The films inspired me to read the books, and I certainly enjoyed the films even more after reading them. On the other hand some "purists" dislike the films simply because of thier knowledge of the books.
I can see how some emmissions (and additions) would really annoy the die hard tolkein fans (I think the change in Faramirs character is pretty scary myself), but for me, if the films are taken in thier own right they are simply top notch. I would rate them up with my current faves of "one flew over the cuckoos nest" and "the shawshank redemption".
So where do you stand? Do you think it is possible to fully enjoy and understand the film(s) without having read the books? Can they be seperate entities?
|
|
|
 by -
Lianachan
(Fri Jul 18 06:26:23)
|
|
 UPDATED Fri Jul 18 06:26:41 |
That is how I view the films. I think of them as stand-alone products, based on the books, rather than adaptations of the books.
Background, as I can't recall meeting you before - I have read LotR and most of Tolkiens writings regularly for 25 years. I had been greatly looking forward to the films, while being certain in the knowledge that they would leave me ultimately disappointed. I am really looking forward to the extended edition of The Two Towers, as I am optimistic that it could put right a lot of what was put wrong in the theatrical release.
"Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."- Charles Chaplin
|
|
|
"Background, as I can't recall meeting you before - [snip] being certain in the knowledge that they would leave me ultimately disappointed. I am really looking forward to the extended edition of The Two Towers [snip]"
You wouldnt have met me, my first post here. I enjoyed the books and the films as seperate(ish) entities but I think I know where you are coming from. I am already dissapointed about the scouring of the shire.
I am afraid PJ got me hooked, I will be one of many buying both the standard and extended editions (and probably the boxed set of all 3 films when eventually and inevitably realeased)
|
|
|
Oh, yes. "The Great Escape." I've seen that movie many times, and I read the book (on which it was based) by Paul Brickhill once. And I didn't like the book at all. But "The Great Escape" film continues to occupy my #3 spot on my list.
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Sbarbour, this is an excellent excellent point you have made!
I concur just as Lianachan has. Early on, I was able to accept the films on their own merits. I find that when I sit down with the novels, the images I see in my head are the same images I've always had. I don't in fact see Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen and Sean Astin and Orlando Bloom et al. And that's the best part. I relate to the books in a different way than I relate to the films, and so I can have both!
I feel, too, that the adaptations are brilliant. I just put a very long post up last night (Lianachan and other regulars will recognize this material as I've said most of it before, but each time I put up this analysis I'm able to add to it and refine it, lol): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/2299268?d=2351386#2351386. This subject isn't the reason why I posted that referenced post, but the post does go a long way towards explaining why I think the movies and the books can be treated separately as you've brilliantly suggested.
Thanks, and welcome!
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
Sbarbour, this is an excellent excellent point you have made!
Wow, thanks! It is nice to feel welcome on a new board.
I must admit I was a little fearful of being ignored, or even flamed. Having read the boards before hand I noticed a few "hostiles" that concentrated on star wars v lotr arguments! Nice to know there are some actual movie fans around, and nice people as well.
I will check out your post and perhaps even dare to comment!
|
|
|
All comments are welcome, of course.
On a public board like this one, where there are zero barriers to entry, you're going to get the kind of "hostile" posters with little of substance to say. I'm afraid that's mostly what's left on the FOTR boards, which used to be this group's gathering place. The ROTK board is also comparatively sparse, and does have some pre-emptive trolls, but there is some good conversation going on there too, in much smaller volume than here.
It's also a shame -- but a reality of life -- that IMDb can't hold onto old posts indefinitely. For a long time they held onto posts for many many months. If you do a search here, you'll find several posts where our regulars "catalogued" a lot of great posts from the past -- analyses, philosophical discussions related to Tolkien and LOTR, humor -- but sadly many of those posts are now gone. But if you find that catalogue you'll get a sense of what kind of topics get discussed here -- a virtual archaeological dig! And there are still some of those cataloged posts that are still living. Some regulars here try to "bump" old posts of merit or interest, to bring them back up to the top of the board while they're still with us.
This community has grown by leaps and bounds, especially since the release of TTT. We're now too big for one message board to be sufficient. A couple of months ago we started frequenting the IMDb message board for Ralph Bakshi's 1978 version of LOTR. Over there we do a lot of wild, creative, and off-topic things. If you're interested in that kind of stuff you should definitely take a look over there! It's where everyone really lets their hair down.
I hope you enjoy our little community here. You'll find people of all types in regards to their opinions of the film and their comparative Tolkien experience. Critics of the film aren't unwelcome, so long as they are civil. They are definitely outnumbered, though.
On a personal note, I want to thank you for being so straightforward. For some reason the "flavor of the month" in newcomers are those that are defensive right off the bat. "I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but..." and "Go ahead and rip me to shreds now..." I've found that terribly off-putting (and I've said so a couple of times). That you stated your point without defensiveness or aggression even though you feared being flamed is a wonderful gesture that admittedly takes guts, and I thank you for it.
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
I am one of those "purists", or at least many told me so. While I enjoyed the FotR movie as it strayed very little from the book, the TTT movie caught me by surprise. I wasn't as impressed with TTT as I hoped to be after watching FotR. There were many parts in it (especially the parts concerning Rohan) that disturbed me. Not all were because I am a "purist". Some issues seemed a matter of common sense more than anything. But, putting all that aside, I do still think the movies are great by themselves. As a stand-alone product, they are great movies. And I do realize the need to adapt a book to a movie as the two mediums require very different approaches.
A person can definitely enjoy the movies without reading the books and vice-versa. But seperate entities is tough for me. Although I've read LotR many times, PJ has placed some ideas in my head of what scenes and people look like that I didn't picture before. And when I watch the movies, I have to explain a lot to my wife who hasn't read the books because she doesn't understand some things that are going on. So while they both represent the same story, they are from 2 entirely different point of views and mediums. I don't think I'll ever enjoy the movies as much as I should because I feel that some of the straying from the books was unneeded.
|
|
|
That's interesting, Tar...I feel I can enjoy the movies MORE because of the different perspective from the books. Fascinating.
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
I know, Elkie. I know some people who felt that the movies were a great addition to the books. The movies added another view point to look at Tolkien's works from. For me though, I interpreted enough Tolkien and looked at from many angles already. I was really looking forward to a movie that would follow the books a lot more closely then PJ did. That is probably why I don't enjoy the movies as much. I expected/hoped for something closer to the books. But having the choice between having the movies by PJ or not, I'm glad PJ did make the movies and it is interesting seeing through his eyes how LotR is.
|
|
|
First if all, welcome to the board and thanks for opening an interesting discussion. 
I've been reading the books since they were published in the US in the mid-60's, at least once a year and recently more often than that, as I research my through discussions here. So- that's over 40 readings.
The whole concept of Tolkien "purist" really didn't take form until Jackson's LOTR films were announced. Until then, there were some objections to the less serious attempts to film Tolkien, but those attempts really didn't create the "purist v non-purist" schism. It was only when Jackson attempted his serious adaptation that readers become divided on how closely to the books the movies should be developed.
I'm one of those who believes that the movies are excellent adaptations based on the books, and that they are good companion pieces for reading the books. In some cases, the movies illuminate an aspect of the story that was unclear in the books, and vice versa, the books can provide the background necessary to fully understand an aspect of the movie. I think that every single important element of the books is present in the movie, and successfully so. There are some things about the movies that I don't like or don't feel were handled as well as they could have been, but overall, the adaptations have been fine.
Now, for these reasons, I think it's possible to enjoy the movies and get a lot out of them without ever having read the books. You'll get more out of the movies if you do read the books, and re-read them several times, and then read Silmarillion, but you don't have to in order to enjoy Lord of the Rings, the visual version. There are many people who just won't enjoy readying the books for one reason or other, but to suggest that they don't understand the films is like trying to create a division between fans that does not need to exist. You can be a true Ringnut and fully love and appreciate LOTR as a reader, viewer or both.
If you'd like to see some other threads from this board, try this link to find a list. Not all of them are there any longer, because posts expire after about 8 weeks, but many of these are still around and will give you a flavor of what we've been talking about. In many threads, there are people who haven't read the books, but you can hardly tell from their comments.
Looking for Really Good Posts?- by athene-5
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/nest/2099791
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply athene-5. As you have read the books since the 60's, I can already bow to your superior age! (I hope a little light ageism is accepted on these boards - although please note I am quickly approaching 30 myself. A state I don't consider old, but I notice that I start using terms like "the trouble with the youth today" which is surely the beginning of a slippery slope).
I really didnt mean "purist" in an offensive way. I only "quoted" because I didn't know of a better term for those that dislike PJ's movie purely for the reason of being different to the book.
In fact I think you may have hit the nail on the head (or at least hit my particular opinion squarely on the noggin) with your quote "it's possible to enjoy the movies and get a lot out of them without ever having read the books. You'll get more out of the movies if you do read the books"
I think I got more out of the movies having read the books afterwards. It must be strange though, I guess you must have mental pictures of all the characters before having seen the films. For me, however, Orlando bloom IS my Legolas....Hugo Weaving IS my Elrond etc
I have never even seen a copy of the Silmarrilion (sp) for sale though. I assume it is reccommended reading. Is it after or before my favourite Little Hobbitses adventures?
|
|
|
Others might have a different opinion, sbarbour, but I think you should read The Silmarillion AFTER you finish LOTR. It should be the next Tolkien you read.
Be advised it's a very different kind of book. It's written in a very different style. It's biblical (in fact it starts with the creation myth and goes from there). It helped me to read through the Appendices of LOTR first...there's precious little about the "Elder Days" in there (as the First Age is called), but every little bit helped me keep things straight as I read Sil. There's an avalanche of names and places you have to wade through. I felt I never really got a handle on it until my third reading.
I agree completely with your definition of "purist" and it's a shame that it seems the term has become pejorative, but in some settings it has become so.
If you're almost 30, btw, you're already old. It's all downhill from 27, I'm afraid. 
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
What?!  I'm turning 28 in two weeks!!! Yeah, there's something about "late-20s" that means the you're not as young as you think you are anymore.
That's a good, concise appraisal of the Silmarillion and I would second that recommendation for reading it after LOTR (don't forget the Appendices, especially A and B).
My advice on reading the Sil is to take notes on who's who and some of the different Elf groups. Not like you're studying for something, but the second time I read it I actually mapped out the 14 Valar, name and assoication (similiar to the Olympian Twelve). Also with the Elves, there are groups, sub-groups, overlapping groups...a simple chart showing these relations can pay off in spades when you're reading later and they refer to the such and such King. I hope that doesn't sound like a chore, I'm not talking about notes on the story or even a lot of detail. Just a couple of words to remind you "Oh yeah, that guy's son."
And then you can read Unfinished Tales.
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood. 
|
|
|
I found the ending of Unfinished Tales somewhat lacking.
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
Maybe you should try reading Michael Ende's "The NeverEnding Story" instead. I'm still working on it.
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Fri Jul 18 17:45:59)
|
|
You can't tell the Sindar from the Nandor without a chart!
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Are you mocking me, or is that a statement?  I know that you're the resident Elf geneology expert, so I'm guessing the latter, though I'm taking it in a playful, laughing with me sort of way.
Truth be told I don't even remember the Nandor, haven't a clue where they fit in. I know there's some N-word Elves out there...oh yeah, Noldor. Those guys are pretty prominent, didn't one of them make some big diamonds or something? I mean like 200 karat suckers, really nice ones. Maybe Morgoth had some bride somewhere that he promised he could get the biggest engagment ring ever for...yeah, that's the ticket.
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood.
|
|
|
| by -
lkalliance
(Fri Jul 18 17:56:56)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Jul 18 17:58:12 |
Turned out Fëanor's big secret was that they were cubic zirconium. He was going to lead the Noldor to Angband, knock on the door and when Morgoth answered yell "April Fools!"
Well, that was the plan, anyway...
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Fri Jul 18 18:01:13)
|
|
Yeah, Feanor's big mistake against the Balrogs was that he had a backpack full of TP instead of a sword.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
Feanor: Light of the Two Trees? In these things? *laughs* That's a white light LED that runs off the battery that I took out of my watch. You can't believe everything Manwe tells you, he's always trying to pull the chain on some Elf or another..."
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood.
|
|
|
All of 28? You have two more good years left, then it all falls apart!
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
All right, I'll bear that in mind. Actually I don't concern myself with such...concerns (pulling an Austin Powers), but approaching 30 (and after I hit it) makes me feel a little more pressure to have gotten to a certain stage of life. Like owning a house, I'm not even close. And I'll probably start a 5 year PhD program next year, so I'll be a student.
I'm not complaining, I don't have regrets. And I wouldn't go back to school if it wasn't the most important thing for me to do at this stage, so that doesn't bother me either. Actually I am smart enough to not let society standards set the benchmarks for my life, but those thoughts do creep in at times, you know?
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood.
|
|
|
Yes, several people here told me I ought to take notes while reading "The Sil"! I tried for the first few chapters but gave it up because I was too absorbed in the actual story, and taking notes was too slow - and was tripping me up! Now I regret that, though I was constantly consulting the family trees; I think I'd have retained more of the information had I wisely followed people's advice!
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
Getting back into the discussion here now that it's been thoroughly kidnapped by elkie and Natrone....
The whole issue of 'purism' took me off-guard. I saw FOTR, loved it, thought most of the plot adjustments were fine, and only after I read some other people's views did I realize that the changes really bothered some folks. So, I guess I'm not a purist, and I don't think any of the purists here would be offended by your use of the term. At least around here, it seems to be a moderate stance taken by people who love the movies but wish they had been truer to the books.
You're right in that I've formed my mental image of each character after all those readings, but guess what? Orlando Bloom's Legolas exactly fit my mental image for the character! Swoon!
I agree with elkie and Natrone and CTS- Silmarillion comes after LOTR, and you should probably read the LOTR Appendices thoroughly first. Sil is a very different sort of book, a history of the creation of Middle Earth and of the coming of Elves and Men. If you love Elves, as I suspect, you'll learn a lot about them in Sil, but be prepared to weep your way through it, because all the stories are sad ones. The events of Sil generally take place long before LOTR, so it does give you some answers to some of the questions that you may have after reading LOTR.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Oops, hehe, sorry, Athene. I'll shut up now. (Right)
 Oog make mission statement.
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Fri Jul 18 16:58:51)
|
|
I suspect that there are perceptual issues involved. For those who are very familiar with the books, it is almost inevitable that they will contrast the film with their mental perception of how the books read. For someone who does not have experience with the books, the film may be more of a stnad-alone experience.
Look- he's trying to think!
|
|
|
"I suspect that there are perceptual issues involved"
I suspect you are right. But perhaps I should ask a different, but related question.
I am making the assumption that you read the books before watching the film. With regards to you specifically, was you enjoyment of the movies heightened or lowered because of your expectations and knowledge from the books?
|
|
|
I'm going to take the liberty of answering that question, though I'm sure CTS will respond in time.
CTS and I are probably in the same category of audience going to see FOTR; I first read LOTR about 15 years ago, and have read it nearly a dozen times since, as well as a lot of supporting material. It is true that the expectations are there and get in the way of seeing the film on its own. Yet the way FOTR opened, PJ just owned me at that point. The Prologue was amazing, I couldn't believe how succintly they summarized some key history, and when I saw the Shire and Gandalf...I was in, completely in. It's hard to recall how that first viewing felt, but I think I started to relax at that point and just let the film happen.
I would definitely say that my knowledge of Middle-earth increased my enjoyment of the film. Well, we'll never know how I would have felt if I was a Ring-virgin, but I was thrilled at all of the little touches and details that PJ got right. Plus when I see Aragorn I know that he's about 80 years old, who the Dunadan are, his upbringing with the Elves and his history with Arwen. I also know what happened to Arnor and why he has a claim on Gondor (the line of Anarion, Elendil's son who ruled the South-Kingdom, ended centuries ago, thus giving precedence to any heir of Isildur). Without reading the books you can still sense the strength and nobility of Aragorn's character on screen, but that's just one example of what one brings to the table when they've read the work.
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood.
|
|
|
| by -
DVD001
(Fri Jul 18 19:08:07)
|
|
and when I saw the Shire and Gandalf...I was in, completely in...
Interesting you should say that. I've just started viewing disks 3 & 4. Sir Ian made a comment very similar to yours when he first saw the Shire & realised the debth of this work and the other background work involved.
Great minds thinking alike. :)
|
|
|
Cool, that's nice to hear. Thanks for sharing.
(Which reminds me, I still have to get those disks back from the friend who has had them on loan. That's it, I've got a softball bat in the trunk, time to go pay someone a visit.)
I would snare not even an orc with a falsehood.
|
|
|
I fell in love the shire almost instantly as well, without having read anything! I think most of the locations are pretty superb really - I got a very different mental picture of Lothlorien though - not sure why.
Interesting you should say that. I've just started viewing disks 3 & 4. Sir Ian made a comment very similar to yours when he first saw the Shire & realised the debth of this work and the other background work involved.
I think I know the comment your are talking about. Did it involved something about ...huge responsibility to the fans in playing Gandalf....?
This in no way alters my opinion of how brilliantly he played Gandalf, but I was a little dissapointed when I heard him making pretty much identical comments about his role in X-Men. It kinda took away the impact of his original statements on LOTR for me.
|
|
|
Fully enjoy?Yes.Fully understand?No.Jackson's explanations are very vague in points.You can understand enough to follow the plot along....but many details will escape lots of people.
Whoah, who spiked the Egg Nog?
|
|
|
Hello and welcome.  
I think the books and the movies can exist separately. They do for me. I dont see the characters as PJ had them portrayed, I see them as I have always done.
With the changes that were made from the book it took until my second or third viewing before I accepted them. The first viewing I was to busy going wtf especially over the character assination of Faramir.
I read LOTR for the first time Dec 25th 2001. I have also read The Hobbit, The Silmarrilion and I am currently reading Unfinished Tales as well as LOTR.
On my current reading of LOTR I have noticed alot of the little things PJ & Co put in the movies ie bits from poems or the full poem.
Good topic by the way.
Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bullsh#t before
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Aug 5 01:47:05)
|
|
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless 
|
|
|
Oog make mission statement.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
