Special Viewing for Tolkein, embrace/loath?

[thranduil]

Tolkein alone is seated in a theater. He wonders what he is going to see, and then the film rolls. And he is showed the first two movies uncut.

Does his curiosity get the best of him and he watches with eagerness? Is he marvelling at how accurate and true they are? Does he want to give PJ a "Tolkein approved" stamp?

Or does Tolkein walk out in disgust as soon as he learns that even though he said he didn't want his books to be made into movies, some jerk does it anyways. Does he plan some painful death for PJ.

Im interested to hear if mooters think Tolkein might actually like the movies even the slightest bit. Or would he despise them.

[Celebréiel]

I can see this thread getting pretty ugly pretty quick. Its kinda silly to discuss if Tolkien would like the films or not (imho :) )...only because it goes down to what youve read about him, and your opinion vs. others etc. No one on this board knew the man (I think so at least...:rolleyes: ) I have absolutely no clue if he would like them or not....and anyone that says they know for sure are just being cocky...
so, Imho, I have no clue what he would think....not even a guess... :p
Im sure many people know alot more about him than me though..so hey...maybe it wont be so silly.....

[Cassius]

Well, from what I know of Tolkein he really didn't like anybody messing with his work. He would get mad at any editors that changed his script, since he did teach english at one of the most prestigious schools in the modern world. I think he wouldn't have liked what was changed, but would have appreciated the effort involved.

[thranduil]

I realized the absurdness of this thread after It was posted. But oh well, maybe some crazy purists or movie fans will debate, anyways. I still wish he could see them

[Aden]

I agree with Cassius I'm almost sure he wouldn't like the changes. He worked so hard for his books to be so close to perfection.

[Black Breathalizer]

What we do know is that Tolkien was cool with the idea of movies being made of the LOTR. We also know that he was okay with changes to his story.

Regarding Peter Jackson's films, I doubt he would have agreed with all of the screenwriters' decisions. But I do believe he would have respected the efforts made to make Middle Earth feel real and to bring his characters to life.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

The above observations on JRRT are well-reasoned and logical.

But since he isn't here why not ask, oh..................say, Christopher Tolkien and one of CT's grandsons what they think?:rolleyes:

[Aden]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
What we do know is that Tolkien was cool with the idea of movies being made of the LOTR. We also know that he was okay with changes to his story.

Regarding Peter Jackson's films, I doubt he would have agreed with all of the screenwriters' decisions. But I do believe he would have respected the efforts made to make Middle Earth feel real and to bring his characters to life.

I also believe that Tolkien would have respected the efforts made ( they are great ones indeed ). But I insist that he would probably be disappointed with several parts of the movies.

[jerseydevil]

i don't think that Tolkien would have been happy with them at all. I think he would have considered them a mockery. he would have been upset by the dwarf tossing jokes, the Aragorn denying his heritage, Merry or Pippin farting after eating Limbus, etc.

He would have run out of the theater in disgust.

[azalea]

The only thing I can see about this thread is the predictability of each members' posts.:D
I happen to think from what I've read so far in Letters (did you guys see that scathing comments he made about the pictures by the woman originally contracted to illustrate Farmer Giles of Ham?:eek: ) that he would have been generally unhappy with the movies, but would also have found some pleasure in seeing his characters brought to life, even if they weren't "right" in his opinion. (How's that for predictability? ;))

[After reading some of Letters, I've come to think that although I love the man's work and admire him, I would have felt MUCH too self-concious about meeting him in person, lest he should think me a stupid bore, like he did those two women that stayed with them briefly during the war. Because he seemed very critical, I believe that he would have been so of the movies, but I think he had to have been smart enough to realize that if he wanted his work to be a TRUE mythology, it would need to be open to some interpretation.:confused: Incidentally, the letter to C.S Lewis about Lewis' "offense" at Tolkien's criticism of one of Lewis' works in progress was quite interesting -- detailing his views on criticism.]

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by azalea
would also have found some pleasure in seeing his characters brought to life, even if they weren't "right" in his opinion.

With all due respect..."in his opinion"? He doesn't even know what his characters should have been like? :p

I highly doubt that he would appreciated them. He stated that he would loathe changes made to the characters, and that is, quite simply, what was done at least in the case of Pippin, and arguably with others.

[Earniel]

This thread reminds me of the old thread:
would tolkien agree?? (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5406&perpage=20&highlight=Tolkien&pagenumber=1).

Originally posted by azalea
The only thing I can see about this thread is the predictability of each members' posts.:D
Neh neh neh. :D Good one!

[Melko Belcha]

Considering how much Tolkien hated the script written by Morton Bradey Zimmerman, I do not think he would have approved of PJ's script at all. Especialy since he said he would resent any changes to his characters or dialoge in anyway.

[Valandil]

From reading this letters, I imagine that the older JRR Tokien was when he sat down to watch, the less he would like it - and now that he's eleventy-one... Maybe natural enough in the human condition. You'd have to catch him when he's young! :)

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Valandil
From reading this letters, I imagine that the older JRR Tokien was when he sat down to watch, the less he would like it - and now that he's eleventy-one...I hadn't realized 2003 was Tolkien's elventy-first birthday year. What a wonderfully appropriate time for the film trilogy of his great work to be completed!!!

[azalea]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
With all due respect..."in his opinion"? He doesn't even know what his characters should have been like? :p



I'm one of those people who thinks that an author might view his characters differently than they appear to each reader. An author cannot view his work objectively, and he cannot always portray a character through his writing in such a complete way that every reader sees it in an absolute way, without room for interpretation. You'll see many people read stories of all kinds, and when asked what the motivation of a certain character was, or some such ques., they'll likely give a wide variety of answers.

Art, when presented, (IMO) loses the influence of the artist, and becomes the "property" of the viewer (and the artist has no control over this). Tolkien obviously didn't like this fact, as he spent so many years refining, rethinking, etc., the world he'd created. He wanted to present something indisputable, but it is impossible to do, even when dealing with the factual, much less the fantastical.
Hence, although I think Tolkien probably wouldn't have liked the way P & M were portrayed, the instant they appeared on screen I knew who they were, before their first lines were spoken. The scene never happened, they were different than my mental image (generally speaking), and yet the characters have apparently transcended the story. I don't know, but I think that although Tolkien might not have liked that, it (the transcendence)shows his genius as a writer. Yet he seemed unwilling at times to accept his role as an artist (in terms of what I brought up above), but was indeed trying to be an historian. Admirable, but impossible. Even historians of true history cannot present an historical episode about which only one conclusion can be drawn.
That is why I said "in his opinion," because his opinion of his own characters might be different from how I've read them. That being said, I don't think this means that people can justify extreme changes to what's been written and claim that they happened in the story. It's a fine line, but I'll try to give an example:
-- the "wizard's dual" could have happened, because we know that Gandalf was imprisoned by Saruman, but he doesn't tell (at least Tolkien didn't write) the exact details, the mechanics of exactly how they managed to get him up to the top of Orthanc.
-- the "possession of Theoden" by Saruman, on the other hand, was clearly a change made (for good or bad) from the "real" story as written by Tolkien, rather than an interpretation. It is clear from reading the episode that Saruman was never speaking through Theoden in a physical way (ie, that he, from afar, was literally using T.'s bbody to speak, etc., whatever you may think about his non-physical influence, that being somewhat open for interpretation).
I elaborated about this more than I needed to, but that's what I mean when I say "in his opinion." Yes, HE knew how he wanted the characters to be, but once he has decided what he will write about a character, he must allow the reader to build the character in his own mind, using Tolkien's words (that says it really well). What one reader brings to the experience may cause him to see each character in a slightly diff. way, most of which are going to have some variations from what Tolkien intended. So what Tolkien might see as being "right" or "wrong" in terms of dramatization of a character isn't necessarily universal -- he has chosen what he wrote, and if some people see it differently, it's too late to add on, or whatever. And that isn't really a bad thing, IMO. I don't mean generally, I'm refering to details, small things. He would certainly have been nitpicky with his own creation, but IMO the tiny things are trifling. I wouldn't say "Oh, that's wrong" based on a few differences inconsequential to the story, not myself being the creator, unles it were mere observation.
I know a lot of people disagree with this, and believe instead that an author's work is ironclad, and that if he didn't write it, it cannot be a possibility, or that one can only draw certain conclusions about character, themes, etc., based on what the author himself has said or written inside of or outside of the story. This view is perfectly valid, but I happen to hold a different one. Changes no, interpretations yes.
Thus concludes another ent-like post by Azalea.:p

[Black Breathalizer]

I agree with azalea. Once a writer shares his or her work with another person they cease to own it. Before one of you literalists shoot back, "no way, Tolkien OWNS his story!" I understand copywrite laws. I'm referring to the power of fans to assume in a general way, the ownership of a story. It's clear that many people here feel very, very protective of Tolkien's story. I suspect that new LOTR fans through the films may feel as equally protective of their story in the future. It should be interesting to watch the LOTR fan dynamics once the film series is complete.

[Draken]

Thranduil:

Stretch your scenario to a little earlier. Tolkien sits not in a cinema, but in the Senior Common Room of an Oxford college marking dissertations....


CS Lewis: What ho JRR! Another weekend beckons…fancy a trip into town or some such?

JRR Tolkien: Town, Clive? I think not, I have a viva voce to prepare for and I had promised myself I would sort out the syntax for a Dwarven dialect for Erebor. Why, what had you in mind, old chap?

CSL: Well I was rather looking forward to a trip to the picture house…

JRR: The picture house? Good Lord Clive, you’ll be suggesting we subject ourselves to the purgatory of watching Oxford United next!

CSL: Well United are playing nicely through midfield with a classic combination of physical target man and goal-poaching striker up front…but I digress. Apparently there is to be a screening of a film based on those books of yours. You know, the ones based on purloined Saxon mythology?

JRR: Ah those! A film you say? Rather a cheap, money-grubbing medium, I always thought.

CSL: Well you may say that, but there are a number of films around that one might even call ‘classics’.

JRR: Clive, I never thought I should hear the words ‘classic’ and ‘film’ in the same sentence! You have become most worryingly lowbrow since marrying that Colonial lady, you know….

CSL: Steady on old chap! Look, there has been a tremendous hoo-ha about these films, I really think they’re worth a quick once-over.

JRR: But really, how could it ever work? Picture-goers are jolly decent types I’m sure, but they expect certain things. A cast as big as Ben Hur. Snappy one-liners like in a Humphrey Bogart film. Light relief where people burp and knock things over or other such drollery. Maybe Ingrid Bergman or Grace Kelly for romantic interest…that sort of thing. I hardly see any of my work providing that, eh?

CSL: Well actually old chap this New Zealand fellow has made a few alterations along just those lines. Absolutely thousands of people running around by all accounts, though I understand most of them are mere optical illusions created by some sort of electrical calculating device. And there have been a few changes to cater for snappy one-liners and assorted drollery.

JRR: Hmmm. And the romantic interest?

CSL: Ah one of those nice young ladies with pointy ears seems rather more evident than I recall from your manuscript. The actress is rather a looker I might add. Her pater had a very popular skiffle combo I seem to recollect….

JRR: I see. Well thanks awfully old bean, I’m sure it’s a dashed jolly show and all, but actually Oxford United versus Chesterfield Town is starting to look quite enticing!

;)

[Earniel]

:D Good one, Draken!

[thranduil]

Draken you read my mind! that is exactly what I wanted to post but I was a little pressed on time as it were. Sorry off subject I don't know jack about CS Lewis but was he around to see the live movie of Lion, Witch, Wardrobe. Is he still around. Well I'm sure he would have alot of complaints about that movie.

[Black Breathalizer]

Draken, that was GREAT!!! :D

[sun-star]

Wow Draken, Tolkien's biography as written by P.G. Wodehouse... or, two of the greatest writers of the 20th century as played by Jennings and Darbyshire... a very interesting insight!

Excellent :D :D

[Cassius]

Good times good times. I bet they would have done the same thing for the animated version of both their series! :D

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Azalea: While I agree with you on those particular incidents (personally, I think that the wizard's duel isn't so unrealistic; can't imagine old Gandie going without a fight!), I disagree that the author has no right to his own work. I go the opposite; I believe that the ownership an author has of his work is interminable, regardless of circumstances. More than that, I consider it a kind of sanctity, something which it is (almost) unholy to violate. Guess we'll have to disagree on that one, eh? :)

V. funny, Draken! :D Though I though Lewis hated being called "Clive", didn't he? ;) (I know I would... :eek: )

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Azalea: While I agree with you on those particular incidents (personally, I think that the wizard's duel isn't so unrealistic; can't imagine old Gandie going without a fight!)

Sorry GW - but I don't necessarily see the wizard's duel happening as it is in the movie. Even if it did - there was no reason to have it in there - other than to add another long action scene. :rolleyes: The wizards duel is one of my most hated scenes.

[thranduil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The wizards duel is one of my most hated scenes.

I'm sure everyone on the moot knows this. But I'm sure your favorite line is "Jackson is just spoon feeding the audience" :D

[azalea]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Azalea: While I agree with you on those particular incidents (personally, I think that the wizard's duel isn't so unrealistic; can't imagine old Gandie going without a fight!), I disagree that the author has no right to his own work. I go the opposite; I believe that the ownership an author has of his work is interminable, regardless of circumstances. More than that, I consider it a kind of sanctity, something which it is (almost) unholy to violate. Guess we'll have to disagree on that one, eh? :)



Clarification: I didn't mean the author has "no right to his own work." I should have worded my post differently, I meant that certainly the author still owns his work and has every right to further explain it or interpret it if he wishes. But I also believe that once the work is out there, the audience now "owns" the work in their own minds. The author must accept that. If he was not absolutely explicit about a certain detail of the book (so that readers see it differently), it must not have been that critical to the story as a whole, and that's okay, IMO. Let's just assume PJ had no fetters on his project (time or whatever), and that he simply imagined as he read (as I do about many things in many books), to use our example, the meeting between Saruman and Gandalf. JD (for instance) obviously "read" Gandalf differently than PJ (in our imaginary scenario -- I don't mean to imply that PJ's motivations were solely interpretive, I'm just giving a made-up example). JD "read" Gandalf to be less apologetic, whereas PJ "read" Gandalf as being more humbled (?) by Saruman. Anyway, each reader's assessment might have some validity, and Gandalf might be a little of each at different times, but since Tolkien didn't give us a word for word account of that meeting, each reader cannot say "my way is the RIGHT way." Tolkien could say, "that's not what happened," but he still must understand why it could be a valid interpretation since he did not give the reader a scene that tells what happened in detail. That scene became property of the readers' imaginations.

While it's nice that Tolkien could afterwards clarify some things for readers when asked, the text should speak for itself, and does. Anything else (balrog wings vs. wings of shadow) are up to the reader, assuming it isn't a critical aspect of the story. Tolkien also said that the theme of LotR is death and immortality. Well, sorry, Mr. Tolkien, I didn't get that as the main theme, but I did see a few different themes when I read the book. It may not have been what you wanted me to see or expected me to see, but no matter how I try, those themes jump out at me. Death and immortality are aspects of the story the way I read it, but not themes. Now, I refuse to be told I'm wrong. I may not see it how the author intended, or how others see it, but it all goes back to my belief that no matter how an author might try afterwards for it not to be so, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the interpretation of a "true" reading of a work of literature is in the eye of the reader (I say "true" because there are cases where people read things into a work because they have an agenda to fill, like that feminist you quoted in that one thread, or a racist, or what have you. It's like how many people see religion/ spirituality/ Christianity woven throughout the book, when many say, "I didn't get that at all" -- their background and mindset will determine what they see and how they view events, characters, etc.). I sadly don't have the ability to explain my viewpoint on this in a definitive way, but I hope you can see what I mean. I didn't want you to think I meant the author has no ownership of his work, just that he must share the ownership with his audience after the work is published. Likewise, I don't think the audience can do the same to the author (ie, "he should have done it this way," etc. -- they must accept that the work as it has been done and presented as well).

[Black Breathalizer]

Tolkien gave up his right to THE ONE AND ONLY definitive version of the story the moment he signed movie deals for The Hobbit and LOTR.

[smaug_the_magnificent]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Tolkien gave up his right to THE ONE AND ONLY definitive version of the story the moment he signed movie deals for The Hobbit and LOTR.

I seriously considered clicking on the "report this post to the moderator" link - it's THAT bad !

:rolleyes: ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
to use our example, the meeting between Saruman and Gandalf. JD (for instance) obviously "read" Gandalf differently than PJ (in our imaginary scenario -- I don't mean to imply that PJ's motivations were solely interpretive, I'm just giving a made-up example). JD "read" Gandalf to be less apologetic, whereas PJ "read" Gandalf as being more humbled (?) by Saruman.
Or else Jackson did NOT care how he read it or what Tolkien had shown was Gandalf's reaction at the meeting with Saruman. Can you deny that Jackson went from Tokien's Aragorn biding his time to reclaim his thone and revealing his identity to the movie version being a wimp in hiding afraid of his heritage? :rolleyes:

To me - Jackson didn't care how the character's were in the book - he felt it was just more "exciting" to have Gandalf wimpering behind Saruman.

By the way - the sarcasm of Gandlaf toward Saruman does not indicate that he was wimpering behind him...


"For I am Saruman the Wise. Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"

'"I liked white better." I said

'"White!" he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."

'"In which case it is no longer white," said I " And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."


Also - he never told Saruman where the One Ring is located...


"Yes," he said. "I did not expect you to show wisdom, even in you own behalf; but I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, and so saving yourself much trouble and pain. The third choice is to stay here, until the end."

'"Until the end?"

'"Until you reveal to me where the One may be found. I may find means to persaude you. Or until it is found in your despite, and the Ruler has time to turn to lighter matters; to devise, say a fitting reward for the hinderance and insolence of Gandalf the Grey."

'"That may not prove to be one of the lighter matters," said I. He laughed at me, for my words were empty, and he knew it."

He does not back down to Saruman - he does not wimper asking for his forgiveness for having had the Ring under his nose all these years in the Shire. He doesn't even tell Saruman where the Ring is.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Tolkien gave up his right to THE ONE AND ONLY definitive version of the story the moment he signed movie deals for The Hobbit and LOTR.
Contrary to your beliefs - there is only ever ONE definitive version of a story and that is the ORIGINAL. Mort d'Arthur is more definitive than White's Sword in the Stone. Mort d'Arthur is more definitive than Excalibur which is based on Mort d'Arthur.

Lord of the Rings is a book that was written by an author. No matter how many movies are done - it will ALWAYS be the ONLY definitive version of Lord of the Rings. Everything else is just a loose copy.

[EDIT - needed to correct stupid typos]

[Kalimac]

And, how is that no one here has mentioned this particular quote from one of JRR Tolkien's letters?

From the Preface of the 2nd edition of The Silmarillion, page xii, From a Letter by J.R.R. Tolkien to Milton Waldman, 1951:

"Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story -- the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths -- which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country... I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd."

It seems rather clear to me that Tolkien desired others to tell and retell the stories of Middle-earth . . if he indeed was trying to recreate a mythology . . or legends . . the way to do it is through word of mouth, passing the story along, others always adding to the body of work . . until the legend comes alive with the telling. Tolkien created the framework, the blueprint to Middle-earth . . allowing others to take up the mantle and fill in the gaps in their own way.

Of course, we can never know the real answer to this question about whether he would have liked or disliked the movies . . but I think he would have been pleased with the effort.

That's my 2 cents.

[azalea]

I think my Tolkien/ Jackson example was a little too loaded for the idea I was trying to get across in my clarification to GW (of course all of this is somewhat off topic, but not so much that I feel it's inappropriate to post here).
ASIDE from the consideration brought up in the Letter Kalimac posted, which highlights a point to be made regarding whether or not LotR in specific is open to be interpreted broadly by dramatization or retellings, I was trying to make a general point regarding ANY author's role in the interpretation of his own work, and his role in the acceptance of the interpretations of that work by others. It just so happens that I was reading the Cliff's Notes on Lord of the Flies when I came across a paragraph in the analysis that said better than I what I feel to be a truth. I will quote the relevant parts of that paragraph here (Incidentally, I plan to post more of the entire analysis in the LotF book club discussion thread what we're done reading it).
Although I don't think Cliff's Notes is by any stretch the definitive authority on literary analysis, they certainly have been successful in the business of giving brief analysis of great works to the "masses," and thus I'm confident that they can be considered a credible source to back up my position on the matter (however, I'll again state that I completely understand and respect the opposing viewpoint, and don't disagree that people who hold that view have a valid argument for their position).

From "Cliff's Notes on Golding's Lord of the Flies":
"It will be useful before turning to the theories voiced by the literary critics to examine the statements made about the novel by Golding himself. Certain limiting qualifications must be made, however, about an author's analysis of his own work. As an artist and creative writer, Golding is naturally most concerned with his work as an artistic and conceptual unity. His remarks will not deal with intricate details of symbolism and meaning, and may even contradict or weaken some of the findings of critics. This should not automatically be used as a means to question or discredit the results of investigations conducted by literary scholars. The writer originally conceived of his work as a whole, and must continue doing so by virtue of his artistry. Literature is not usually the product of a concious and premeditated plan to achieve certain specific effects, for artists do not conciously and artificially create symbols and "X" number of levels of meaning. The writer's creation is as much intuitive and emotional as it is premeditated and intellectual. The fact that Golding may not restate or even acknowledge some of the discoveries or theories of literary critics does not indicate that these ideas are therefore incorrect. This has often been the relationship between writers and their critics. Furthermore, the question that must be dealt with is often not what the author meant, or thinks he has meant, but what he has actually achieved [my emphasis]. To the extent that a writer has written as a result of a natural and indefinable artistic inspiration, he may be fallible in his afterstatement about the nature and worth of his art. At the same time, it should always be remembered that the writer is closer to his work than anyone else, and that his understanding of it is an essential contribution to any complete analysis [again my emphasis]."

This passage differs a bit from what I was originally trying to get across, as it deals with "author and critic" as opposed to "author and reader," and symbolism is highlighted here because LotF contains overt symbolism, while LotR does not. But the main message is the same, that IMO the author, though he retains ownership of the work (and by ownership I am not in any way referring to legality here), also must share that ownership (again, in an interpretive sense) once he has put it out there to be read. This is a choice he makes whether he likes it or not the moment he publishes it. A good author will, I believe, accept and embrace that, while continuing to give his own point of view on the matter if he wishes. Otherwise, why publish it at all? An author who realizes this after the fact and dislikes it can either continue to publish in hopes of redirecting the reader, or can stop publishing.
Okay, I think I've said enough on that matter, sorry, folks.:o I think there was a similar topic in the books forum, but I do think my post has relevance to the topic we're discussing here: the author's view of an interpretation of his own work.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Lord of the Rings is a book that was written by and author. Now matter how many movies are done - it will ALWAYS be the ONLY definitive version of Lord of the Rings. Everything else is just a loose copy. We know they are your definitive version. But how can LOTR books be the definitive version for people who have only seen the movies? Hate it all you want, the reality is that Peter Jackson's movies have become part of the modern mythology of The Lord of the Rings.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
We know they are your definitive version. But how can LOTR books be the definitive version for people who have only seen the movies? Hate it all you want, the reality is that Peter Jackson's movies have become part of the modern mythology of The Lord of the Rings.
Because the books ARE the definitive version - just like Shakespeare is the definitive verison of Romeo and Juliet even if the only Romeo and Juliet you saw was the Leonardo DiCaprio film version. :rolleyes:

And they have not become the mythology of the Lord of the Rings - because in a couple of years - the movies will be collecting dust on most of these so called fan's bookshelves. :rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And they have not become the mythology of the Lord of the Rings - because in a couple of years - the movies will be collecting dust on most of these so called fan's bookshelves. :rolleyes: :) :) :) We'll see. :) :) :)

[hectorberlioz]

How can a copy become a definitive version?:rolleyes: rubbish. it cant, and wont, errr....will not.
those people who've only watched the movies could care less about what the books say. to them LotR is just another Dungeons and Dragons. they cannot not decide the definitive version.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
those people who've only watched the movies could care less about what the books say. to them LotR is just another Dungeons and Dragons.
Exactly and they don't look it any differently than Terminator 3 or Fast and Furious or any other block buster action movie.

[hectorberlioz]

and LotR has built up fans over decades..., and to make a actionized movie of it, and hand it over to those DnD fans......, grrr need to go back to venting thread.....

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
and LotR has built up fans over decades..., and to make a actionized movie of it, and hand it over to those DnD fans......, grrr need to go back to venting thread.....
I was thinking of going over there myself. :D To think that a great book has been reduced down to a dumbed down action movie that is just spoon fed to the masses. I knew there was a problem when Arwen was on the Burger King glass - considering what a minor role she plays in the books.

[hectorberlioz]

and Aragorn on a fritos(i think it was fritos) chip bag!
just as much overkill as AotC

[Gwaimir Windgem]

BB: I disagree. I think an author's "right" to his work transcends any legal setup with copyrights; I consider it something beyond that.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by HectorBerlioz
"LotR has built up fans over decades..., and to make a actionized movie of it, and hand it over to those DnD fans......, grrr need to go back to venting thread....."
__________________________________________

Yes, in a way I hadn't consciously formulated before, that's the essential problem with the TT. FOTR and the first hour of TT vary from tolerable to excellent adaptations, but the last 2/3 of TT is essentially an unrelated action movie, and there have been some disturbing hints that ROTK may have some of those elements. I have dvds of the first two movies but, to my initial surprise, I haven't once watched TT past the exorcism. The reason seems to be it's just an action event, not LOTR.

[hectorberlioz]

I can watch fotR all the way through. But for some reason I cant get far into TTT at all. Never have I finished watching it since we bought it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
I can watch fotR all the way through. But for some reason I cant get far into TTT at all. Never have I finished watching it since we bought it.
I can't watch FotR - mainly because Pippin and Merry annoy me so much to the insult Jackson gave us with Flight to the Ford.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
How can a copy become a definitive version?How can adaptations become definitive versions? Easily. By being well-made and capturing the imagination of a generation of movie-goers.

There are countless examples of stories that have taken on a life of their own in different mediums.

What Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz do most people remember? Judy Garland from the classic film or the Dorothy from the book?

Ian Fleming's James Bond became a classic icon only after the film series' success.

Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lector became a cult classic after the release of the Silence of the Lambs' movie and the Award winning performance of Anthony Hopkins.

An example more in line with Tolkien's LOTR is Gone with the Wind. It is a book classic that became a film classic as well.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
How can adaptations become definitive versions? Easily. By being well-made and capturing the imagination of a generation of movie-goers.

That still doesn't make it the difinititve version. The definitive version is the ORIGINAL.

Websters -
1. most reliable or complete
2. serving to define or specify
3. decisive or conclusive

What ever you may think - Jackson's movies do not cover ANY of those definitions.


There are countless examples of stories that have taken on a life of their own in different mediums.

What Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz do most people remember? Judy Garland from the classic film or the Dorothy from the book?

Ian Fleming's James Bond became a classic icon only after the film series' success.

Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lector became a cult classic after the release of the Silence of the Lambs' movie and the Award winning performance of Anthony Hopkins.

NOne of those movies are definitive editions - the original source is. If I want to see what Hannibal REALLY is like - I need to read the book. If I want to know what James Bond is REALLY like - I need to read the book. The books are the definitive versions. Maybe you should get a dictionary.

As for Wizard of Oz - that's really ignorant since Wizard of Oz is an allegory and the movie does NOT show the allegory. Dorothy's shoes were silver for a reason in the book - to represent the Silver Standard and the Yellow Brick Road was Gold - to show the Gold Stanard. In the movie - Dorothy has Ruby slippers - which has no basis for what they were to represent. The Wizard of Oz is a good movie - but in order to analyze the symbolism - you have to study the book - hence the DEFINITIVE version.


An example more in line with Tolkien's LOTR is Gone with the Wind. It is a book classic that became a film classic as well.
There are MANY reasons why Gone with the Wind is a classic - it however is not the DEFINITIVE version of Gone with the Wind - that is reserved for the book. You know - the one where Scarlet O'Hara actually has a son. As for Jackons' action movie being on par with Gone with the Wind - you have got o be joking. There is no way you can compare Gone with the Wind - with Jackson's Lord of the Rings action movie. :rolleyes:

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
How can a copy become a definitive version?
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
How can adaptations become definitive versions? Easily. By being well-made and capturing the imagination of a generation of movie-goers.

There are countless examples of stories that have taken on a life of their own in different mediums.

What Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz do most people remember? Judy Garland from the classic film or the Dorothy from the book?

Ian Fleming's James Bond became a classic icon only after the film series' success.

Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lector became a cult classic after the release of the Silence of the Lambs' movie and the Award winning performance of Anthony Hopkins.

An example more in line with Tolkien's LOTR is Gone with the Wind. It is a book classic that became a film classic as well.

Those are not bad examples, but I do not think you can quantify "definitive" based on what most people remember.

By that definition, it would imply that what is considered definitive would constantly change with the times and people.

From the dictionary:
de·fin·i·tive: Authoritative and complete. Precisely defined or explicit.

Film is a different medium (as you have pointed out in many places ;)) than the printed text. Because of this difference in natures between film and text, I think it is difficult (if not impossible) for a film based on a book to be more definitive than the book. The book can provide more information that cannot be conveyed effectively via film.

Even books that are based on films can sometimes provide more information than what is shown on the screen. Usually this is in the form of letting the reader be aware of what the character is thinking/planning.

I do think that in some cases the film may be more enjoyable to watch than the book may be to read, but I do not think this means that book is less definitive than a film that is based on that book.

Some more examples for people to think about:
(although I think these are only film vs. film instead of book vs. film)

The man who knew too much (1934, 1956)
Both directed by A. Hitchcock. I personally like the 1956 version better, but the 1934 version is very good.

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935, 1962, 1984 'The Bounty')
This may be interesting since they are supposed to be based on real events.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by azalea
The only thing I can see about this thread is the predictability of each members' posts.:D

I'm going to say my thing, and it is super-predictable. Go ahead guys, predict what I said.

Here's the answer, no cheating now!

I think he would have said, "Wow! Movie-making technology has advanced beyong my wildest dreams since my day! Too bad I actually didn't want anyone to make a movie out of my book."

[hectorberlioz]

wow, i really hate that they made a stupid special effects oriented movie out of my classic, that people have grown to love so much over the decades. to bad someone tried to make a movie of it in the first place if they werent going to stick at least 85% close to the actual storyline and plot. I guess I'll just wait to see what that version hectorberlioz is making turns out to be...

:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
wow, i really hate that they made a stupid special effects oriented movie out of my classic, that people have grown to love so much over the decades. to bad someone tried to make a movie of it in the first place if they werent going to stick at least 85% close to the actual storyline and plot. I guess I'll just wait to see what that version hectorberlioz is making turns out to be...

:D

Well with JD being supervisor over Hector's movie I'm sure it will be great. I'm sure he will keep it from being another dumbed down hollywood action flick. He'll also be able to keep BB under control. Who the hell does BB think he is telling people that I would accept any changes to the books it took me my entire life to write and perfect. :mad:

:D

[hectorberlioz]

I Really think that with a team of azalea,hector and JD, my movie will reach perfection on the screen.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hey! :eek: Let's not forget good ole' Gwai!

:p

[Falagar]

And with Falagar as Legolas they will reach all target groups (read: fangirls), and this project is a guarantied winner! :D

[hectorberlioz]

Hey! Let's not forget good ole' Gwai!

well go to the lotr remake thread and request a position