Michael <erosewater@ziplip.com> writes:
in article 7vFJa.118$sJ5.281@sccrnsc02, Doug Anderson at ethelthelog@yahoo.com wrote on 6/23/03 10:01 AM: Michael <erosewater@ziplip.com> writes: in article 20030623102027.04001.00001140@mb-m28.aol.com, WhansaMi at whansami@aol.com wrote on 6/23/03 8:20 AM:>> Ack! How does your theory apply to people like me who picked the books>> up before the hype and have no kids?>> Cari>>>> I have a friend who is a librarian, and she read an advance copy of HP. As> soon as the first one was available here in the US, she sent my kids a copy.> We've loved HP for years, and years.>> Kind of drifting off-topic, but does anyone else know of people whose> reaction> to "hype" is to totally shut off any possibility of *ever* enjoying whatever> it> is that is being hyped?>> I have a friend who will NOT go see a movie if it is "popular", will not> read> a> book if it is on the best-seller list, and who often refuses to even watch> an> episode of a television show in the top ten. She sniffs, and says, "I have> absolutely NO interest in that.">> This reaction totally befuddles me. Some things that are popular, I enjoy.> Some I either have no interest in, or maybe I have some interest, but think> the> particular work is not well done. But why, would you reject something,> simply> because others enjoy it? Anyone else here like that? If so, can you> explain> it to me?>> Sheila I do that to some extent (less so, as I grow older). I've never seen ET, or Titanic, and I've never paid to see a Star Wars movie (I've seen most of the first one on TV once). Sitcoms being the notable exception, these days I'm more likely to give things a chance first: I saw the first installment of the "The Lord of the Rings" and felt that while they did a fabulous job of the sword-clanging, head-rolling thing, they had missed the zeitgeist of the books, and no amount of "foot voting" is likely to convince me to shell out money to see the second or the third. (I actually would have walked out of "The Fellowship of the Ring" at the moment they turned the council of Elrond into a *****y little staff meeting, (How long since you read the Fellowship? I admit it has been a long time for me, but I remember the council of Elrond as being like a *****y little staff meeting! I actually thought they did a decent job of capturing the feel of the LOTR, without following the entire plot - which would be impossible for a film.) Some years. But I remember it being grander in scale, and slower moving: long narratives about the end of the second age, the beginning of the third, etc, debates about what to do, etc. But I have to disagree - I know they need to "compress", but their compression was dubious. There was a great deal of "quiet magic" in the books that they ignored, like Tom Bombadil and Farmer Maggot, and some that they overstated, like the "battle" between Saruman and Gandalf in Orthanc, and some things that just seemed *wrong*, like the mirror of Galadriel. That they chose to dramatize something that, IIRC, Tolkien summarized - Saruman and Gandalf throwing SFX at each other - and chose to introduce Pippin and Merry as petty thieves rather than as "conspirators" said a great deal about the film's priorities, to me. I can allow lots of things, like it was visually stunning, the CGI was amazing, the Nagzul were extremely frightening, some of the casting was genius. But for me, it's a movie that really didn't shed any light on the books or the characters. There have been movies I've seen based on books (and even on TV shows) that have been extremely revealing - even if for just a moment. LOTR, the movie, didn't achieve that once for me. At best it was a "oh yeah. This CGI here, is where Frodo recognizes the terrible power of the ring to corrupt even the good intentions of Galadriel. See how terrifying she will be?" and "This CGI here, where Bilbo turns into an evil creature, is supposed to represent the power of the ring over Frodo's mind. See?" Both Ian Holm and Cate Blanchett are better actors than that - it's a shame the filmmaker didn't have the faith in them that Tolkien had in Gandalf, whose "powers" in the books (all the way back to "The Hobbit") lay more in his ability to persuade and guide people towards their own greatness. But people's mileage will vary; I have friends who loved it, and generally speaking, I won't put them in a headlock until they say otherwise. I might consider it if they feel compelled to try and explain why it was necessary for the narrative to have Arwen battle the Nazgul.

Well, I didn't love it, but I did feel like it was true to the spirit
of Tolkien's work.

But I have to say, I can't think of a single book as long as the
Fellowship that got made into a great movie (I make exceptions for
example where someone took an episode from a book, and made just that
episode into a movie).

in article 0mwufcmz37.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu, Doug Anderson at
ethelthelog@yahoo.com wrote on 6/23/03 12:24 PM:

>>> I do that to some extent (less so, as I grow older). I've never seen ET, or> Titanic, and I've never paid to see a Star Wars movie (I've seen most of> the> first one on TV once). Sitcoms being the notable exception, these days I'm> more likely to give things a chance first: I saw the first installment of> the "The Lord of the Rings" and felt that while they did a fabulous job of> the sword-clanging, head-rolling thing, they had missed the zeitgeist of> the> books, and no amount of "foot voting" is likely to convince me to shell out> money to see the second or the third. (I actually would have walked out of> "The Fellowship of the Ring" at the moment they turned the council of> Elrond> into a *****y little staff meeting, (How long since you read the Fellowship? I admit it has been a long time for me, but I remember the council of Elrond as being like a *****y little staff meeting! I actually thought they did a decent job of capturing the feel of the LOTR, without following the entire plot - which would be impossible for a film.) Some years. But I remember it being grander in scale, and slower moving: long narratives about the end of the second age, the beginning of the third, etc, debates about what to do, etc. But I have to disagree - I know they need to "compress", but their compression was dubious. There was a great deal of "quiet magic" in the books that they ignored, like Tom Bombadil and Farmer Maggot, and some that they overstated, like the "battle" between Saruman and Gandalf in Orthanc, and some things that just seemed *wrong*, like the mirror of Galadriel. That they chose to dramatize something that, IIRC, Tolkien summarized - Saruman and Gandalf throwing SFX at each other - and chose to introduce Pippin and Merry as petty thieves rather than as "conspirators" said a great deal about the film's priorities, to me. I can allow lots of things, like it was visually stunning, the CGI was amazing, the Nagzul were extremely frightening, some of the casting was genius. But for me, it's a movie that really didn't shed any light on the books or the characters. There have been movies I've seen based on books (and even on TV shows) that have been extremely revealing - even if for just a moment. LOTR, the movie, didn't achieve that once for me. At best it was a "oh yeah. This CGI here, is where Frodo recognizes the terrible power of the ring to corrupt even the good intentions of Galadriel. See how terrifying she will be?" and "This CGI here, where Bilbo turns into an evil creature, is supposed to represent the power of the ring over Frodo's mind. See?" Both Ian Holm and Cate Blanchett are better actors than that - it's a shame the filmmaker didn't have the faith in them that Tolkien had in Gandalf, whose "powers" in the books (all the way back to "The Hobbit") lay more in his ability to persuade and guide people towards their own greatness. But people's mileage will vary; I have friends who loved it, and generally speaking, I won't put them in a headlock until they say otherwise. I might consider it if they feel compelled to try and explain why it was necessary for the narrative to have Arwen battle the Nazgul. Well, I didn't love it, but I did feel like it was true to the spirit of Tolkien's work. But I have to say, I can't think of a single book as long as the Fellowship that got made into a great movie (I make exceptions for example where someone took an episode from a book, and made just that episode into a movie).

You know, there's a strong possibility that some books shouldn't be made
into movies at all. I'd argue that this is one of them. Based on what I saw
in the first movie, I think that a significant number of people who are
introduced to the Lord of the Rings through these films will never make it
through the books.

M.



M.

WhansaMi wrote:You know, there's a strong possibility that some books shouldn't be madeinto movies at all. I'd argue that this is one of them. Based on what I sawin the first movie, I think that a significant number of people who areintroduced to the Lord of the Rings through these films will never make itthrough the books.M. Okay, I'll admit it. I never made it through the books. I don't like Tolkien's writing style. Great story, not in a style I can appreciate. Sheila
I'll join you in your admission, Sheila. I had them all read to me when
I was a kid and I'm told I enjoyed them. About 2 years ago I picked
them up to read for myself. I got about 1/3 of the way into the third
book and found that I just didn't care. Paul threatened divorce. *wink*
Cari

--
email:
cari_p at comcast dot net