Originally posted by Fëanor
i can almost relate to what you're saying that the majority have seen the movie and never read the books until afterwards that is...but in a way you seem unsympathetic to those who've seen it first then read it last...if the movie itself generates interest in reading the book then i say as they say in england; bravo!
i could not wait to see the film itself and i have read it before it came out in the theaters as part of some stupid required assignment or other in english lit...and yes i too felt as you did number one, but as XO of the bridge you must learn to feel and undestand those of your subordinates...
our credo is not to debase those less fortunate, but to learn and in learning to teach. where then can you go from there but to the outer limits of your imagination that knows no bounds.
if a thing can open your eyes, then how much more so if two...a visual representation of a literal work does not do an injustice to it but it adds to the myth and or story...how much more richer then are we for having such a treasure within our midst?
Absolut beautifull words....cry and so true. I couldn't have said it beter....thats exactly how I feel about this...👆👆
For the purists, go get yourself a nice whiskey-and-soda. 😄 The movies were PJ's interpretation, and since they were an interpretation, they aren't going to be exactly like the books. If you wanted to be regaled by a word-for-word account of the books, by all means, go to your nearest bookstore and buy the Trilogy on audio tapes. I think you'll enjoy that more. 😄 As a Book-fan, I disagree with the changes made to characters such as Faramir, but as a person, I understand and appreciate them. In the Books, we were given ample opportunities to understand the conflict between him and Denethor, but in the movies, we weren't. Try reading any of the books within the space of 2.5 hours. It is difficult, very difficult. It's also difficult to absorb and remember every bit of information. Look at the movies with that perspective. Don't look at them as Tolkien fans or Book fans, look at them as people.
These movies are NOT Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth; they are a collaboration between Jackson and the writers. They will naturally have different views of the events, and I for one am glad of it. It allows me to see the story through someone else's eyes and get a different perspective. Such an opportunity is quite rare and I'm glad of it. I feel the same way about Arwen's expanded role: it's just a different perspective of the same basic story.
You can't stay too faithful to the book to make a universally liked film. If PJ had been more literal, the film might have dragged more for the non-Tolkien audience and the attention to detail and meticulosity that we all love might have been interpreted as pedantry by many others.
Originally posted by shadowy_blue
For the purists, go get yourself a nice whiskey-and-soda. 😄 The movies were PJ's interpretation, and since they were an interpretation, they aren't going to be exactly like the books. If you wanted to be regaled by a word-for-word account of the books, by all means, go to your nearest bookstore and buy the Trilogy on audio tapes. I think you'll enjoy that more. 😄 As a Book-fan, I disagree with the changes made to characters such as Faramir, but as a person, I understand and appreciate them. In the Books, we were given ample opportunities to understand the conflict between him and Denethor, but in the movies, we weren't. Try reading any of the books within the space of 2.5 hours. It is difficult, very difficult. It's also difficult to absorb and remember every bit of information. Look at the movies with that perspective. Don't look at them as Tolkien fans or Book fans, look at them as people.These movies are NOT Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth; they are a collaboration between Jackson and the writers. They will naturally have different views of the events, and I for one am glad of it. It allows me to see the story through someone else's eyes and get a different perspective. Such an opportunity is quite rare and I'm glad of it. I feel the same way about Arwen's expanded role: it's just a different perspective of the same basic story.
You can't stay too faithful to the book to make a universally liked film. If PJ had been more literal, the film might have dragged more for the non-Tolkien audience and the attention to detail and meticulosity that we all love might have been interpreted as pedantry by many others.
😄 its good to see your posts again.
it's just a different perspective of the same basic story.
✅ Thats the best way to put it...thats how it is.
Originally posted by shadowy_blue
For the purists, go get yourself a nice whiskey-and-soda.
SODA? In whiskey? What kind of pervert are you?
This isn't about being a purist. I'm no big fan of changing books to fit movies but i understand it's necessary sometimes. Thats not in any sense what my post was about.
Rather than having the same knee jerk response to anyone who dares criticize the films, read my post and perhaps come up with an answer that addresses the point I made?
And don't take it personally, Around half the people who have answered here have jumped right into "you have to expect changes" mode without paying the slightest mind to what I actually said. Frankly - No big shock.
Re: Why I hate the LOTR movies - (like you care?)
[i]Was anyone surprised to see Gandalf reappear? The films are great movies, but they are just movies & cheat you of the genuine experience & are also thus a terrible tragedy - I hate them with a passion. [/B]
So...is this the question you are looking to have answered ? Is this the question that everyone has passed on by ????
I for one was not surprised to see Gandalf return. For I was expecting him too since I had read the books many years ago.
I dare you to name one movie that was created from a novel that does not in one way or another cheat you out of the genuine experience.
Will you never see a movie that was adapted from a Novel again ???
Re: Re: Why I hate the LOTR movies - (like you care?)
Originally posted by A.D. Skinner
So...is this the question you are looking to have answered ? Is this the question that everyone has passed on by ????I dare you to name one movie that was created from a novel that does not in one way or another cheat you out of the genuine experience.
Will you never see a movie that was adapted from a Novel again ???
Yes, my point being that what jackson has done is relegate LOTR (the books) to being a second hand experience for generations to come. It's unlikely anyone from now on will ever read the books without having seen the films first (as is the case with may novel-to-film books these days)
I think thats an appaling shame; you and I are lucky to have read the books before the films were made.
As to your "dare" - I dont understand it, in some cases a movie might be made that is (in some way) "better" in a subjective sense than the novel - but in most cases not. And yes, I very seldom go and see movies based round books I have enjoyed or have affection for.
A movie of a book robs the book of much of its magic. One of the best ever childrens books is 101 Datamations, a fantastic moving magical adventure - and it's sequel (Starlight Barking) is -if anything - even better. How many children read that book today?
You honestly think that people will avoid the Tolkien books just because there are movies out there to see ?
Are these same people using the Cliff Notes instead of reading the books ??? I think that a book bring a different viewpoint to a story..and any true fan would not limit themselves to just the movies. If you spend some time here in the LOTR Forum and talk to the people...you would realize that most of us have read the books as well as see the movies.
In fact...there are quite a few that have seen the movie first, and then gone back and read the books.
And you say "I very seldom go and see movies based round books I have enjoyed or have affection for."...but yet you went and saw the Trilogy of Lord of the Rings, did you not ???
Originally posted by A.D. Skinner
You honestly think that people will avoid the Tolkien books just because there are movies out there to see ?In fact...there are quite a few that have seen the movie first, and then gone back and read the books.
No thats not what i think - I think some people will read them after seeing the films, (and most will give up half way through book one.)
All of them will know in advance what happens and have Jacksons images of what the places and characters look like in their heads.
I respect that you dont agree with me - that the lessened experience of reading AFTER seeing the film that people are now doomed to is cause for sorrow, but thats how I feel about it.
Originally posted by Mr Zero
What kind of pervert are you?
Ok first of all, this kind of shamless name-calling and vulgur comments directed towards anyone, is not appreciated or wanted here.
So I would appreciate it if you would lay-off miss shadowy_blue...ok?
\\
about your point about the moviegoers not wanting to read the books just for the fact there is a movie about it....just the other day my friend was telling me how he hated to read, and he was saying that if they have made a movie about it...whats the point in reading the book? "it dosn't make since to me...you can just watch the movie"
thats what he told me...but he proably wouldn't have read the books anyway, just because he hates reading!
so if the movie WASN"T made, then he still would not have read the books. his loss. but its not pj's fault...this has been my experience.
Of course the books are a beter experience, of course they're beter than the movies. but that dosn't make me 'hate the movies with a passion'....And the movies have not downgraded middle earth at all...they have enhanced it that much more.
So you say that the people who havn't read the books yet, are doomed. because they know what's going to happen, becuase they've seen the movies...well...yeah, I see what ur getting at here, Your saying that because you know what happens, you loose part of the mystery and surprises that you would get in the books.
well, no mater where you first incounter the surprises(gandalf's return, frodo's 'resurection', Aragorn's diversion...) it's still magical and it only gets beter the more you read-watch the story...
If you continue with your reasoning, then you might as well say that your doomed when you read the book a second time, because you know everything about it.🙂
Originally posted by Smodden
Ok first of all, this kind of shameless name-calling and vulgar comments directed towards anyone, is not appreciated or wanted here.
So I would appreciate it if you would lay-off miss shadowy_blue...ok?If you continue with your reasoning, then you might as well say that your doomed when you read the book a second time, because you know everything about it.🙂
I seldom read books more than once, partly because I'm able to concentrate enough the first time round.
You never get a second chance to do something for the first time - revisiting an old book can be good if you pick up things you missed on the first outing: but it's never as vibrant as the first time. As to the rest of your arguments - you ramble and contradict yourself so much i can't begin to form a response...
As to my"shameless name-calling and vulgar comments" because I said putting soda in whiskey is perverted. Where to begin...
Perverted: Deviating from what is considered right and correct
A) Any true Scot would tell you adding anything to whiskey is perverted. B) I was being light-hearted C) you overstate your case so much it makes me suspect that D) You only bring this up because shes a girl whom you hope to impress with your ill-timed defense.
Leaving aside all notions of how sexist that is , you ought to choose a better target.
Originally posted by Mr Zero
I seldom read books more than once, partly because I'm able to concentrate enough the first time round.You never get a second chance to do something for the first time - revisiting an old book can be good if you pick up things you missed on the first outing: but it's never as vibrant as the first time. As to the rest of your arguments - you ramble and contradict yourself so much i can't begin to form a response...
As to my"shameless name-calling and vulgar comments" because I said putting soda in whiskey is perverted. Where to begin...
Perverted: Deviating from what is considered right and correct
A) Any true Scot would tell you adding anything to whiskey is perverted. B) I was being light-hearted C) you overstate your case so much it makes me suspect that D) You only bring this up because shes a girl whom you hope to impress with your ill-timed defense.
Leaving aside all notions of how sexist that is , you ought to choose a better target.
😆 ...sorry smod, i'm not laughing at you, this guy's pretty funny when he wants to be...
as for your first point...there is no reply that i could comment that would add validity to your view, but to drill your point to those who more than likely could care less would be futile and fruitless...and i would not take away their reasons for not caring
Mr. Zero...
You have spoken up for something that you feel strongly about...allow Smodden to do the same.
He has offered his opinion just as you have...just as I have...but I urge you to push your limits, for your comments do seem to have upset him !
I find that reading books a second time, I pick up on a lot of things that I have missed the 1st time through. Although I usually don't re-read a book until much time has passed. Though, I find one of your comments quite interesting...
Originally posted by Mr Zero
I seldom read books more than once, partly because I'm able to concentrate enough the first time round.
This does not sound like the sort of comment that one would make when one enjoys reading. I am not saying that this is a bad thing...but you are making ill comments about people that don't read...when in fact you find it hard enough to concetrate the 1st time !
😑