Telescope in Lord Of The Rings: ROTK!

If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same.

One of the stars of these films, is Middle Earth itself. The film makers did a
great job of capturing the essence of it.

The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.

I used to be a purist too. I gave it up.
Nothing equals the books. Far more depth than a film could do. So if you want
to walk in Middle Earth, look to the books.

john

"Jackie" wrote in message news:cauEb.425431$275.1301997@attbi_s53...

Am I missing something by
seeing the movies without having read the books first?

Hard to say. I loved the Lord of the Rings (the books, that is),
but I read them as a child. It is hard for me to guess what my
reaction would have been if I read them first as an adult. In
some sense it may not be a meaningful question; I would probably
be a different person if I hadn't read the books as a child. Yes,
they really were that important in my imaginative life.

That's one reaction. The other is my wife's; she read the books
in early adulthood, and found them completely silly and unconvincing.
This is best summed up by the title of an essay by the great literary
critic Edmund Wilson, published in reaction to the first Lord of
the Rings cult when the books came out in the fifties: "Oooh ...
those horrid Orcs!"

I had mixed reactions to the first movie. I was impressed by the
rendition of the hobbits. I was annoyed that several of the
critical threads and themes of the book were twisted. And I
was very disappointed by the renderings of the monsters. But
on re-reading the descriptions in the books, I saw that the movie
monsters were quite faithful to Tolkien's vision, and I began
to wonder whether I would have liked the book quite so much if
I had actually taken the trouble to visualize those monsters
instead of leaving them as vague, mythical shadows. Put another
way, the movie, for the first time, began to bring me around to
my wife's view that the books are silly and unconvincing.

Anyway, I thought and still think that the movies missed what
I found most attractive about the book, namely the vast mythological
setting, the sense of being embedded in thousands of years of
history and legend. That would probably be impossible in the
movie format, but these movies don't even try. It was particularly
striking in the first movie; the fights in the first book take
only perhaps 5% of the pages at most, while the other 95% are
spent setting the scene in a very slow, deliberate way. The
movie is just the other way around. You can't make Sauron
into a figure of infinite mystery and menace if you show him
on the screen at the beginning! Also, the book is written
entirely in archaic language, except for the conversations of
the hobbits, and that is definitely both part of why I loved
it and part of why my wife hated it. I found it very jarring
in the movie to have those characters speaking 21st-century
English totally at odds with the characters I had in my mind.

I would not expect the movies to be especially interesting to
people who have not read the books. As for people who did read
the books first, I find that the reaction to the movies depends
on how people approached the books. For some, the Lord of the
Rings fits into the Sword-and-Sorcery genre, an offshoot of
science fiction that was largely derived from and inspired by
the Lord of the Rings. I approached it from the opposite end;
for me, the Lord of the Rings was the crowning work of Victorian
fantasy, associated with 19th-century writers like MacDonald,
children's authors like Padraic Colum and Howard Pyle, the
operas of Wagner, and rising out of traditional Norse mythology
and the fairy tales collected by Asbjornsen and Moe. The movies
definitely come down on the Sword-and-Sorcery side of that
divide -- very much action-oriented. No doubt that is why
I found them so jarring.

If you want to try the books, definitely start first with The
Hobbit. That book is much shorter, tighter, less ambitious,
and better written. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine
anybody really falling in love with it as I did with the Lord
of the Rings, but it is also much harder to imagine people
dismissing it as silly and unconvincing -- it is too clever
for that. FWIW, my wife found it quite entertaining.

In any case, I predict that 25 years from now, the books will
still be going strong, and the movies will be forgotten.

- Tony Flanders

"Jackie" wrote in message news:cauEb.425431$275.1301997@attbi_s53...

Am I missing something by
seeing the movies without having read the books first?

Hard to say. I loved the Lord of the Rings (the books, that is),
but I read them as a child. It is hard for me to guess what my
reaction would have been if I read them first as an adult. In
some sense it may not be a meaningful question; I would probably
be a different person if I hadn't read the books as a child. Yes,
they really were that important in my imaginative life.

That's one reaction. The other is my wife's; she read the books
in early adulthood, and found them completely silly and unconvincing.
This is best summed up by the title of an essay by the great literary
critic Edmund Wilson, published in reaction to the first Lord of
the Rings cult when the books came out in the fifties: "Oooh ...
those horrid Orcs!"

I had mixed reactions to the first movie. I was impressed by the
rendition of the hobbits. I was annoyed that several of the
critical threads and themes of the book were twisted. And I
was very disappointed by the renderings of the monsters. But
on re-reading the descriptions in the books, I saw that the movie
monsters were quite faithful to Tolkien's vision, and I began
to wonder whether I would have liked the book quite so much if
I had actually taken the trouble to visualize those monsters
instead of leaving them as vague, mythical shadows. Put another
way, the movie, for the first time, began to bring me around to
my wife's view that the books are silly and unconvincing.

Anyway, I thought and still think that the movies missed what
I found most attractive about the book, namely the vast mythological
setting, the sense of being embedded in thousands of years of
history and legend. That would probably be impossible in the
movie format, but these movies don't even try. It was particularly
striking in the first movie; the fights in the first book take
only perhaps 5% of the pages at most, while the other 95% are
spent setting the scene in a very slow, deliberate way. The
movie is just the other way around. You can't make Sauron
into a figure of infinite mystery and menace if you show him
on the screen at the beginning! Also, the book is written
entirely in archaic language, except for the conversations of
the hobbits, and that is definitely both part of why I loved
it and part of why my wife hated it. I found it very jarring
in the movie to have those characters speaking 21st-century
English totally at odds with the characters I had in my mind.

I would not expect the movies to be especially interesting to
people who have not read the books. As for people who did read
the books first, I find that the reaction to the movies depends
on how people approached the books. For some, the Lord of the
Rings fits into the Sword-and-Sorcery genre, an offshoot of
science fiction that was largely derived from and inspired by
the Lord of the Rings. I approached it from the opposite end;
for me, the Lord of the Rings was the crowning work of Victorian
fantasy, associated with 19th-century writers like MacDonald,
children's authors like Padraic Colum and Howard Pyle, the
operas of Wagner, and rising out of traditional Norse mythology
and the fairy tales collected by Asbjornsen and Moe. The movies
definitely come down on the Sword-and-Sorcery side of that
divide -- very much action-oriented. No doubt that is why
I found them so jarring.

If you want to try the books, definitely start first with The
Hobbit. That book is much shorter, tighter, less ambitious,
and better written. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine
anybody really falling in love with it as I did with the Lord
of the Rings, but it is also much harder to imagine people
dismissing it as silly and unconvincing -- it is too clever
for that. FWIW, my wife found it quite entertaining.

In any case, I predict that 25 years from now, the books will
still be going strong, and the movies will be forgotten.

- Tony Flanders

In any case, I predict that 25 years from now, the books will
still be going strong, and the movies will be forgotten.

- Tony Flanders

You mean like 'Gone with the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia". or maybe even
"Star Wars" which is just barely 25 years old? I think the LOTR movies will
stand the test of time due to their scope, detail, and cinematic bravado.


Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22

In any case, I predict that 25 years from now, the books will
still be going strong, and the movies will be forgotten.

- Tony Flanders

You mean like 'Gone with the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia". or maybe even
"Star Wars" which is just barely 25 years old? I think the LOTR movies will
stand the test of time due to their scope, detail, and cinematic bravado.


Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22

I'm with Tony on this, I think the movies will always be compared to
the books, with the books clearly superior. Furthermore, I foresee
fans of the books suggesting that people see the movies if they want
to see a halfway decent rendition onto screen, but to "read the books
first to get the real thing".

What movie is better than the book? The books are wonderful, I've read them
over a dozen times myself, but the movies will stand on their own as
masterpieces. The fact that they don't exactly follow the books, and I have
gripes about that myself, doesn't take anything away from them as film making
masterpieces.

Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22

I'm with Tony on this, I think the movies will always be compared to
the books, with the books clearly superior. Furthermore, I foresee
fans of the books suggesting that people see the movies if they want
to see a halfway decent rendition onto screen, but to "read the books
first to get the real thing".

What movie is better than the book? The books are wonderful, I've read them
over a dozen times myself, but the movies will stand on their own as
masterpieces. The fact that they don't exactly follow the books, and I have
gripes about that myself, doesn't take anything away from them as film making
masterpieces.

Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22

atcaca (RichardN22) wrote in message ...

You mean like 'Gone with the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia". or maybe even
"Star Wars" which is just barely 25 years old? I think the LOTR movies will
stand the test of time due to their scope, detail, and cinematic bravado.

Well, it will be interesting to see. These days, all kinds of movies have
minor cult status that lasts forever, videos being cheap. So I am sure
that LOTR won't disappear completely. But I don't think it will have
the staying power of any of the three movies that you mentioned.

Check back in 25 years; I certainly could be wrong.

- Tony Flanders

atcaca (RichardN22) wrote in message ...

You mean like 'Gone with the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia". or maybe even
"Star Wars" which is just barely 25 years old? I think the LOTR movies will
stand the test of time due to their scope, detail, and cinematic bravado.

Well, it will be interesting to see. These days, all kinds of movies have
minor cult status that lasts forever, videos being cheap. So I am sure
that LOTR won't disappear completely. But I don't think it will have
the staying power of any of the three movies that you mentioned.

Check back in 25 years; I certainly could be wrong.

- Tony Flanders

You mean like 'Gone with the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia". or maybe even
"Star Wars" which is just barely 25 years old? I think the LOTR movies
will
stand the test of time due to their scope, detail, and cinematic bravado.

Well, it will be interesting to see. These days, all kinds of movies have
minor cult status that lasts forever, videos being cheap. So I am sure
that LOTR won't disappear completely. But I don't think it will have
the staying power of any of the three movies that you mentioned.

Check back in 25 years; I certainly could be wrong.

- Tony Flanders

I would guess that this Lord of the Rings adaptation will be considered a
classic film series years from now. I've enjoyed the books-- was practically
in awe of them-- since I first read them when I was 11 or 12 (I'm 20 now).
I've read them several times since then, as well, so I think I qualify as a
true fan of the series. While I do question some of the changes made, none of
them, for me, ruined the films, and some changes or cuts were necessary to fit
the story into three films, even ones as long as these were. I enjoyed the
films immensely and can't wait for the "real" version (the extended DVD
version) of "The Return of the King" to come out, though until then, I'll
probably see the film a couple more times before it leaves the theaters. If
the movies kept exactly to the books, there would have to be at least twice as
many films, if not more, of similar length as these three were. I'd wager
people-- even those who love the books-- would find parts of these ultra
complete films tedious at times. One must realize that, though both ultimately
tell stories, books and films are very different mediums, and what works in
wouldn't necessarily work as well in the other. The measure of a good film of
a book isn't how closely is matches the book in every last detail... two of the
classic films mentioned in the quote above, "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Gone With
the Wind", both have fairly major deviations from their respective books, but
are both wonderful films. The question is not whether or not the book and film
are identical, but whether or not the film works well as a film. I believe the
Lord of the Rings film trilogy does, but others will, of course, have different
opinions. Thus is the subjective nature of art.