbit & to a lesser extent ROTK.

When I read LOTR, I sometimes think of certain character from film, but not consistently. I do not think I will view the characters of PJ's LOTR as the "definitive"

As with other films, I will just add the images to the collection of images I may draw from when I read.

I think part of it is due to me reading LOTR before I seriously watched any film version of LOTR and part is that Tolkien did a good job, for me, in describing the characters and the scenery.

I also think that animation is the ideal setting for LOTR (although I think PJ&Co. did a great job with the scenery of LOTR)

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Jrr Tolkien envisioned middle earth as a complete, pan-cultural world. It was rich, diverse, and painstakingly detailed. Peter Jackson has reduced it to psuedo-medieval knockoff fantasy crap.
I must agree.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

Elf Girl:

I respect your opinion very much and take no offense. I consider my imagination to be quite vivid. I have read LOTR and Sil probabley about 8 and 4 times respectively before the movies and once each since. Many aspects of the books were just somewhat fuzzy in my view. Like I said, some things did not stick but others from the movie are etched in my mind forever.

One thing that I just now thought of that really made the books more enjoyable for me is their voices. For instance when Gandalf has dialog in the book, I can now "hear" him saying it. I know the little accents and nuances that he adds to his speech. Diddo for Aragorn and Gimli.

Another two characters I forgot to mention above are Eomer and Eowyn. They were definately hazy in my mind's eye and now are crystal clear. Tolkien is the master and always will be, but PJ is kind of like the looking glass into his world, even if it is a somewhat distorted view at times.

[Black Breathalizer]

Well said, B_o_M.

[samwise of the shire]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Frodo is Elijah Wood. Gandalf is Ian McKellan. Aragorn is Viggo. Treebeard is now Jackson's Treebeard. Gollum is Jackson's Gollum. Helm's Deep is Jackson's Helm's Deep set....and on and on. I'm not here to argue that this is the way Tolkien himself would have presented it if he were still alive. He may or might not have agreed with Jackson's presentation. I'm just saying that is the way Middle-Earth and its people will be viewed, for now and forever more.

I disagree utterly with this statement. It may be true for the uninformed masses who are now just reading LOTR. They may see Ian McKellen in their version of Gandalf. They may see some Elijah Wood in Frodo. But not the Tolkienites who have read LOTR and found they had their own images of their most beloved characters in their minds. If you love Sam his face will be precious to you...you will think up what he looks like, what he sounds like, what he smells like etc. and so the movie Sam should never invade your original version of him.
Do you understand what I'm getting at? If you truely are a Tolkienite you will have characters you love and those you hate...those you want to see and those you dont. The ones where you make your own image of them (Like the Fellowship or Eowyn or Eomer). Those images will stay with you forever because they are precious to you.
Of course those you dont like you'll never imagine and so it stands to reason that some of the movie character will seep into the dim outline you had of the book character. But in a Tolkienites mind Gollum will never be totally and utterly the movie Gollum.
Did I just make a cretin of myself? If so pm me and I'll hit my head with a fish.
Cheers,
Sam
ps. Dont say Frodo is Elijah Wood...Frodo was around YEARS before Elijah was so say ELIJAH is Frodo. Same with Gandalf and Aragorn.

[Elf Girl]

I consider my imagination to be quite vivid.
One thing that I just now thought of that really made the books more enjoyable for me is their voices. For instance when Gandalf has dialog in the book, I can now "hear" him saying it. I know the little accents and nuances that he adds to his speech. Diddo for Aragorn and Gimli.
If your imagination is so vivid, why couldn't you "hear" them before?

Many aspects of the books were just somewhat fuzzy in my view. Like I said, some things did not stick but others from the movie are etched in my mind forever.
Is it good to substitute one form of art for a fuzzy part in a completely differant form? What if Tolkien meant something completely differant and you will never know it?


Another two characters I forgot to mention above are Eomer and Eowyn. They were definately hazy in my mind's eye and now are crystal clear.
Again, fine if you're willing never to know what you're missing...


Tolkien is the master and always will be, but PJ is kind of like the looking glass into his world, even if it is a somewhat distorted view at times.
Excellent if you need a looking glass and are willing to use a heavily distorted one to see some beautiful writing and a brilliant plot.

[Artanis]

Those movie images are powerful and beautiful, and they do stick. And I don't regard myself as member of 'the uninformed masses', I've read LotR once a year the last 7 years. But heck, what's the problem? Book-Frodo and movie-Frodo, appearance and character, are both perfectly capable of living side by side in my head, and the same goes for the rest of the bunch, and the scenery as well.

BB, I'm curious, which Tolkien artists do you like?

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

Elf Girl:

I think you may be mistaking my point. I'm not replacing anything in the books regarding plot or storylines. Images only. And sound. And if you'll look at my first post, I only speak of those things that in MY mind capture the worlds of Tolkien.

As I said, I'm reading LOTR right now. Somethings such as Gandalf, I see Ian. Others, such as Aragorn, I see my mind's picture of Aragorn, though I tend to hear Viggo's voice. As for Elrond, I envision nothing from the movie.

I do not believe you when you say that your imagination in so great that you have a complete and clear vision of every face, sound, monster, landscape, etc. I think that you just take offense to a vision besides Tolkien's being thought of as the only vision, but that is not what I mean to get across at all. Just that it is an enhancement of sorts, and only in the sense that images and sounds are applied to the book version without replacing story or plot. If you tell me that you had imagined a better Moria than was shown in the movie I would be very, very doubtful of your honesty, but it is your choice.

But, like I said above. I respect your views. I am very glad just to have a place to share opinions with fellow Tolkien fans, because I do not personally know any.

Cheers.

[Black Breathalizer]

Hang in there, B_o_M. Some people here can't engage in a debate without making it a personal attack. I've given up trying to understand it. My guess is that they simply don't like the fact their Tolkien world has been invaded by those of us who make up the unimaginative and unwashed film-going masses who've made the films blockbuster hits.

It's sad really, because the books and films compliment each other wonderfully. But for some strange reason, there are some who refuse to accept it.

Artanis, my favorite Tolkien artists are John Howe and Alan Lee. My least favorite Tolkien artists are the Hildebrandt brothers.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Hang in there, [b]B_o_M. Some people here can't engage in a debate without making it a personal attack. I've given up trying to understand it. My guess is that they simply don't like the fact their Tolkien world has been invaded by those of us who make up the unimaginative and unwashed film-going masses who've made the films blockbuster hits.

It's sad really, because the books and films compliment each other wonderfully. But for some strange reason, there are some who refuse to accept it.


BoM, you might be decieved by BB's . His history of personal attacks makes the above post the "definitive" ironic statement. Everyone likes the movie here, so more and some less. To find out where BB's rep comes from read this thread (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5636&pagenumber=1) if you've a strong stomach and too much free time. BB's on a crusade to attack "purists" on the board. His ad hominem debate tactics are ledgendary and tend to bring out the worst in people. Everyone here is nice but they also have very good memories.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
I think you may be mistaking my point. I'm not replacing anything in the books regarding plot or storylines. Images only. And sound. And if you'll look at my first post, I only speak of those things that in MY mind capture the worlds of Tolkien.
And I think you are mistaking my point. It is fine with me if decide to allow Jackson's version of ME (images & sound) be yours. I prefer your view to that of someone like BB, who seem to think we must always agree with them or our opinions are worthless. (I merely find it difficult not to debate the points in a post addressed to me, concerning my opinion.)

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
I do not believe you when you say that your imagination in so great that you have a complete and clear vision of every face, sound, monster, landscape, etc.
I didn't say that, and I certainly hope I didn't imply it! However, I had an impression of every face, sound, monster, landscape, etc. A kind of feeling in my mind I had when the face, sound, monster, landscape, etc. was mentioned. If the picture in the movie did not comply with my "feeling", (it couldn't comply excactly) then it was "not how I imagined it".

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
If you tell me that you had imagined a better Moria than was shown in the movie I would be very, very doubtful of your honesty, but it is your choice.
Better in my eyes, because it's mine, (precious) but an unbiased judge would certainly not think it better.

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
But, like I said above. I respect your views. I am very glad just to have a place to share opinions with fellow Tolkien fans, because I do not personally know any.
I also.

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
Cheers.
Namarië.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

Yes, everytime I get to the part of the book when the hobbits get to that dark and rainy town of Bree that is void of other hobbits or dwarves and no one is singing and everything is just plain unfriendly, I will think of the film. Everytime Tolkien recounts the wizard fight I will think of the film and Gandalf break-dancing on the ground. I don't need the suspence of not knowing why he was late. I also just can't shake that image of the hobbits bumping into each other in the corn-field (and then leaving the shire with no preparations) everytime I read it I still laugh. I still shudder when that nazgul gets confused by the flying carrots (or whatever got thrown), Tolkien describes it so eloquently, and the film captures it so perfectly. Oh, and that burning eye was always how I imagined it, you can tell they got that right from letters. I just can't think of anything different when I read Tolkien's description. And then those 11 pages of actual fighting at Helm's deep (yes, 11 pages became 1 hour) I will always imagine shakey shoulder cam thoughts. and.................well sadly this could go on almost as long as Helm's Deep.

[Wayfarer]

Please tell me he's joking.
You are joking, right, squintyeyedsoutherner?

[Celebréiel]

um....Ha..ha? I really hope hes joking. :confused:

[squinteyedsoutherner]

yes, he's joking.

[Cirdan]

Nice bit of sarcasm, that. It makes a good point as well. The images from the movie are synopses of the book. The book is, by matter of it's format, a much more detailed portrayal of the characters. I find that the book has a larger picture of the story. While some moments in the film are very similar to what I picture, there is enough that is different that it must be seen with a different eye. The perception I held prior to the film was similar in many places in the movie and it didn't change my outlook. But other parts which did not match well didn't replace what I thought. I just saw the movie as different, not "more right."

[Black Breathalizer]

You purists just don't get it. The issue isn't whether YOU will view Middle-Earth as Jackson has presented it to us. You've made it clear you won't. That's fine with me. The thread is about the fact that Middle-Earth is now Jackson's vision whether you like it or not.

You can talk all you want about your view of Aragorn or Legolas or the gloriously better picture in your five star imaginations of Rivendell or Moria. You'll always have a right to a different point of view--just understand you will be a part of an ever-shrinking minority. Jackson's Middle-Earth is for now and ever-more a part of our modern culture and will be the way most fans look at the Lord of the Rings from now on.

[markedel]

Wait a second the majority is better because it is the majority?

A tautology if I ever saw one

:rolleyes:

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Cirdan
To find out where BB's rep comes from read this thread (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5636&pagenumber=1) *snip* Everyone here is nice but they also have very good memories. Too good memories IMHO. Really, when are you folks going to put that behind you? :rolleyes:

[Wayfarer]

The issue isn't whether YOU will view Middle-Earth as Jackson has presented it to us. You've made it clear you won't. That's fine with me. The thread is about the fact that Middle-Earth is now Jackson's vision whether you like it or not. You're an idiot. Thank you for assuaging any doubt that remained.

This is the entire problem with your mindless defense of jackson. It's NOT JACKSONS MIDDLE EARTH. It's tolkiens middle earth. It's his 'vision'. Forgive me for preferring the Vision of a gifted writer and linguist and a brilliant scholar, of a man who spent the better part of his eighty years pouring himself into middle earth, a man who was sitting at his desk working on this world the night he died, FORGIVE ME FOR PREFERRING A MAN LIKE THAT to some IMBECILIC HACK WHO UP TILL NOW HAS PRODUCED NOTHING BUT CRAPPY SECOND RATE MOVIES! Jackson never has, and never will, be anything but a second rate producer who ripped of the work of someone infinitely surperior to him. It's not jackson's middle earth, and it never will be.

[Wayfarer]

Now if you don't mind, I'll be going back to 'cold, cruel, and cynical'.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by markedel
Wait a second the majority is better because it is the majority?
I'm not talking about which is better, the films or the books. I'm also not talking about who's vision it is: It is JRR Tolkien's. I'm just saying that Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien vision has crystalized the majority's view of what the locations, people, and armory, etc., of Middle-Earth look like.

I take a lot of verbal abuse here that wouldn't be tolerated on most boards in an attempt to have some half-way decent discussions about the LOTR films. If you can't stop yourself from flaming - assuming the moderators here are going to continue to let you do it - then at least have the courtesy to READ the thread and understand the discussion before you over-react in the future.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

I think what many are trying to tell you is that people who read books regularly are very seldom influenced by the visions of other media. Well written books tug at the imaginations of readers in an infinite number of different ways and can overcome, with ease, an artist's rendering or a movie adaptation. I would add, as I said before, it is difficult to believe that someone who reads regularly would not know this.

People who haven't read the book, and never would have, will obviously carry the film in their mind's eye, how could it be otherwise? But anyone who embarks upon the book will succumb to their own imagination. If their imagination is not strong enough to overcome the movie (and in many places the film and the book cannot even co-exist in one's mind as in the case of the ford scenes) I doubt they would have finished the book in the first place. Reading is difficult for people who lack imagination (and some people do lack the imagination needed to bring words to life) and as a result, some people just don't like to read.

So I think your initial post incorrect unless your intention was to comment on people who have not, and will not ever read the book in which case your post was already obvious.

Based on your many statements, I think it is clear you think the film better than the book:

"Jackson has improved Tolkien"
"Jackson is God"
"jackson brought more skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his"
"the critics like the film better than the book critics did"

and on and on and on.

I don't believe there are many people in the world, who have read the book, who share your view of the film as expressed by the quotes above (and others you have made). You do however, find endless ways to rehash this (in all honesty) bizarre adoration of the film and it's director.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
I think what many are trying to tell you is that people who read books regularly are very seldom influenced by the visions of other media.I have read all three books 34 times and counting and consider myself to have a pretty good imagination. But even after all of these countless readings, I found myself seeing the LOTR in a different way after repeated viewings of these first two films. As I've said countless times, the books and the films compliment one another wonderfully and give each a new level of richness.

I don't think I suddenly became an illiterate moron because I now "see" Ian McKellan's Gandalf and "hear" his voice when I read the books now. People who read books are OFTEN influenced by the visions of other media. The key, however, is the quality of the portrayal. I easily accept -- or easily reject -- visions of Middle-Earth that don't agree with my own. The wargs, for example, will always be giant wolves to me, not the creatures Jackson's WETA team created.

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Based on your many statements, I think it is clear you think the film better than the book:
"Jackson has improved Tolkien"
"Jackson is God"
"jackson brought more skill to his craft than Tolkien did to his"
"the critics like the film better than the book critics did"
and on and on and on.If you actually read my commentaries, you'd know that I am a long-time Tolkien fanatic. The Lord of the Rings are my favorite books of all time and truth-be-known, I probably know and understand Tolkien's work far better than most of the so-called "Purists" who post here. I just believe you can be a true-blue Tolkien book fan without feeling the need to bash Peter Jackson's grand accomplishment.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

It is you that needs to re-read your initial post. This thread is going the same way as every other thread that you have started. You post an opinion as a fact, fill it with hyperbole and then spend the rest of the thread backing away from your initial thesis. You posted that like it or not Jackson's middle-earth is now the definitive version around the globe. You said that people may "pretend" that they have not been influenced by the film which implies that you do not believe that anyone reading the book who has seen the film can avoid the images from the film.

I have argued I think you underestimate the imaginations of others.

You have responded by saying you are not a moron because you see the movie images when you read the book. The issue isn't what you see. Your arguement is that EVERYONE ELSE sees it as well. And once again, you are wrong because not everyone does.

[Black Breathalizer]

I'm not backing away from anything. The point of this thread was to make the observation that Jackson's view of Middle-Earth has become the "definitive" version. It's still Tolkien's world. But Jackson's films have given us all more common definitions. Gandalf is a good example: Not everyone will see Gandalf as Ian McKellan's Gandalf--but most will.

Another example came from Alan Lee, the artist. In a recent interview he commented about his drawing of Moria that was done some time ago and has graced the cover of at least one edition of the Fellowship of the Ring. He said, "I realize now that it wasn't right...it's columns should have been more cubical in design rather than the rounded edges I gave it at that time." I was struck by how he viewed the drawing as an attempt to "get it accurate" the same way an archeologist would approach a drawing of an ancient ruin. Lee obviously bought into and accepted the "design culture" of the dwarves that was developed during the pre-production of LOTR. The designers treated the work as if it were real and now many of the fans will view the work the same way.

[Cirdan]

The question is, "How do you know?" We are talking about one of the most popular books every written. It fans filled the theaters. Book sales have sky-rocketed, not dwindled, since the movie came out. Many people have read the book after the movie. There is much nmore content in the book than the movie. The book is supported by an every-growing legion of rabid fans. Most of thet people here have stated that while some of the movie characters are fix in their minds not all, and it depends on how they perceive the characters in the book. Movies tend to come and go, and movie goers tend to move on. Those that never will read the book will move on to the next fad once the trilogy of films is gone, the DVDs are sold, and the crowds are gone. Book readers, on the other hand, will continue to read the books because there is much more meat there to subsist on. They will draw their own conclusions about what the characters are like. They may later find the films re-running on cable and say, "Oh, they made a movie version..."

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The question is, "How do you know?"That's what we're debating. :)

I believe that the three LOTR films by Jackson are going to be film classics in the same way Tolkien's books are book classics. Mark my words, this will be no "fad." I envision the three movies being sold together in box sets for years and years to come in the same way the books are. I see fans having "LOTR Days" where they devote an entire day to watching the three movies together with their friends. I anticipate the movies will dominate the TV landscape during the holidays right along with "It's a Wonderful Life" and "The Grinch who stole Christmas."

The LOTR movies have already become so engrained into our culture (like Star Wars) that future generations will grow up with the films first and the books second. As such, it will color their views of Middle-Earth even more than those of us who grew up with no preconceived notions when we first read the books. I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm just saying that because of all this, the images that Jackson's team helped create from Tolkien's writings are going to leave a lasting imprint upon our collective views of LOTR.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

You stated that people would be "pretending" if they did not admit that the movie images are what they see when they read the book. And went on to say "I'm just saying this is the way middle-earth and it's people will be viewed, for now and ever more" You are indeed backing up.

The fact is that just as you ignored what you thought were poor artist impressions, others are going to ignore none of, some of, or all of the film based on their own opinions when they read the book.

Jackson's film will be the "definitive version to the majority of people around the world" because the majority of people around the world will never read the book, that could be argued by a monkey, readers however, will continue to imagine their own middle-earth long after these films are reduced to one copy in the Sci Fi section of Blockbuster.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I anticipate the movies will dominate the TV landscape during the holidays right along with "It's a Wonderful Life" and "The Grinch who stole Christmas."

Ummm, but those are Christmas movies. Is anyone going to sit through 9 hours of LotR at Christmas? Maybe a cable movie marathon candidate, but not a family tradition. It's too violent to be a Christmas movie anyway.


The LOTR movies have already become so engrained into our culture (like Star Wars) that future generations will grow up with the films first and the books second.


Star Wars was a little know comic book. That doesn't compare to Tolkien's LotR which is a larger work than the film. Proof is that book sales are up. First or second is pointless, last and foremost in the mind is most important. Parents will encourage the book reading more than the film watching. Movies tend to fall by the wayside. How many versions of a Christmas Carol are there? Which one is "definitive?"

You have stated that you wwere amazed at how much the film matched you vision of ME.


4) Wargs. I pictured the wargs as enormous wolves. The wolf-hyena hybred we were given just didn't feel right. I still liked having them in the films and thought the action was great. Most of the time in these films I've thought, "how did Peter Jackson capture my vision of Tolkien so perfectly?!?!?!? With the wargs, I thought, "nope, not quite right."


So, imagine someone else whose vision was quite different. Do you picture the hyena hybrids when reading the book, or pointy snouted slavering wolves?

It's a matter of degrees as to howe much the self generated book images overlap with the film. The book is unique and unlike any other. The film is but an adaptation that captures some of the book. Since you claim to have read the nbook 34 times you should appr3eciate this point. Will you now stop reading the book and only watch the movie?

The movie has expanded Tolkien's influence, not shrunk it. More and more people will read the book, left wanting for more by the films.

[Black Breathalizer]

Interesting observations, squinteyedsoutherner and Cirdan. A few comments:

---I never said that the films will shrink the interest in Tolkien, quite the contrary. What I am saying is that the majority of people will find most of the characters, monsters, and set designs from the films as being the "true" look of Middle-Earth.

---I do still believe that most people who read the books from now on will find many (but certainly not all) aspects of Jackson's work has invaded their imaginations.

---I agree that the films will continue to spark interest in the books.

---Yes, LOTR will be making the rounds during future holidays. Look for LOTR on TV in December of 2005.

[Cirdan]

Where the characters match the description or the perception as the reader interprets the book, then, yes there would bound to be some overlap of images. I found that when I read the book now I still do not picture Edoras the way it was in the film, despite my view that the Edoras in the film was spectacular.

The human mind is too complicated for anyone to be able to say "everyone will see it this way". It would be best to say that perceptions from the film will become part of the mosaic of images in our minds as to what we perceive to be ME.

So what is your answer as to the Wargs question, BB?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
So what is your answer as to the Wargs question, BB? I picture pointy snouted slavering wolves! :D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

OK, BB, question:

Why do you always put someone's screen name in bold? :confused:

[Black Breathalizer]

Some of the discussion boards I've frequented in the past did that as a courtesy when you're referring to another poster.

[Cirdan]

Gee, I thought it just represented our personalities.:)