Did we lose something?

[Dreran the Green]

This thread is specifically for those who read the books BEFORE they saw the movies, but this is a Tolkien forum isn't it? So thats probably most of us.
Anyway I was looking for a thread like this, but couldn't find one. Forgive me if theres one floating around somewhere.

I was just thinking, now that the movies are out, and we have seen all these actors portraying our beloved hobbits, elves, and so forth, have we lost the ability to see these characters and places through our own imaginations? Yesterday I was rereading TTT, and to my surprise all I could picture when Legolas or Frodo appeared was Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood. Maybe now that we have seen the movies we have lost something that was in the books for each of us personally that we can't get back anymore. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this.

[zinnite]

The last time I read the book was several years before the films came out, so my memory was already a little fuzzy as to how I visualized each character. I have read it several times since I first saw FotR, and one thing I have noticed is that while I was able to basically maintain my imagined appearance for some characters, others have been totally supplanted by the actors in the films.

Gandalf, Saruman (to a certain extent), Gollum, and the hobbits were pretty close to the mark film-wise as I had imagined them, insofar as their mannerisms and appearance are concerned (though certainly not their faces); I have been able to carry on with the reading without seeing Elijah Wood and Christopher Lee, for example, to an overwhelming degree. The same goes for Gimli. And the Elves, well, except maybe for Galdriel, there is no comparison between imagination and "reality." I still see the Elrond, Celeborn, and Haldir I pictured long ago.

Except for Legolas, which does bother me a little bit.

As far as the humans are concerned, however, I now always visualise Aragorn, Boromir, faramir, Theoden, etc., as the actors who portrayed them. I had pictured them all quite differently, and now I don't even faintly remember what I thought they looked like. The same goes for the orcs, too.

Now, I have a sub-question; while I may be able to forget the looks of some film characters while I read, I cannot get their voices out of my head (especially for dialogue that's straight from the book). It's not really a bad thing, as I think the voices in most cases are pretty good (though I think Hugo should lay off the Agent Smith every now and then). Does anyone else experience that?

[olsonm]

I've had no problem seperating the book and movie. My visualization of the book has changed upon each reading as I better undrestood what was being described. In areas where my imagination was vauge (terrain and costume) I have gladly used the movies as 'aides' in creating my own mental image. I don't see the actors faces or hear their voices when reading (though I wouldn't object to the later).

[durin's bane]

I was beginning FotR when the movie came out, so I didn't have a picture of my own. But after the movie, when I continued reading, I still was able to picture things my way, though most of them resembled what the movie showed. So I didn't really have a problem envisioning things my way, but the movie helped a great deal and plained things out for me because I'm not good at following descriptions.

[cassiopeia]

I view the book and the movie seperately. I don't imagine the actors faces when I'm reading, but like zinnite, when I read a bit of dialogue in the book that's in the movie, I hear the actor's voice. The films helped me visualise the settings better as well (Rivendell especially).

[hectorberlioz]

YES. It happens to me when i have just seen the movies, but it goes away eventually.

[Radagast The Brown]

No, I didn't have a problem... with most of the characters, at least.

The only character I coudn't stop imagining as someone from the movie is Elrond... and he was evil & ugly in the movie. I can't magine him as as I used to. :( :mad:

[Dreran the Green]

Elrond is a virus:p :rolleyes:

[SamwiseGamgeeOTS]

i definatly lost my view of hobbits. tolkien described them a bit chubbier and merrier then PJ portrayed them in the movie...or at least as i viewed it. So, now i have a problem everytime i read 'The Hobbit' of read anything that concerns hobbits (lol):rolleyes:

BLAST!

[Elvengirl]

When I read the books now, I still visualize them the same as prior to the movies, but I think the movies did such a good job of portraying the books, no let me specify, portraying the characters and Middle Earth. Though, I defintely don't think it was all perfect, while I was watching the movies, it was as if I was watching it from my imagination. Tolkien created and described Middle Earth and its people so vividly, I can't imagine anyone interpreting it otherwise.

Anywho... to sum it up, no, the movies did not destroy my visualization and ability to imagine the stories and I have Tolkien to thank for that.

[Lalaith]

I don't think that I have lost anything. I like it that I now have a certain picuture in my mind.

[Artanis]

I don't imagine how the persons look like when I'm reading, so in that respect I haven't lost anything. Besides, before the movies I had already seen so many pictures by Tolkien artists, so the movies was really just another rendering.

[Black Breathalizer]

A great question, Dreran the Green!!!

I think I've gained a great deal and lost nothing. Thanks to the films, I now picture the characters with much greater clarity than before. This might not have been good IF the casting hadn't been so incredibly dead-on.

For me, the casting was near perfect. When I first saw Viggo as Strider and Ian McKellan as Gandalf and Sean Astin as Samwise, I was amazed at how Peter Jackson had reached deep into my own imagination and put beloved characters on film to near-perfection. The only people I had envisioned slightly different was Boromir, Saruman, and Legolas and - quite frankly - I've come to believe that the film version was an improvement from what I thought before.

Reading the books now, I still use my imagination. In fact, the film has allowed me to be MORE imaginative, not less. I still envision some things that are different from the films but I have no trouble encorporating my own unique imaginings with Tolkien's and Jackson's. The time since the opening of the FOTR and TTT films has been very exciting because my Middle-Earth is getting more rich, detailed and "real" to me all the time.

[IronParrot]

I would agree with Breathalizer in that my clarity of vision regarding the books has been supplemented, not supplanted by the films - but for me it has nothing to do with the characters, so much as my mental image of the settings. The characters were pretty much as I'd envisioned them anyway, so when I saw the movie, nobody was particularly unfamiliar. I could even tell Merry and Pippin apart at the first viewing, and I know some people who'd read the books who couldn't do that.

Plot changes to the book don't bother me, mostly because I've seen (and enjoyed) so many legendary films that deviated from their sources with respect to certain specifics - Gone With The Wind, The Godfather, that kind of thing.

One thing I really appreciated about the films is that at times, it drew my attention to things in the book that I'd previously glossed over, but upon which Peter Jackson & co. focused. The Watcher in the Water comes to mind, but the things I'm referring to are often much smaller than even that.

When you think about it, Tolkien was very specific as a descriptive writer, so it isn't too surprising that on a visual level, the movies were very much what I wanted them to be.

Regarding Hugo Weaving, I think his role is hurt only because his character in The Matrix was so legendary, and audiences had trouble escaping that. Some actors just won't escape the reputations of their breakout movies, plain and simple - and it's not their fault.

[Anglorfin]

I kind of hate to say this because I have recieved a lot of flak about it already, but the only thing that keeps me enjoying the books as I personally imagine them is the fact that I have to tell my mind to despise the movies. I cannot let myself make any positive connections with the movies. So may say this is extreme, but it's the only thing that keeps my little world of Tolkien intact without intrusion.

[IronParrot]

I kind of hate to say this because I have recieved a lot of flak about it already, but the only thing that keeps me enjoying the books as I personally imagine them is the fact that I have to tell my mind to despise the movies. I cannot let myself make any positive connections with the movies. So may say this is extreme, but it's the only thing that keeps my little world of Tolkien intact without intrusion.
Well, if that works for you, fine - but then that begs the question:

Do you do the same with, say, paintings by John Howe or Alan Lee?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by IronParrot


Regarding Hugo Weaving, I think his role is hurt only because his character in The Matrix was so legendary, and audiences had trouble escaping that. Some actors just won't escape the reputations of their breakout movies, plain and simple - and it's not their fault.


I've seen Hugo in a few things preceding the Matrix (namely Pricilla, Queen of the Desert), and his acting style was completely different from that of the Agent Smith typecast. It makes think that PJ must have wanted him to act in that style, as opposed to another mode of acting. In which case: I would argue that the typecasting is just a small part of the problem.

[IronParrot]

In which case: I would argue that the typecasting is just a small part of the problem.
You have a valid point regarding how he plays the role. But I don't think it's really a problem, per se, until you bring the typecasting into it.

For example, for me, Russell Crowe will always be Officer Bud White from L.A. Confidential. In Gladiator he plays a similar enforcer and tough guy in much the same ill-tempered manner (just without the American accent), but the fact that he'd done that sort of role before didn't undermine his acting in that movie. And similarly, A Beautiful Mind proved that he was capable of something different, too.

[olsonm]

Weaving's Elrond is different from his Agent Smith. The facial expressions, body language, vocal tone and character are all different. The cadence can be similar but since it derives from different characteristics (Ancient wisdom vs. programmed methodicalness) important to the characters, it can hardly be blamed on the actor. I see many facial expressions on Elrond that immediately remind me of his "Queen of the desert" role.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by IronParrot
You have a valid point regarding how he plays the role. But I don't think it's really a problem, per se, until you bring the typecasting into it.

I guess my question is this: is Weaving so limited an actor that he can't (for a lot of people) bring a distinction between ancient wisdom, and programmed methodicalness, or is it PJ who mis-directed him, or is the problem purely typecasting? I, personally, believe it to be a combination of all of the above rather than just a typecasting problem. I think Weaving was mis-directed. I think there is a problem with the scope of his acting, with regard to certain styles. And yes, I believe that it doesn't help that he as some lines that are perhaps a tad too similar to Matrix lines!

On the whole I agree with your point regarding typecasting, but I don't think it can adequately explain the whole problem, per se. And I do think that to some degree, the actor is at fault, since I don't believe that I have seen his "Agent Smith" style in prior movies to the Matrix.

[Black Breathalizer]

I guess (again) that I am on a totally different page. I think Hugo Weaving was brilliant as Elrond.

First of all, the character of Elrond was going to be one of the most difficult roles to play regardless of who was cast. It was interesting to watch fan polls of what actors should play what roles. No one was a natural for Elrond in the same way that Ian McKellan was for Gandalf, Sean Astin was for Sam or Elijah Woods was for Frodo. I remember hearing that David Bowie was being considered for Elrond and I thought I was going to vomit from the mere thought.

Hugo gave Elrond a sense of wisdom and authority that was absolutely essential to the character. Like Ian McKellan, his Shakespearian training allowed him to say lines that would have sounded horribly corny coming from another actor sound weighty and profound. Picture David Bowie saying Hugo's lines at the beginning of the Council of Elrond if you disagree.

Elrond was the one character in the LOTR that I always had a hard time picturing in my head when I read the books. Thanks to Hugo's performance, he has put a face on this great Elf lord for me.

All this being said, I will admit that Hugo had one line that I thought was vintage Agent Smith. There is a scene in Rivendell where Gandalf and Elrond are discussing Frodo when Hugo says, "the hobbit has shown extraordinary resilence to its evil." Everytime I hear that ONE line, I cringe and think, "Hugo, what were you thinking? That sounded exactly like Agent Smith."

[Melko Belcha]

The movies in no way has changed the why I see the characters or settings in the book. I have a set image in my head that no artist of movie will take away.

[Elvengirl]

To me Hugo is Elrond. I was lucky enough to have seen the Matrix after LoTR, so I had nothing to compare Weaving too. Now when I see Agent Smith, I think Elrond, which I like better than seeing Elrond and thinking Agent Smith. Anywho, my point is Hugo did a good job in portraying Elrond. :)

[IronParrot]

I don't think Weaving's performance was anything but representative of Elrond's "ancient wisdom". He very clearly treats Gandalf as an equal, in a manner that nobody else does (except perhaps Saruman). The thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if most readers - including myself, initially - envisioned Elrond as much older, to match the age of that wisdom he possesses. But that's only because it's easy to forget about the eternal youthfulness of the Elves.

[Elvengirl]

I actually envisioned Elrond to be younger, more youthful in his features, but yet still possess his ancient wisdom. Physically he would look ageless, but when you looked into his eyes, you knew the knowledge wisdom he carried. After seeing Hugo I thougth maybe I had thought of Elrond being too young, but it would have bben better had Hugo looked younger.

[Dreran the Green]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I remember hearing that David Bowie was being considered for Elrond and I thought I was going to vomit from the mere thought.



:eek: David Bowie???

that would certainly have been...interesting:p

I love him but I can't see him as Elrond!


I actually envisioned Elrond to be younger, more youthful in his features, but yet still possess his ancient wisdom. Physically he would look ageless, but when you looked into his eyes, you knew the knowledge wisdom he carried. After seeing Hugo I thougth maybe I had thought of Elrond being too young, but it would have bben better had Hugo looked younger.

I agree, I think it would have been better if he seemed more youthful, like he did in the flashback to the second age only moreso. Galadriel and Celeborn are even older than he is, yet they look younger.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I don't think I lost anything with the movies. I have been reading Tolkien on and off for 32 years. I think I had read it so many times, that the images I had of the characters was fixed, and no influence of the movie could change that.

As for Elrond's character in the movies, well, I think Hugo Weaving is a fine actor, but for me, he wasn't even close to what I thought Elrond was like. He just didn't seem Elvish enough to me.

[azalea]

I wonder...by any chance was Hugo filming Matrix Reloaded around the same time as LotR? Maybe it just bled into it a little. Like Elvengirl, I saw The Matrix after Fotr, so it was no prob for me.

On a tangent, to me agelessness doesn't automatically equate to youthfulness. I never saw Elrond as particularly young, and yet he was not old. He looked to be in the "prime" of life, and I have never considered 18 to be the prime of life. Yet he, in my mind, looked different than a human (not very diff, but enough so that you could obviously tell he -- or any elf for that matter -- was not human). Hugo as Elrond still appears to be human in many ways, and barring a lot of special makeup, could not be helped. He looked more human though than Cate or Orlando, and I'm not sure why. Anyway, my own personal thought is that although elves do not age in terms of looks, they do change slightly in appearance over the years, that is, perhaps like ents becoming treeish, elves become more elvish -- ahhh, there's no good way to explain this. It reminds me of something and I can't think of what. Oh, well.

[Elvengirl]

Yes, I agree. Cate and Bloom did look more elvish than Hugo. He did not seem quite so.....fair. I can't describe it, but to me all the men (in the movie) had a rugged, weathered, tough, look to them. They looked like men. The elves did not have that. The only word I can think of is fair. Hugo's face was not quite so fair. This probably doesn't make sense and sorry to go off topic. :o :)

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Elvengirl
Yes, I agree. Cate and Bloom did look more elvish than Hugo. He did not seem quite so.....fair. I can't describe it, but to me all the men (in the movie) had a rugged, weathered, tough, look to them. They looked like men. The elves did not have that. The only word I can think of is fair. Hugo's face was not quite so fair. This probably doesn't make sense and sorry to go off topic. :o :) Oh, I think it makes perfect sense. As we have discussed the appearence of Tolkien's Elves in threads before, and have come to know them to be fair and beautiful, even the male of the species. Although it is hard to depict them in art, without making them look like women, the males appear to be tall and slender, with fair, unblemished skin, and clear starlit eyes. their builds, I would think, look masculin, but not muscular and brawny, and they were physically strong without the appearence of being so.

[Rosie Gamgee]

I saw The Fellowship before I read the books, but I did read The Hobbit. I was hoping the whole time that they would get Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves right. Oh, and Gollum. I thought Ian Holm was going to be terrible as Bilbo, but when he opened that famous green door for the first time, I went "My goodness! It's Bilbo!!" And Gandalf was the same way. I think they got his robes and hat perfect. Gollum was just like how I'd imagine him. I didn't really like the dwarves at first (but because I'd only read The Hobbit at the time, I figured they be more like the dwarfs in Snow White:)), but now I think they're great.
After reading the books and watching the movie, I think they got most of the characters right. Although I love Billy Boyd and Dom Monaghan's performances, I always picture Pippin and Merry a bit different. Maybe a bit more English sounding and looking, or something. I also picture Frodo different. Basically the same, just a little older. I think that Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett did great jobs as the elves, but I picture Elrond a little different. A little less cold- more 'merry', I guess. Seans Bean and Astin were perfect for their characters, and I think John Rhys-Davies and Orlando Bloom did very well with their characters as well. Viggo Mortensen did such a great job with Aragorn that, yeah, I picture him as Aragorn.
In TTT, Eowyn was really the only new character that was perfect. She always reminded me of Elaine, the Lily Maid of Astolat (of Tennysonian fame), and I think Miranda Otto played Eowyn extremely well. Theoden I pictured diferent, as well as Eomer and Faramir (although most of my not liking Faramir was the dramatic character change).
Oh! And lastly, I think they got Gloin wrong. Even though you only see him at the Council of Elrond, I definatly picture Gloin diferent. :D

[Elvengirl]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Oh, I think it makes perfect sense. As we have discussed the appearence of Tolkien's Elves in threads before, and have come to know them to be fair and beautiful, even the male of the species. Although it is hard to depict them in art, without making them look like women, the males appear to be tall and slender, with fair, unblemished skin, and clear starlit eyes. their builds, I would think, look masculin, but not muscular and brawny, and they were physically strong without the appearence of being so.
Thank you Sister Golden Hair. That's what I was trying to say, but I couldn't get the right words out, but you described them perfectly. :)

[PippinTook]

it changed my whole view, which sometimes helped me out, (especially in aragorn's case) he was totally different than i imagined, but alot better. i thought that gandalf, arwen, legolas, eowyn, and pippin, were wonderfully casted, they looked like they jumped out of my mind! anywho, what i'm saying is yes,

[Anglorfin]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Well, if that works for you, fine - but then that begs the question:

Do you do the same with, say, paintings by John Howe or Alan Lee?


To answer that, I've consciously stayed away from any bit of LotR artwork out there. Undoubtedly, they are both skilled at what they do, but I don't want to be reading the books and associate it with the paintings instead of what I visualize.

[Earniel]

I don't think the movies made me lose something. I've read LoTR again after the first movie and found that I could picture sceneries and constumes a whole lot better than I could before. They're definately not straigth-away the same as in the movie, in my mind they've evolved. The Rivendell and Lothlorien I see is rather different than that of the movie, slightly more surreal, changes only imagination can give.

I couldn't really imagine any characters before the movie, in my mind they were all rather blurred. Now that I've seen the movies, I see in some cases the actors before me and in some cases artwork that suits my imagination better. When I think of Frodo, I immediatly picture Elijah Wood but I don't mind that. :p But when I picture Legolas, he's nothing like Orlando Bloom and (for some obscure reason) has dark hair. Elrond hasn't got that "Hmpf. Man are weak."-atttitude that in my eyes seems to radiate off Hugo Weaving. With a little bit of concentration I can picture the characters the way I want. Except Boromir, for some reason that's an uncooperating character.

[Valaróma]

I can't remember what I imagined before I saw the movies :(
Every time I read them now I keep getting pictures of Elijah Wood and everyone in my head, I just can't imagine them anymore :(
It's not fair :( And I thought I was imaginative!!
Die Jackson :mad:

[Varda Oiolosseo]

I know what you mean lol.

Well i do with the Hobbits like Frodo i see Elijah and Sam i see Sean. The same with Aragorn and Boromir i see Viggo and Sean but with the Elves i don't as much like Legolas i'll see a bit of Orlando or Arwen a bit of Liv, i see them slightly more magical though.

I doubt very much if any of that actually makes any sense. It does in my head but not on the screen. lol

[den]

As for Elrond... he didn't fit my image of him at all. I did think Sam, Gandalf, and Aragorn were portrayed well. Bilbo too, if he was heavier. I always got the impression that the hobbits had some weight to them, more than they had in the movies. I thought that Galadriel was just ok... but I guess in choosing the most beautiful in the world it's hard to land the right actress. Gimli was done well also. As for the orcs... I have a copy of the Hobbit from years ago, and there was a picture on the front with Bilbo and one of the goblins. THat pretty much grasped my imagination as to what they looked like.

Since we're on the subject of the movie ruining our imagination of the characters, what about putting the movie characters on the cover of the books? My Lotr books are falling apart, and it's about time to get new ones, and I refuse to get teh ones with the actors on the cover.

[Varda Oiolosseo]

My LOTR books have got the cast on the front.
I think they are ok but i wish i had more original covers i like them more. I love the covers of my Sil, UT and The Hobbit.

[azalea]

Yeah, I had to buy a cheap copy of LotR, and the cheapest was a cover of a movie Nazgul. But I didn't mind because that's how I pictured them anyway.
You know the funny thing, rather than Sean Astin, I still hear Roddy McDowell's voice when I read some of Sam's lines.:p

[Varda Oiolosseo]

I didn't see the Nazgul cover lol I got the the covers with the Fellowship on.

My mums friend was in New Zealand when they were shooting LOTR and he was complaining that where he was staying and could see some of the filming and sets and he said that everywhere he went there were actors all over the place and when he looked out of the window they were there in costume and in the end he moved! They weren't rowdy he just didn't like being on a film set.

I was like :eek: :eek: i would have given anything to be there.

Anyway when i watch the film i think 'argh' coz he moved, moved i tell you.! and he didn't take any photos or get any autographs. :( :rolleyes: :p

[Dreran the Green]

:eek: He MOVED??? Are you kidding me? Who would move AWAY from an LotR set????? I would patch together a cheap costume and sneak into some of the scenes!:p