Will the films change fans' relationship with the books? [Archive]

Black Breathalizer

09-30-2003, 07:59 PM

I understand the interest in keeping film and book discussion separate. But I would like to begin a discussion of how the films are changing our relationship with the books.

In a recent interview, Phillipa Boyens, one of the screenwriters for the films, was asked this same question. I found her response interesting:

Phillipa Boyens said:
"We can tell by the book sales that more people are reading the novels because they've seen the films and that's wonderful. But it's a little harder to talk about how the films might change a fan's relationship with the book. One of the guys who worked on the DVDs told me that he never thought the films would affect him, but that now, when he picks up the books, he can't get Ian McKellen as Gandalf out of his head. And how can you? Ian is so absolutely perfect in the role. So I just hope that we haven't done anything, in terms of the writing, that prevents people from going back to the text. Frodo and Sam coming together at the end of the Fellowship was played up big in the film, for example, but it was a low-key and slightly quaint scene in the book. You could read it now and think, 'Well, this doesn't feel quite right.' So I don't know."I think this is a fascinating topic and would be interested in your reaction.

Have the films changed the way you now view your beloved novels?

Lizra

09-30-2003, 08:37 PM

The films have made me appreciate the books more. While I really enjoy the films, when I read the books now, I am very moved by the dialogue. I love the things they say! I do appreciate the films when there are several paragraphs describing a location...to the left...coming from the right and south...all that directional description talk glazes me over like advanced math. ;) A picture is worth a thousand words, in this case...for me! But, back on topic...I find the books to be more intense and special than ever.

The Gaffer

10-01-2003, 03:56 AM

Hooray! A new thread so I can join in without interrupting...

I suppose we should differentiate between folks that read the books first and those who saw the films first.

As one of the former, my experience is similar to yours, Lizra. Having re-read them since seeing the first two films, they're all the more intense. There are a couple of areas where the films made me think again about the books.

I think the actor whose portrayal had the most effect on how I visualise the book is Sean Astin. All the hobbits' characters are rather different in the film, but I think that Astin's was the best performance. The way the elves were portrayed had a big influence on me; previously I'd seen them as pretty flat characters, while now they have more depth.

The characters that are most different in my head are Frodo and Aragorn. I can't see Elijah or Viggo when I read the books.

Attalus

10-01-2003, 10:07 AM

I think that the characters whose appearance was vaguest in my mind, like the Hobbits and Celeborn, are most likely to be replaced by the movie versions, while my picture of Gandalf Elrond, and Galadriel are quite different and have remained distinct. Sauron in the movies is the most ludicrous thing about them, IMHO, and I disregard that awful eye perfectly. Oh, and all the Rohyrrhim are quite different and stay that way.

Black Breathalizer

10-01-2003, 01:30 PM

The film actors, the set designs and locations, and the swords and other props, have added a whole new level of detail when I reread the books. For the most part, it has been no adjustment at all because the actors who were cast in the movie were amazingly similar the ones in my head. The wildest thing about this is that I hear the same comments from other fans of the book as well.

There were two exceptions. However, Sean Astin as Boromir and Orlando Bloom as Legolas were BETTER than what I originally imagined and I've had no reservations at all about changing my views.

One of the few things that now feels more awkward when reading the books since FOTR came out involves Samwise. I thought Sean Astin was a dead-on choice for one of my all-time favorite literary characters. I also appreciate his performance. I especially loved the "Taters" scene in TTT and thought it was brilliantly brought to the big screen. What I find a little harder to swallow now is the more "gushy" language Sam uses in the book that is not used in the film.

Also, I was concerned when I first learned that Jackson planned to play down the master-servent relationship between Frodo and Sam. However, strangely enough, I now find myself having difficulty hearing Sam saying "Master" when reading the books after watching the films.

azalea

10-01-2003, 01:45 PM

Indeed this is a good topic, but any thread that includes the movies as part of the major discussion points MUST be in the movies forum, so I will be moving this there.

This has been discussed in other threads, but yes, they have changed the way I view them. I can now see a lot of the scenery more clearly, and can more easily visualize the different parts of ME that, although I had a clear picture of in my mind, weren't as realistic, just my imagination or images like drawings and such. Now I can see them as real places that I could walk to from my house if they existed. (It's hard to explain, but it isn't that the images in my head didn't make the places seem real, but they were two dimensional-seeming, whereas now they're "deeper").

But they do not inhibit my enjoyment of the books at all. The books contain so much more than the movies, and with reading, one is able to savor, to slow the pace, and linger a while, unlike watching the movies, where you are given the pace by the filmmaker, so it goes by more quickly. And like the others were saying, since I had read the books well before the movies came out, I will always retain my original relationship with them. Having the movies is an added bonus.:)

The Gaffer

10-01-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Also, I was concerned when I first learned that Jackson planned to play down the master-servent relationship between Frodo and Sam. However, strangely enough, I now find myself having difficulty hearing Sam saying "Master" when reading the books after watching the films.
I guess you could put that down to "modernising" the story. Merry old feudal England doesn't translate too well in less class-obsessed cultures (i.e. all of them).

It looks to me like they're going to transpose this essential aspect of the story entirely onto Gollum. The ROTK trailer had Gollum using the term "Master" towards Frodo, and it seems to me about the only way they can justify Frodo ignoring Sam's misgivings.

Though there is the added dimension of Frodo/Smeagol becoming one, which was much more explicit in TTT and changed how I saw about their relationship in the book.

What do people who saw the films first think about this?

hectorberlioz

10-01-2003, 02:43 PM

well i can not get most of the actor out of my head( gandalf and sam, legolas and gimli). its hard not to imagine things from the movie. i imagined a lot of things differently...

Dúnedain

10-01-2003, 02:55 PM

I think the biggest thing for me is the scenery. I always imagined great big things about characters, landscapes, battles, etc.., but the movies have totally outdone what I've imagined and I think have made reading the books more intriguing as it has helped me visualize things in other perspectives and in ways I never saw them. I think for me, that is the biggest aspect that the movies have done.

I also think that the movies have really brought forth into a greater context some of the underlying themes of the book that are sometimes overlooked by other subplots, such as how it captures the raw human emotions that permeate Tolkien's words. Also, the theme of the weight of the world relying on the smallest beings who have the will-power to go on. The sense of hoping against hopelessness is captured just as vividly in the films as it is in the books. The testing of Aragorns worth and humanity among others. The whole "there can be no triumph without loss" and "no victory without suffering" and "no freedom without sacrifice" and themes along those lines. I have to give PJ credit for those. Oh and I can't forget one of the things I'll remember most about the movies is the saying Gandalf says in FotR and that was shown in the RotK trailer "All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you". I think these things are what truly make these movies great in addition to the larger scale things for me. Really the books are about all of these themes of hope and whatnot and the movies capture that in their true forms...

Jedi X

10-01-2003, 03:43 PM

My first reads of the books were a long time ago, and the imagery pretty much is etched into my imagination. After seeing the movies, I do find the soundtrack popping in here and there. Nothing much else has altered.

Aragorn is a lot like I imagined him from the beginning. Of all of the characters, I would say it is Legolas that I imagined in a much different manner. Elrond, too. In fact, all of the elves. Not that I didn't like the movies, but I thought the elves just looked too human. I thought they should have cast taller and thinner people with narrower faces and more almond-shaped eyes. But that's just me.

Gandalf's eyebrows weren't big enough in the movies and his beard wasn't long enough. Especially in The Two Towers.

Also, hectorberlioz, the icon under your name (the name's sake, I assume?) is simply soul-stirring. Awesome.

Elfhelm

10-01-2003, 03:58 PM

When I re-read the trilogy I used the cast from the movies and some of the scenery. So it affected the way I visualized things.

What I fear is that it may alter my relationship with the books in another way. There is a certain distaste I have for the blood and gore that PJ is emphasizing. And sometimes it seems the simplistic good guys bad guys plot of the movie is easy for people to latch onto. In the books, there are a lot of uncertain things that require thought and judgement, such as Aragorn having to negotiate their way into Lothlorien. But in the movies the elves are all on the side of the good guys. It's as if the kinslaying never happened.

So I think of Wagner and what happened to music lovers' relationship to Wagner after Hitler used the Ring Cycle in his propaganda. I would be very disturbed if something like that were done with the movies. It could never be done to the books, but the movies could possibly be used by racists in propaganda. In fact, I recall some klan people had posted just such an interpretation on the web. You can't really do that to the books. I don't know. PJ focuses so much on the newspeak in the movie. It would seriously disturb my relationship with teh books if I had to start proving that orcs are not black people, for instance, or more likely, that southron men are not Arabs.

The Gaffer

10-01-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
But in the movies the elves are all on the side of the good guys. It's as if the kinslaying never happened.
That's odd: my interpretation was the opposite. The movie elves were much more explicitly distinct from hobbits and men than the book elves were. There was a real ambiguity about them which, I think, is absent from the book unless you know the Silmarillion.

And, for me, Viggo is too young and good-looking to be Aragorn (not taking anything away from his performance). Whatever happened to "all that is gold does not glitter?"

Dúnedain

10-01-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
And, for me, Viggo is too young and good-looking to be Aragorn (not taking anything away from his performance). Whatever happened to "all that is gold does not glitter?"

See I thought Viggo was perfect as well. You can see his age in his face and eyes, for me that was enough. He felt like a man of age and experience.

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost.
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring.
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.

He became at last the most hardy of living Men, skilled in their crafts and lore, and was yet more than they; for he was elven-wise, and there was a light in his eyes that when they were kindled few could endure. His face was sad and stern because of the doom that was laid on him, and yet hope dwelt ever in the depths of his heart, from which mirth would arise at times like a spring from the rock."

See to me that is Viggo, lol, guess it's up to your own interpretation though :D

Balrog_of_Morgoth

10-01-2003, 08:03 PM

The movies have had a profound effect on me. In these last few years, I have been into Tolkien so much, and it is because of the movies.

I had read LOTR and Sil probably 5 times over before the movies, and one more time since the movies. I really felt that Gandalf and Aragorn affected me deeply. I visualized them, but to an even greater extent, I could hear their voices. I applied there voice to the book's dialogue.

Galadriel was good for me, too. I had always had a hard time getting a mental picture of her.

Helm's Deep is another good example. I really didn't have a hold on the immense size and scope of that fortress.

As other people have said, the scenery was great. Moria will be etched in my mind forever. And though the Balrog didn't really jive with Tolkien's description, I like the movie version better.

Orthanc is etched in my mind as well.

In general, I failed to realize the sheer greatness of the vistas in the books until the movies helped me out.

Dúnedain

10-01-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
And though the Balrog didn't really jive with Tolkien's description, I like the movie version better.

Depending on who's interpretation you read :D

Black Breathalizer

10-01-2003, 10:38 PM

I interrupt this discussion for the following rant...
****************

Originally posted by azalea
Indeed this is a good topic, but any thread that includes the movies as part of the major discussion points MUST be in the movies forum, so I will be moving this there.I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. The thread is about HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THE BOOKS now that we've been influenced by the films!!!!!!!!

As a longtime message board administrator, I can say that Rule Number One of board moderation is: If it ain't broke, don't try fixing it. Administrators should be like game referees, the best ones never get noticed. Moving this thread accomplished absolutely nothing except return the book forum to an intellectual wasteland. I find it fascinating that a thread about naming children after LOTR characters or one featuring a strange word game is A-Okay for inclusion in the BOOKS forum rather than the GENERAL discussion forum but in this case, a legitimate book discussion is considered "inappopriate" because -- gasp -- the films are mentioned.

How about a little less hypocritical power flexing in the future, okay?

**************
The posts here SINCE the move (including this one) have completely changed the original focus of the discussion

IronParrot

10-01-2003, 11:37 PM

No, BB, after having moderated this board for four years I must say that azalea is right about this particular decision. This discussion belongs in the Movies forum.

The reason is largely a matter of organization. Nowadays, simply because of the fact that it's easier and faster to watch the movie than read the book cover-to-cover over again, the Movie forum draws more traffic and invites a more thriving environment of analytical discussion.

In short, we formulated a policy that the "is it movie-related?" litmus test is administered before the "is it book-related?" test.

I bemoan the lack of comprehensive literary analysis in the Books forum nowadays but that's simply a side effect of people taking longer to read it, and fewer new theses analysing the text itself since so much ground has already been covered.

In fact, this thread is semi-redundant (there's another thread about how the movies affect one's vision of the books, albeit not one's relationship) but I'll leave it open.

Actual reply to the subject at hand forthcoming.

IronParrot

10-01-2003, 11:51 PM

Now, to answer the question:

I'm not going to talk about my vision of the books - it's the same as what many people have already said: grasping the scenery is the big thing. When I read the books nowadays, Tolkien's lush descriptions of Middle-Earth in all its vibrance and colour hit me a lot harder than they ever did the first two or three readings before the film ever came out.

My relationship with the books is a different story.

Every time I read LOTR, I look for something different. The first time, it was to grasp the plot. The second time, the themes and foreshadowing. The third time, the nuances of the major characters and the names of the minor ones I forgot the first two times through. The fourth time, I tried to pronounce some passages aloud as guided by Appendix E. Whenever I wrote papers or theses on the piece, I'd comb the book (or at least certain chapters) looking for very specific passages that demonstrate specific motifs.

The first time I read the book after seeing The Fellowship on film, I was looking for the answer to that very question: how has my relationship with the book changed?

I'd say it's changed in the sense that while I still continue my routine of reading the story once a year, now I have the opportunity of bathing in it whenever I have seven (and later, twelve) hours free at a time.

By now, even though the film has only been released for less than two years, I think I've watched it about as many times as I've ever read the book.

So I'd say my relationship with the book has changed in the sense that it's no longer long-distance. Whenever I read it, the plot and scenery are second-nature to me. I have an easier time focusing on the literary specifics Tolkien created that could never be properly translated to cinema.

I think it's also easier to remember dialogue when you hear it spoken. In a sense, the book is a whole lot more quotable now, when you take the parts of the script that were taken verbatim (and my, are there ever many).

A year ago, I probably couldn't recite the opening lines of "Where now the horse and the rider?" and "Cold be hand and heart and bone" upon a whim. Now I can. That's the difference.

Black Breathalizer

10-02-2003, 02:37 PM

I apologize in advance for this off-topic post, but I think the issue is important to air...
************************

Originally posted by IronParrot
No, BB, after having moderated this board for four years I must say that azalea is right about this particular decision. This discussion belongs in the Movies forum.

The reason is largely a matter of organization. Nowadays, simply because of the fact that it's easier and faster to watch the movie than read the book cover-to-cover over again, the Movie forum draws more traffic and invites a more thriving environment of analytical discussion.

In short, we formulated a policy that the "is it movie-related?" litmus test is administered before the "is it book-related?" test.I wish I were able to see if you and azalea could keep a straight face while explaining why you felt the question, "Has your relationship with the books changed?" is not an appropriate books forum topic. But hey, I understood a long time ago that logic is rarely the deciding factor in message board decisions when a group of "gee, look what I can do" teenage board moderators are running a forum.

Originally posted by IronParrot
I bemoan the lack of comprehensive literary analysis in the Books forum nowadays.Then why in the world would you remove a legitimate thread trying to address that very fact?!??!?! Moderators should be PROMOTING interesting discussions, not stifling them. I've never understood why so many boards allow its moderators to close or move serious and interesting discussions for the most bizarre reasons imaginable such as "well...uh...gee, uh...it's largely a matter of organization." Riiiiiight. Let's play "The Pants Game" in the book forum but don't you dare ask if the films have changed the way you view the books there!!! :)

Originally posted by IronParrot
In fact, this thread is semi-redundant (there's another thread about how the movies affect one's vision of the books, albeit not one's relationship) but I'll leave it open.Oh, thank you, thank you, Oh Mighty One for deeming this trifling, little thread worthy of remaining open in your esteemed Elf eyes. It is truly a generous and lordly act. Thank you from the bottom of my unworthy peasant heart!

I realize you are above questioning, but nevertheless, I feel I must address your declaration that this thread is "semi-redundant." Yes, there was a thread asking the question "Has Jackson's FILMS captured Tolkien's vision?" This discussion thread -- at least until it was moved and the focus shifted to the movies -- was asking the question whether the films changed the way fans felt about THE BOOKS. Unless I've entered the Twilight Zone and everyone here has become mindless orcs, these two questions are clearly separate and distinct.

Dúnedain

10-02-2003, 03:23 PM

Shutup BB you are going to ruin this thread...

Sheeana

10-02-2003, 03:37 PM

Of all the dumbass questions - will the films change our relationship with books? - well, of course it does, dimwit. :rolleyes: I read it now, and I see frellin' Orlando Bloom as Legolas, dratitall.

Elfhelm

10-02-2003, 03:41 PM

Actually, I would like to update my earlier statement. If some sort of Hitlerian perverion of Wagner happens using the LotR movies, it will not change my relationship with the books. So I changed my mind over night. :)

My answer is now, No. It affects how I visualize faces, voices, and some settings, but not my relationship.

IronParrot

10-02-2003, 08:46 PM

I wish I were able to see if you and azalea could keep a straight face while explaining why you felt the question, "Has your relationship with the books changed?" is not an appropriate books forum topic. But hey, I understood a long time ago that logic is rarely the deciding factor in message board decisions when a group of "gee, look what I can do" teenage board moderators are running a forum.
It's not that it's inappropriate in the Books forum, it's that it's more appropriate here. There's a difference. As for the "teenage board moderators" comment - try a bit harder, because I've heard a lot worse.

Then why in the world would you remove a legitimate thread trying to address that very fact?!??!?! Moderators should be PROMOTING interesting discussions, not stifling them. I've never understood why so many boards allow its moderators to close or move serious and interesting discussions for the most bizarre reasons imaginable such as "well...uh...gee, uh...it's largely a matter of organization." Riiiiiight. Let's play "The Pants Game" in the book forum but don't you dare ask if the films have changed the way you view the books there!!!
The fundamental reason we have a separate Movies forum, and have had one since the dawn of this board, is not because we want to keep the movies from diluting the books. It's because we are giving the movies special treatment by giving them a forum of their own.

I realize you are above questioning, but nevertheless, I feel I must address your declaration that this thread is "semi-redundant." Yes, there was a thread asking the question "Has Jackson's FILMS captured Tolkien's vision?" This discussion thread -- at least until it was moved and the focus shifted to the movies -- was asking the question whether the films changed the way fans felt about THE BOOKS. Unless I've entered the Twilight Zone and everyone here has become mindless orcs, these two questions are clearly separate and distinct.
As for the semi-redundancy I was referring to Did we lose something? (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8905) - a thread you posted in and in fact praised. (It was also in the Movies forum.) I was not referring to your 1000-reply "Capturing Tolkien's Vision" thread, which is indeed completely different.

I will quote your post in the thread I'm referring to right here, actually.

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.
That clearly addresses the question of how our perceptions of the books has changed. You had no complaints about the thread placement then and you shouldn't have any complaints now.

Oh, thank you, thank you, Oh Mighty One for deeming this trifling, little thread worthy of remaining open in your esteemed Elf eyes. It is truly a generous and lordly act. Thank you from the bottom of my unworthy peasant heart!
I'm not leaving it open because it's worthy of my esteemed Elf eyes (be that as it may). I'm leaving it open because relationship and vision are fundamentally distinct, which is why this differs from the "Did we lose something?" thread I mentioned above.

Also. We moderators are not above questioning - in fact, if you have a problem with the way we're doing things, it's totally your prerogative to challenge our policies.

BUT the appropriate place to do that is by Private Message, and not interrupting a thread where everybody else has been issuing on-topic replies. Please take this to PM.

IronParrot

10-02-2003, 09:12 PM

Also - if you want to touch this issue of Books/Movies separation and want to comment on it publicly, please use this thread.

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4482

Thank you. Everyone else, sorry about the mess - this will be the last post on this thread about operating policies instead of the actual topic at hand.

I hope.

Dúnedain

10-02-2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by IronParrot
Thank you. Everyone else, sorry about the mess - this will be the last post on this thread about operating policies instead of the actual topic at hand.

I hope.

Ok cool, now can we start discussion whether the balrog has wings or not? :D :p :D

IronParrot

10-02-2003, 10:01 PM

Ok cool, now can we start discussion whether the balrog has wings or not?
Well, that depends. Did watching the rendition of the Balrog in the movie change your relationship with its wings?

Dúnedain

10-02-2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by IronParrot
Well, that depends. Did watching the rendition of the Balrog in the movie change your relationship with its wings?

lol, it actually did, but only in the respect directly proportional to the air velocity that it can achieve. A couple wise people said the following once:

Soldier #1: Where'd you get the coconuts?
Arthur: We found them.
Soldier #1: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
Arthur: What do you mean?
Soldier #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
Arthur: The balrog may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
Soldier #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
Soldier #1: What? A balrog carrying a coconut?
Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
Soldier #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce balrog could not carry a one pound coconut.
Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
Soldier #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a balrog needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
Arthur: Please!
Soldier #1: Am I right?
Arthur: I'm not interested!
Soldier #2: It could be carried by an African balrog!
Soldier #1: Oh, yeah, an African balrog maybe, but not a European balrog. That's my point.
Soldier #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
Arthur: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
Soldier #1: But then of course a-- African balrogs are non-migratory.
Soldier #2: Oh, yeah...
Soldier #1: So, they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...
[clop clop clop]
Soldier #2: Wait a minute! Supposing two balrogs carried it together?
Soldier #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Soldier #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
Soldier #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
Soldier #2: Well, why not?

See, it's not about the size of the wings, it's how they use them! :p

The Gaffer

10-03-2003, 06:25 AM

Hobbiton, Bag Eng, Bree, Isengard, Rivendell, Caradhras, Lorien, Edoras, Argonath, Helm's Deep, Barad-dur, Minas Tirith and especially Dwarrowdelf: all totally awesomely rendered. The bit where Gandalf "risks a little more light" in Moria still makes my hair stand on end.

Mordor: too close; The Shire: too mountainous; Rohan, not grassy enough.

In the films, Middle-Earth seems smaller than it is in the books.

Black Breathalizer

10-03-2003, 07:08 AM

There have been some interesting comments posted here lately about the films. But I'd like to point out this thread is intended to address whether the movies have changed the way you now feel when reading the books.

As IronParrot has pointed out, there are other threads to post your feelings about the films. I'm truly sorry for the confusion about this.

Artanis

10-03-2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Hobbiton, Bag Eng, Bree, Isengard, Rivendell, Caradhras, Lorien, Edoras, Argonath, Helm's Deep, Barad-dur, Minas Tirith and especially Dwarrowdelf: all totally awesomely rendered.Those places are truly beautifully rendered, but it is not new. They look almost exactly like illustrations that existed long before the movies were released, pictures made by Alan Lee, who also participated in making the movies. Same with many of the creatures. Just look at Lee's pics of Gollum, Treebeard, the nazgul's flying steeds, the Mumakil, the balrog etc.

I don't really see how the movies could change my relationship with the book. After the second movie I almost see the movies and the book as telling two different stories. In that respect I'm thankful for the deviations from the book.

BTW, welcome to the moot, Gaffer! :)

The Gaffer

10-06-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Artanis
BTW, welcome to the moot, Gaffer! :)
Thank 'ee kindly m'lady *touches forelock*

Well, I find that the rendition of the world is so painstaking that both book and film denote the same thing in my mind. In that way, it's been an absolute joy to watch them; like having a long-distance relationship with someone, then moving to the same town and finding out that they're even better than you thought.

IronParrot

10-06-2003, 03:15 PM

lol, it actually did, but only in the respect directly proportional to the air velocity that it can achieve.
Do you mean an African Balrog, or a European Balrog?

Sheeana

10-06-2003, 03:53 PM

Ah, the oft' quoted Holy Grail. Can't you guys think of something more original to joke about? :rolleyes:

Gwaimir Windgem

10-07-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The film actors, the set designs and locations, and the swords and other props, have added a whole new level of detail when I reread the books. For the most part, it has been no adjustment at all because the actors who were cast in the movie were amazingly similar the ones in my head. The wildest thing about this is that I hear the same comments from other fans of the book as well.

There were two exceptions. However, Sean Astin as Boromir and Orlando Bloom as Legolas were BETTER than what I originally imagined and I've had no reservations at all about changing my views.

One of the few things that now feels more awkward when reading the books since FOTR came out involves Samwise. I thought Sean Astin was a dead-on choice for one of my all-time favorite literary characters. I also appreciate his performance. I especially loved the "Taters" scene in TTT and thought it was brilliantly brought to the big screen. What I find a little harder to swallow now is the more "gushy" language Sam uses in the book that is not used in the film.

Also, I was concerned when I first learned that Jackson planned to play down the master-servent relationship between Frodo and Sam. However, strangely enough, I now find myself having difficulty hearing Sam saying "Master" when reading the books after watching the films.

And you claim to not think the movie is better. :p You say it improves on it, you now judge the value of the book by the movie. Yet when your own words are turned against you, you say you don't think the move is better than the book! :rolleyes:

Gwaimir Windgem

10-07-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Really the books are about all of these themes of hope and whatnot and the movies capture that in their true forms...

You too? :eek: I mean, I knew you liked the movies, but saying that it captures the themes of the book better than the book itself....:(

Originally posted by Sheeana
Of all the dumbass questions - will the films change our relationship with books? - well, of course it does, dimwit. :rolleyes: I read it now, and I see frellin' Orlando Bloom as Legolas, dratitall.

Same here, only with Frodo. :(

Dúnedain

10-07-2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You too? :eek: I mean, I knew you liked the movies, but saying that it captures the themes of the book better than the book itself....:(

You put those words in my mouth, read my statement again, it doesn't say that anywhere...

Black Breathalizer

10-08-2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
And you claim to not think the movie is better. :p You say it improves on it, you now judge the value of the book by the movie. Yet when your own words are turned against you, you say you don't think the move is better than the book! :rolleyes: Yes, I love the films. They are the most enjoyable films I've ever watched. I can watch those damn scenes from the DVDs over and over again and never tire of them. But loving the films doesn't mean I can't still love the books too. Yes, Jackson improved upon story for the big screen. Big hairy deal! The only thing PJ has done is deepen my love for the characters and the places in the books. And I seriously doubt I'm alone. I've said many times that the two compliment one another and I still believe that. Do I look at the books a little differently now? Yeah, I admit I probably do. Some things work better now, a few things not as well.

But I have never attacked or trashed the books. Ever. My only crime has been defending Jackson's films against silly, unwarranted -- and often uninformed -- attacks. But that doesn't mean I'm playing the same 'basher game' that the Purists here play.

Both the books and the films have some things about them that are not perfect. Over the course of our discussions here I've pointed out a few flaws from the books and the films. But I prefer to revel in the wonderful things about both rather than tear them down.

The Gaffer

10-08-2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Same here, only with Frodo. :(
That's a pity. Film Frodo is so completely different from Book Frodo, I can't equate them at all. * feels sorry for GW *

Black Breathalizer

10-08-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Film Frodo is so completely different from Book Frodo, I can't equate them at all.If you visualize Book Frodo differently than the film version, that's your prerogative. But to state they are "so completely different" is complete hogwash and is certainly not supported by any real comparison between the two. If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about.

Artanis

10-08-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you visualize Book Frodo differently than the film version, that's your prerogative. But to state they are "so completely different" is complete hogwash and is certainly not supported by any real comparison between the two. If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about. Talking about the appearance of Frodo, I too think they're different. When I read the book I imagine Frodo as looking much older than he does in the movie. In the book he's 50 years old when he sets out from Hobbiton.

Earniel

10-08-2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you visualize Book Frodo differently than the film version, that's your prerogative. But to state they are "so completely different" is complete hogwash and is certainly not supported by any real comparison between the two. If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about.

It's not trash, it's just an opinion that's different from yours.

But I personally agree with The Gaffer and Artanis: in my opinion movie-Frodo is different in some aspects from book-Frodo.

IronParrot

10-08-2003, 03:31 PM

Talking about the appearance of Frodo, I too think they're different. When I read the book I imagine Frodo as looking much older than he does in the movie. In the book he's 50 years old when he sets out from Hobbiton.
Yeah, but I've always seen him as a very youthful 50, given that hobbit ages are inflated compared to humans anyway, and also because of the influence of the Ring. That's why it's kind of fitting, to me, that Frodo visually appears as being in the same age range as Pippin, who's the token tweenager of the hobbit crew.

Of course, that's a different debate entirely. I guess the real question being posed here is whether or not the portrayal of Frodo in the films has necessarily changed how you feel about Frodo as a character when you go back to the book and read it.

For those of us who thought Frodo in the film was a pretty good representation of how we always saw him, I don't think our relationships with his characterization in the book is going to be affected all that much. I remember how the first time I came out of FOTR, still working out what I just saw and in a great deal of shock (many qualms and questions still remained to be settled by the second viewing), I was very impressed by Elijah Wood's performance in particular.

How close the film was to the book is in itself a redundant debate with no solid answers either way. Some of today's top Tolkien scholars can be seen on completely opposite sides of the issue. It's really a matter of how we recognize or justify the similarities and differences on a personal level - and that's where our personal relationships to the book and films, as individuals, becomes key.

Black Breathalizer

10-08-2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
Talking about the appearance of Frodo, I too think they're different. When I read the book I imagine Frodo as looking much older than he does in the movie. In the book he's 50 years old when he sets out from Hobbiton. With all due respect, the fact that you envision Frodo as a 50 year old doesn't mean that Tolkien himself envisoned him that way. Frankly, the facts would point to Peter Jackson's Frodo being much closer to Tolkien's true vision than your own.

You need to remember that a hobbits lifespan is much longer than ours and that a hobbit didn't "come of age" until he was 33 instead of the age 18 that we generally associate with adulthood. Given this fact, its logical to assume that a "Fiftysomething" Frodo would look twentysomething.

Artanis

10-09-2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
With all due respect, the fact that you envision Frodo as a 50 year old doesn't mean that Tolkien himself envisoned him that way. Frankly, the facts would point to Peter Jackson's Frodo being much closer to Tolkien's true vision than your own. Well, I'm not afraid to say that my visions about the characters and the scenery in the book may be different from what Tolkien himself envisioned. Isn't that what is so good about a book versus a movie? The ability to create our own pictures in our heads. Anyway it is no big deal, personally I do not care so much about the looks of the characters when I read a book. Their personalities and their reasons for their actions, and how they feel, are much more important.
You need to remember that a hobbits lifespan is much longer than ours and that a hobbit didn't "come of age" until he was 33 instead of the age 18 that we generally associate with adulthood. Given this fact, its logical to assume that a "Fiftysomething" Frodo would look twentysomething. I don't see it like that. Hobbits do not live that much longer than us. About 100 years against our 80-85. Which would make 50 years corresponding to 40 in our lifespan, if you like. Young Elijah looks exactly as old as he is, about 20, and I think it's a bit pity for the movie, especially since Pippin, Sam and Merry all seem older than him, which they should not be according to the book (I'm talking entirely about apperance now, not their charaters). This is just one of many reasons why I fail to map the movie story onto the book story in a successful way, that would work for me personally. I guess you will call me some kind of purist (doesn't remember all the categories of purist right now, I'm sure you'll find one fitting for me ;) ). But in this way, at least my relationship with the book remains how it has always been, which I think was the answer to your original question.

And about Hobbits coming of age at 33 I interpret more as a cultural difference rather than a result of their physical development. If you think of it, most people in our culture don't start their lives as 'adults' before they're 30-something, I mean settling down with marriage and children and taking on responsibility, and I guess this is what happens to a Hobbit when he/she is 33, it is farewell to the "irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three".

IronParrot

10-09-2003, 03:12 AM

I'm not sure about that. I think in terms of hobbit ages, both the physical and mental lifespans are very clearly inflated compared to ours. The concept of their irresponsible "tweens" is very clearly a take on our world's teens, eleventy-one seems to be a particular marker like our ninety or one hundred, and the Old Took's one hundred and thirty is a milestone in itself.

And appearance-wise, you have to note that the effect of the Ring was that Frodo looked very much at fifty as he did at thirty-three - hence why the younger hobbits would have caught up to him in how old they looked.

The Gaffer

10-09-2003, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about.
You should show more respect to your elders and betters.

Film Frodo: is a teenager, has a look of terror on his face all the time, runs away from fights (Moria), doesn't defy the Nazgul (Fords), OFFERS THE ******* RING TO THE NAZGUL FOR ****'S SAKE (Osgiliath), is completely taken in by Smeagol, is already completely under the Ring's control

Book Frodo: is a mature adult (your hogwash about lifespans notwithstanding), takes the lead, communicates with Sam, only loses the plot once (MInas Morgul), defies the Nazgul, thinks carefully about what to do next, etc etc.

As far as appearance goes, EW certainly looks the part. This isn't about appearance though.

IronParrot

10-09-2003, 07:30 AM

... and the thread spirals out of control...

But seriously, guys. I realize the importance of debating the characterization of Frodo in the film, but let's keep this thread from veering into a "was the film faithful" slugfest. We have several of those already that I wouldn't mind you bringing back up to the top.

(And I'll gladly join you there.)

The Gaffer

10-09-2003, 07:56 AM

Happy to oblige; that would be why I only mentioned it in passing before. On reflection, though, I think it's very relevant to this question.

Frodo is the principal character through which we relate to the story (in the books). Particularly in FOTR, nothing happens that we don't see through his eyes. One of the many things that is great about the book is that the author gradually expands this perspective throughout TTT and ROTK, then draws it back in again at the end.

By necessity, films have to give a broader perspective. So, to take the point further, by changing Frodo's role and character, and adopting a broader perspective, the film changes how we relate to the story from the outset. We don't gradually discover the plot in the same way that Frodo does.

The role of Aragorn would be a good example of that: in the film, it's clear from early on that he's "heir to the throne of Gondor" (thanks, Legolas). In the book, this only becomes apparent in TTT, and the full significance doesn't really sink in until ROTK.

My guess is that this difference would make the viewer experience the story as something which happens to include hobbits, rather than the reader's experience of something which is experienced by hobbits.

BTW, I think the films are great too. Just because there are differences in how characters and story are played out doesn't necessarily mean I'm saying "book rules, film sucks". Some things about the film are better, IMHO.:eek:

IronParrot

10-09-2003, 09:45 AM

It's funny that you bring up the notion of the characters "discovering" the plot. The first time I watched FOTR, one of the most major things I noticed was that it's not until the Council of Elrond that the destruction of the Ring is even introduced as an option. In the book, Gandalf mentions throwing the thing into the Cracks of Doom as early as I.2, "The Shadow of the Past". I think this is in keeping with how the linearity of the film demands a more streamlined action-reaction plot, but as you mentioned, the converse is true in many cases - such as the early revelation of Aragorn's claim to the throne.

Black Breathalizer

10-09-2003, 03:16 PM

I don't dispute that there are many variations between the books and the films. But I get irritated with ill-informed Purists who whine on and on about how that villian Jackson "completely changed Frodo's role and character" and then, when pressed, proceed to give us lame examples such as the ones below (in bold) from The Gaffer:

Film Frodo is a teenager
I already addressed the common mistake many so-called 'Purists' have made in envisioning Frodo as a fiftysomething human. (I'm soooo glad I never pictured one of my favorite book characters as some old geezer!)

Film Frodo has a look of terror on his face all the time
If you don't think Book Frodo was afraid, you don't know the books nearly as well as you think you do -- which is too bad because that was an important part of Tolkien's vision.

Film Frodo runs away from fights (Moria)
Runs Away? You must have seen a different version of the movie than I did. Frodo fought the goblins like everyone else in the Fellowship did. He did hide from the cave troll (as did Merry & Pippin). Frankly, having Frodo fight a cave troll WOULD HAVE CHANGED Frodo's character because he certainly wasn't an idiot!!!. But when the cave troll tried to grab him, Frodo did fight back, cutting the troll's hand with Sting.

Film Frodo doesn't defy the Nazgul (Fords).
This whole stupid Purist arguement that Film Frodo's character changed revolves around this one. No, Frodo didn't defy the Nazgul at the Fords. But it is a huge stretch to say that this one plot change resulted in a total personality change for Frodo. The reality is that some Purists absolutely hated the flight to the ford's plot change and desperately want to be able to say it ruined the rest of the film series. Sorry, but the plot changed worked and, from a screenplay perspective, it makes total sense. Another way to look at it is that Jackson wanted to follow Tolkien's lead and "make it all feel real." Unlike the book, showing a three-foot hobbit on death's door riding a large stallion over a great distance with the ringwraiths in close pursuit would have looked hokey at best and fakey at worst.

Film Frodo OFFERS THE ******* RING TO THE NAZGUL FOR ****'S SAKE (Osgiliath)
Like most Purist arguements, this one is based on fantasy, not reality. Watch the DVD again. Frodo doesn't offer the ring to the Nazgul. He's got the ring attached to the chain around his neck. He's simply being tempted to put the ring on.

Film Frodo is completely taken in by Smeagol
How would you describe Book Frodo's relationship with Smeagol? Please share with us how dramatically different their relationship is between the books and the films.

Film Frodo is already completely under the Ring's control
Completely under the ring's control? That's a rather sweeping statement. If you are referring to how Frodo acts in Osgiliath, you might want to check out how Frodo acts in the valley of Minas Morgul.

Dúnedain

10-09-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
The role of Aragorn would be a good example of that: in the film, it's clear from early on that he's "heir to the throne of Gondor" (thanks, Legolas). In the book, this only becomes apparent in TTT, and the full significance doesn't really sink in until ROTK.

Ummm no it doesn't. Aragorn is definitely introduced as who he is in Fellowship in the books...In the chapter called "Strider" there are many refereces to who Strider is and then later in the Council of Elrong it is explained further as well when Aragorn, Elrond and Bilbo speak of who Aragorn is to Boromir. It's pretty apparent if you read those chapters...

IronParrot

10-09-2003, 04:33 PM

Ummm no it doesn't. Aragorn is definitely introduced as who he is in Fellowship in the books...In the chapter called "Strider" there are many refereces to who Strider is and then later in the Council of Elrong it is explained further as well when Aragorn, Elrond and Bilbo speak of who Aragorn is to Boromir. It's pretty apparent if you read those chapters...
It's true that in both the book and film, it's known right from the outset that there's no doubt Aragorn is the King that "Returns" in Books V and VI. However, I think the difference that The Gaffer was pointing out is how early on we focus on the issue of how Aragorn is going to approach this ascension to the throne - his motives, his doubts, et cetera. The focus, if you will.

Black Breathalizer

10-09-2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by IronParrot
It's true that in both the book and film, it's known right from the outset that there's no doubt Aragorn is the King that "Returns" in Books V and VI. However, I think the difference that The Gaffer was pointing out is how early on we focus on the issue of how Aragorn is going to approach this ascension to the throne - his motives, his doubts, et cetera. The focus, if you will.I would agree that the films highlight Aragorn's doubts more, but I disagree that his motives were any more or less evident in the film or book.

IronParrot

10-09-2003, 11:19 PM

I would agree that the films highlight Aragorn's doubts more, but I disagree that his motives were any more or less evident in the film or book.
I think that depends on how much emphasis you place on Appendix A, and how integral you see it as part of LOTR proper itself.

His motives are equivalently evident, yes, but that's if you count the background explored in Appendix A. Obviously the film wasn't going to tack on a half-hour segment about Aragorn and Arwen at the very end, so naturally it integrated the goods of it into the primary narrative. That's what I was referring to.

The Gaffer

10-10-2003, 04:17 AM

IronParrot has expressed what I meant regarding Aragorn better than I did. You have to see it in the context of a reader/viewer who does not know what's going to happen.

Frodo/Smeagol is dealt with very differently. In the film, they do a fantastic job of making us see the parallels between them, right down to an implicit identity (Frodo IS Smeagol). This is a stroke of genius, since we don't know that Smeagol was a hobbit.

In the book, it is pity that rules their relationship, and the fact that "servant" Smeagol has a claim on "Master" Frodo. BTW, it looks to me as if this will be played out in more detail in ROTK.

I agree that many of the other examples I quoted are open to interpretation, but I don't think you can dismiss them on the basis of not having watched the film often enough. I've (only) seen TTT twice, which is probably once more than most people, and both times it was my impression that Frodo was offering the ring up to the (Harrier jump-jet equipped) Nazgul. To credit the film-makers with any sort of ability, you have to assume that this was, at the very least, supposed to be ambiguous.

I don't recall saying that Frodo was not afraid in the books. Perhaps I did not make myself clear: the point is that, in the books, Frodo is the central character and he takes us through a whole gamut of complex emotions. Similarly, the point made about his age was to do with his maturity, not his appearance.

It is, of course, possible to deride all comment as being the ravings of an "ill-informed purist". That, in itself, has no bearing on their validity and is simply childish name-calling.

Black Breathalizer

10-10-2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Frodo/Smeagol is dealt with very differently. In the film, they do a fantastic job of making us see the parallels between them, right down to an implicit identity (Frodo IS Smeagol). This is a stroke of genius, since we don't know that Smeagol was a hobbit.

In the book, it is pity that rules their relationship, and the fact that "servant" Smeagol has a claim on "Master" Frodo. BTW, it looks to me as if this will be played out in more detail in ROTK.I would submit that pity was the central theme of the film as well. Like the book, Film Frodo says: "Now that I see him, I do pity him." But as you pointed out, through his visuals, Jackson is able to communicate to the audience that part of Frodo's pity and protective feelings stem from the fact that he understands how Gollum got to where he is and realizes that could be himself someday.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
It is, of course, possible to deride all comment as being the ravings of an "ill-informed purist". That, in itself, has no bearing on their validity and is simply childish name-calling. That's just my Gollum side coming out. Don't take it personal because it's not meant that way. It's just me being provocative. I'm really a swell guy. Honest. :)

The Gaffer

10-10-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would submit that pity was the central theme of the film as well. Like the book, Film Frodo says: "Now that I see him, I do pity him." But as you pointed out, through his visuals, Jackson is able to communicate to the audience that part of Frodo's pity and protective feelings stem from the fact that he understands how Gollum got to where he is and realizes that could be himself someday.

Well, we can agree on that. It's one of the best things about TTT, in fact.
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer That's just my Gollum side coming out. Don't take it personal because it's not meant that way. It's just me being provocative. I'm really a swell guy. Honest. :) [/B]
Apology accepted. Does that mean I should pity you?:rolleyes:

Black Breathalizer

10-10-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Apology accepted. Does that mean I should pity you?:rolleyes: Gollum: Stupid, fat Tolkien Purist! Wicked, tricksy, false. We NEVER apologized, did we, precioussss? No, we would never apologize to a Purist.

BB-éagol: No! No! We must be nice to The Gaffer!

Gollum: The Gaffer is a Purist. He will cheat you, hurt you and ... WHINE!!!

BB-éagol: But The Gaffer is a Mooter. He's one of our friends.

Gollum: You don't have any friends. Nobody likes you.

BB-éagol: Not listening. Not listening.

Gollum: You're a blowhard ... a jerk...

BB-éagol: No.

Gollum: TROLL!!!

BB-éagol: Go away.

Gollum: Go away?! Ahahhaa!"

BB-éagol: I hate you, I hate you!

Gollum: Where would you be without me? ... gollum...gollum ... I save us every day. It is me. We survive on this stupid message board because of ME!"

BB-éagol: Not anymore.

Gollum: What did you say?

BB-éagol: Master IronParrot looks after us now. He's a bigshot Mooter administrator with thousands upon thousands of thoughtful posts. He even has the power to close or move whole threads!!! We don't need you anymore.

Gollum: What?

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back.

Gollum: No!

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back!

Gollum: Arrrgh!

BB-éagol: LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK!

silence.

BB-éagol: Yippiee!!! BB is FREE!!! (BB turns and faces you, the reader.) This means I'll be nice to you if you be nice to ussss. You can trust BB. Honest.

Dúnedain

10-10-2003, 04:52 PM

Dúnedain

10-10-2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Gollum: Stupid, fat Tolkien Purist! Wicked, tricksy, false. We NEVER apologized, did we, precioussss? No, we would never apologize to a Purist.

BB-éagol: No! No! We must be nice to The Gaffer!

Gollum: The Gaffer is a Purist. He will cheat you, hurt you and ... WHINE!!!

BB-éagol: But The Gaffer is a Mooter. He's one of our friends.

Gollum: You don't have any friends. Nobody likes you.

BB-éagol: Not listening. Not listening.

Gollum: You're a blowhard ... a jerk...

BB-éagol: No.

Gollum: TROLL!!!

BB-éagol: Go away.

Gollum: Go away?! Ahahhaa!"

BB-éagol: I hate you, I hate you!

Gollum: Where would you be without me? ... gollum...gollum ... I save us every day. It is me. We survive on this stupid message board because of ME!"

BB-éagol: Not anymore.

Gollum: What did you say?

BB-éagol: Master IronParrot looks after us now. He's a bigshot Mooter administrator with thousands upon thousands of thoughtful posts. He even has the power to close or move whole threads!!! We don't need you anymore.

Gollum: What?

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back.

Gollum: No!

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back!

Gollum: Arrrgh!

BB-éagol: LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK!

silence.

BB-éagol: Yippiee!!! BB is FREE!!! (BB turns and faces you, the reader.) This means I'll be nice to you if you be nice to ussss. You can trust BB. Honest.

LMAO! That was great BB, lol :p