From Movie to Book - Page 2

Starr Polish · 07-27-2002, 11:54 PM

Quote:

We all are aware that the LotR is really one book, divided for publisher's purposes into 3.

Er...I thought Tolkien originally wanted it published as six books...but I'm still a newbie

I saw the movie first, and in some ways, I'm sure it's affected the way I see the characters and all, but I'd read some of The Hobbit before, and had a good picture of Gandalf and Bilbo, so those characters didn't change.
I have an incredibly active imagination, and if I want, I can banish the movie character image and use my mind's eye instead. The hobbits are chubbier and don't look so darn...young, and other things like that. I can see the actor's face while I'm reading if I want to, but I don't always want to do that.

Also, watching the movie without reading the book was actually pretty confusing for me, and I <i>DID</i> get a lot more out of the book. The desired, er, effect, of the book doesn't get lost if you see the movie first if you are actually interested in reading the book FOR THE BOOK ITSELF.

Entlover · 07-28-2002, 12:44 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Starr Polish
[B]
Er...I thought Tolkien originally wanted it published as six books...

________________________________________________--

I believe he wrote it in 6 divisions that he called Books, but he didn't plan to publish it that way, it was just so he and the reader could keep it all sorted out. He wanted to publish it as one book, as far as he thought about it.

I agree with you that if you read the book for itself, the movie doesn't interfere. It's funny to have 2 Frodos etc. in my brain, depending on whether I'm thinking about book or movie.

***IronParrot*** · 07-29-2002, 01:11 AM

Yes, it's true that the six "books" are just divisions of a single novel. It's the same with Tolstoy's War And Peace - a single novel with parts labeled "books".

I've actually seen a box-set edition of LOTR published in seven paperback volumes, though - the six books and appendices. Very ideal for travel purposes, being as thin as they are...

And similarly, the Peter Jackson film is really just one film released in three instalments. When LOTR was first published, even it was released in three instalments as well. Remember that the film was financed, scripted and shot as a single unit...

In many ways, I don't think it's entirely fair to criticize the film for better or for worse until you've seen all of it. But naturally, everybody (including myself) has an opinion to voice regarding the third we've seen so far.

In response to BeardofPants:

Quote:

"At the end of the day, LOTR is a literary masterpiece, and having said that, any movie adaptation (an inferior medium at the best of times) will always come up lacking."

I see your point, but I wouldn't call film an "inferior medium" without a clear definition of purpose. It is true that LOTR specifically is of such a scale that film cannot possibly effectively recreate the novel. (I mean, how would you do the whole self-referential bit about the Red Book of Westmarch? How would you manage the frequent device of characters recounting their adventures after the fact, as in the case of Gandalf's capture, the flooding of Isengard, and the Grey Company? How would you manage all the long passages of time?) But despite that, the only flaw in the film medium is that LOTR was created for the printed page.

It's not a matter of one medium being superior to the other - it's just that they have different strengths and intentions. The written word may have a greater flexibility of pacing, the possibility of delineated structure and the freedom of reader imagination - but at the same time, the motion picture has the advantages of focus and periphery, relegating subtext and emotional impression to an underlying, subliminal background. Just as with the written word, every reader's experience is different depending on his/her imagination, on film, every viewer's experience is different depending on what he/she notices.

If you want to see some real inferiority, look at novelizations of original films. I've yet to read a good one. (Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't count, as it was concurrently written by the screenwriter.)

Starr Polish · 08-01-2002, 03:06 AM

Books written after movies are horrid.
Of all the 'book to movie' movies I've seen, LOTR was definately the best (and I've seen a lot of movies and read a lot of books), but of course it's not perfect.
I'm excited to see how my idea of TTT and ROTK compare with the movies, but I'm determined to enjoy the film and the book seperately.

Mithr@ndir · 08-01-2002, 08:50 AM

Mithr@ndir · 08-01-2002, 08:50 AM

double oops

Mithr@ndir · 08-01-2002, 09:09 AM

Id say the most important thing to remember is that the film is only Jacksons "interpritation" of the book, he uses his imagination to projct what he thought Middle Earth and all the characters within it look and behave like.

For me the biggest let down was Strider/aragorn. I think hes portrayed in the film as a human with attitude when in reality hes a Numorean (possibly spelt wrong) and should act like one. He also seems very camp. Cares more about how his hair looks than whats going on with the ring etc.

Oh while im here one more point, did it seem to any1 else that Pippin Merry and especially Samwise didnt seem to have all that much concern over Frodo. I say especially Sam cos hes supposed to love Frodo (some have said in more than a friendly way) and would and does try to give his life for frodo's during the book. In the film it just came across that frodo was abit of a slow-a-coach and sam was always waiting for him etc.

I have to say though i did enjoy the film and i am looking forward to TTT alot especially the Fangorn scenes

Oh and i read the book abou 60 times b4 the film so the film didnt effect the way i imagine Frodo etc

Rivendale was very close to what i imagined it to be

samwiselvr2008 · 08-01-2002, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mithr@ndir
[B
Oh while im here one more point, did it seem to any1 else that Pippin Merry and especially Samwise didnt seem to have all that much concern over Frodo. I say especially Sam cos hes supposed to love Frodo (some have said in more than a friendly way) and would and does try to give his life for frodo's during the book. In the film it just came across that frodo was abit of a slow-a-coach and sam was always waiting for him etc.
[/B]

ya, i think so, but in ttt and rotk it will be dif. b/c that is whene Sam really starts to take ceer of Frodo, not in the FOTR, so we will (hopefully) see a dif. in sam later!

and i said before that i thought of Elija whene i hoord the name Frodo, well, what i really think about is his vouse, not the fact that it was played by Elijah Wood. But i do that with every charicter whene the lines are simuler to those in the books!

BeardofPants · 08-01-2002, 05:43 PM

Aaarrrgh! Attack of the people who can't spell!

Quote:

I think hes portrayed in the film as a human with attitude when in reality hes a Numorean (possibly spelt wrong) and should act like one.

How do you think someone from Númenor should act then, just out of curiosity?

Entlover · 08-01-2002, 11:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mithr@ndir Strider/aragorn. . . is portrayed in the film as a human with attitude when in reality he's a Numorean (possibly spelt wrong) and should act like one. He also seems very camp.
_________________________________________________----

Actually the Numenoreans were human, they were the Edain of the West, the people of the Three Houses of the Elf-friends, i.e. humans who helped the elves out during the wars. The Valar gave them the island of Numenor to live in after the First Age, and Strider was descended from those that escaped when it sank.
Not too sure what you mean by camp; could you explain?
__________________________________________________-
Oh while im here one more point, did it seem to any1 else that Pippin Merry and especially Samwise didnt seem to have all that much concern over Frodo.
________________________________________________----

You could be right in Merry and Pippin's cases, they seemed intent on being comic relief most of the time. But IMO Sam seemed pretty concerned about Frodo, he offered to go along at the Council, he waded out to the boat at the end, he remonstrated with Strider about sending Frodo off on the horse with Arwen (showing good sense there); I can think of lots of places.

Mithr@ndir · 08-02-2002, 07:48 AM

oo oo so many replys

k Strider i said he was camp...hmm well i said that cos he was very over the top IMO he looked asif he might be doing a hair commercial soon or some such like. Hes a Ranger ffs togh as nails to me he just came across as abit of a puff e.g. camp i expected him to say "ooo betty!" at any point in the film. About him being a numorean thingy, yes they are human but they were able to lengthen their life spans and increase their wisdom etc cos they helped and became friends with the elves. I understand that he is a a human but hes "special" and to me he just came across as well abit boring and ...normal

Samwise...hmmm I understood from the book (as others have) that sam loves frodo. There is a scene in the film where a black rider is comming for the hobbits as they are crossing the river (i forget its name) to get to the prancing poney pub and they all get on this barge/boat accept frodo and they start pushing off asif its up2 frodo weather or not he comes and they will save themselves (pippin merry and sam) evne if frodo doesnt make the jump. This annoyed me cos the sam i know would be there with Frodo or even attempting to take on the dark rider , he wouldnt be running away coverin his own ass. I know its a minor thing really and i knwo it was prolly stuck in so that peeps would go "oo he might not make it ooo" but i guess it just me being picky

@beard of pants --> yes my typing is terrible along with my spelling

infact im famed for it.:

samwiselvr2008 · 08-02-2002, 11:15 AM

i never thought about that part about sam, but you are right! however in the next two books/ movies he is and should be more loyal (he is in the books and he should be in the movies). because even though he was loyal in the first book, it really starts in the second and third boook whene he is the most loyal!

Sween · 08-02-2002, 11:42 AM

i think ur been a bit harsh on poor sam. They had to get out of there pretty quick.

They had to cast off all they would have been up a creek without a paddle. Plus it looks cooler if ones just been chased not sams fault frodos a slow runner.

Entlover · 08-04-2002, 12:48 AM

Quote:

[i] they start pushing off asif its up2 frodo whether or not he comes and they will save themselves (pippin merry and sam) evne if frodo doesnt make the jump. This annoyed me cos the sam i know would be there with Frodo or even attempting to take on the dark rider , he wouldnt be running away coverin his own ass. ]

I looked it up and that part isn't even in the book, so I have to agree with you --PJ added the near-assault of the Black Rider. But in fairness I think Sam and the others didn't even notice Frodo wasn't keeping up with them, until after they had the raft in motion.
It was a pretty good addition, having the Black Rider nearly catch them, since PJ had to leave out the terrifying attack on the house and Fatty Bolger.

cassiopeia · 08-04-2002, 02:46 AM

Personally I think that Aragorn was portrayed as I imagined (and NO I am not saying that because I like him!) Maybe a bit weaker and more self doubting, but just as wise and thoughtful as in the book. Aragorn is not a Numenorean, he is just decended from them. And where, may I ask, does Aragorn care about his looks in the film: do you see him peeking into Galadriels mirror? NO!

BeardofPants · 08-04-2002, 04:03 AM

I find it ironic that you call Viggo's portrayal of Aragorn camp, when Hugo's portrayal of Elrond would have been more appropriately described thus, when you consider his previous work.

Lizra · 08-04-2002, 08:13 PM

Camp is a different view!

I thought he was rather understated. Maybe you mean the way he kind of looked like he was having "deep thoughts"? I adjusted and enjoyed, Mmmnnn, Aragorn!

I'm really looking forward to what's next.

Sanna · 08-17-2002, 05:14 PM

After seeing the movie, I absolutely could not wait a whole year for the continuations!! So I bought the book and read from where the movie left off. After finishing, I was so astounded by how wonderful the story was that I actually went back and read FOTR. I left me dissapointed and somewhat angry. The things that had been adapted or changed for the movie in some cases were completely unnecessary. And I agree with all that Galadriel was completely misrepresented in the movie. I enjoyed her in the story, but I hated her character in the movie, and I believe that they completely ruined her when they transitioned from book to movie. Especially in the scene where Frodo offers her the ring. In the book, she becomes illuminated and makes a speech about what she may do with the ring, but in the movie she turns into some crazed tyrant woman and rather than looking "illuminated," the film just looks bad and maybe over exposed. The book is so much better than the movie. And from what I've heard on this board, they are preparing to make many more alterations, and that is also dissapointing to hear. The movie may be based on The Lord of the Rings, but it certainly is not The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien imagined and shared with us.

cassiopeia · 08-18-2002, 03:02 AM

What Galadriel said in the book is similar (if not the same, I can't remember) to what she said in the book. But I agree that the special effects made her look horrible. I like what they did to Gandalf when Bilbo would no hand over the ring.

BeardofPants · 08-18-2002, 03:13 AM

It wasn't so much the light... I could have overlooked that, as it was in the book, albeit less distorted. But did they really have to do that awful voice?

08-01-2002, 03:06 AM	#24
Starr Polish Elf Lord Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Slow down and I sail on the river, slow down and I walk to the hill Posts: 2,389	Books written after movies are horrid. Of all the 'book to movie' movies I've seen, LOTR was definately the best (and I've seen a lot of movies and read a lot of books), but of course it's not perfect. I'm excited to see how my idea of TTT and ROTK compare with the movies, but I'm determined to enjoy the film and the book seperately. __________________ “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” –Bertrand Russell

08-01-2002, 08:50 AM	#25
Mithr@ndir Sapling Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: UK Posts: 9	oops __________________ What goes around comes around Last edited by Mithr@ndir : 08-01-2002 at 09:10 AM.

08-01-2002, 08:50 AM	#26
Mithr@ndir Sapling Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: UK Posts: 9	double oops __________________ What goes around comes around Last edited by Mithr@ndir : 08-01-2002 at 09:10 AM.

08-01-2002, 09:09 AM	#27
Mithr@ndir Sapling Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: UK Posts: 9	Id say the most important thing to remember is that the film is only Jacksons "interpritation" of the book, he uses his imagination to projct what he thought Middle Earth and all the characters within it look and behave like. For me the biggest let down was Strider/aragorn. I think hes portrayed in the film as a human with attitude when in reality hes a Numorean (possibly spelt wrong) and should act like one. He also seems very camp. Cares more about how his hair looks than whats going on with the ring etc. Oh while im here one more point, did it seem to any1 else that Pippin Merry and especially Samwise didnt seem to have all that much concern over Frodo. I say especially Sam cos hes supposed to love Frodo (some have said in more than a friendly way) and would and does try to give his life for frodo's during the book. In the film it just came across that frodo was abit of a slow-a-coach and sam was always waiting for him etc. I have to say though i did enjoy the film and i am looking forward to TTT alot especially the Fangorn scenes Oh and i read the book abou 60 times b4 the film so the film didnt effect the way i imagine Frodo etc Rivendale was very close to what i imagined it to be __________________ What goes around comes around

08-02-2002, 07:48 AM	#31
Mithr@ndir Sapling Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: UK Posts: 9	oo oo so many replys k Strider i said he was camp...hmm well i said that cos he was very over the top IMO he looked asif he might be doing a hair commercial soon or some such like. Hes a Ranger ffs togh as nails to me he just came across as abit of a puff e.g. camp i expected him to say "ooo betty!" at any point in the film. About him being a numorean thingy, yes they are human but they were able to lengthen their life spans and increase their wisdom etc cos they helped and became friends with the elves. I understand that he is a a human but hes "special" and to me he just came across as well abit boring and ...normal Samwise...hmmm I understood from the book (as others have) that sam loves frodo. There is a scene in the film where a black rider is comming for the hobbits as they are crossing the river (i forget its name) to get to the prancing poney pub and they all get on this barge/boat accept frodo and they start pushing off asif its up2 frodo weather or not he comes and they will save themselves (pippin merry and sam) evne if frodo doesnt make the jump. This annoyed me cos the sam i know would be there with Frodo or even attempting to take on the dark rider , he wouldnt be running away coverin his own ass. I know its a minor thing really and i knwo it was prolly stuck in so that peeps would go "oo he might not make it ooo" but i guess it just me being picky @beard of pants --> yes my typing is terrible along with my spelling infact im famed for it.: __________________ What goes around comes around Last edited by Mithr@ndir : 08-02-2002 at 07:50 AM.

07-28-2002, 12:44 AM	#22
Entlover Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 463	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Starr Polish [B] Er...I thought Tolkien originally wanted it published as six books... ________________________________________________-- I believe he wrote it in 6 divisions that he called Books, but he didn't plan to publish it that way, it was just so he and the reader could keep it all sorted out. He wanted to publish it as one book, as far as he thought about it. I agree with you that if you read the book for itself, the movie doesn't interfere. It's funny to have 2 Frodos etc. in my brain, depending on whether I'm thinking about book or movie.

08-01-2002, 11:30 PM	#30
Entlover Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 463	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mithr@ndir Strider/aragorn. . . is portrayed in the film as a human with attitude when in reality he's a Numorean (possibly spelt wrong) and should act like one. He also seems very camp. _________________________________________________---- Actually the Numenoreans were human, they were the Edain of the West, the people of the Three Houses of the Elf-friends, i.e. humans who helped the elves out during the wars. The Valar gave them the island of Numenor to live in after the First Age, and Strider was descended from those that escaped when it sank. Not too sure what you mean by camp; could you explain? __________________________________________________- Oh while im here one more point, did it seem to any1 else that Pippin Merry and especially Samwise didnt seem to have all that much concern over Frodo. ________________________________________________---- You could be right in Merry and Pippin's cases, they seemed intent on being comic relief most of the time. But IMO Sam seemed pretty concerned about Frodo, he offered to go along at the Council, he waded out to the boat at the end, he remonstrated with Strider about sending Frodo off on the horse with Arwen (showing good sense there); I can think of lots of places.

08-02-2002, 11:15 AM	#32
samwiselvr2008 Elf Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hobbiton Posts: 739	i never thought about that part about sam, but you are right! however in the next two books/ movies he is and should be more loyal (he is in the books and he should be in the movies). because even though he was loyal in the first book, it really starts in the second and third boook whene he is the most loyal! __________________ Jesus loves you! Movie vewing count from the theater: Return of the King:9 Two Towers: 11 Fellowship: 13 FRODO LIVES!

08-02-2002, 11:42 AM	#33
Sween im quite stupid Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cockermouth Posts: 2,058	i think ur been a bit harsh on poor sam. They had to get out of there pretty quick. They had to cast off all they would have been up a creek without a paddle. Plus it looks cooler if ones just been chased not sams fault frodos a slow runner. __________________ Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot

08-04-2002, 02:46 AM	#35
cassiopeia Viggoholic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 1,749	Personally I think that Aragorn was portrayed as I imagined (and NO I am not saying that because I like him!) Maybe a bit weaker and more self doubting, but just as wise and thoughtful as in the book. Aragorn is not a Numenorean, he is just decended from them. And where, may I ask, does Aragorn care about his looks in the film: do you see him peeking into Galadriels mirror? NO! __________________ Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

08-04-2002, 04:03 AM	#36
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	I find it ironic that you call Viggo's portrayal of Aragorn camp, when Hugo's portrayal of Elrond would have been more appropriately described thus, when you consider his previous work. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

08-04-2002, 08:13 PM	#37
Lizra Domesticated Swing Babe Join Date: May 2002 Location: Reality Posts: 5,340	Camp is a different view! I thought he was rather understated. Maybe you mean the way he kind of looked like he was having "deep thoughts"? I adjusted and enjoyed, Mmmnnn, Aragorn! I'm really looking forward to what's next.

08-17-2002, 05:14 PM	#38
Sanna Hobbit Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Kansas Posts: 20	Saw the movie first After seeing the movie, I absolutely could not wait a whole year for the continuations!! So I bought the book and read from where the movie left off. After finishing, I was so astounded by how wonderful the story was that I actually went back and read FOTR. I left me dissapointed and somewhat angry. The things that had been adapted or changed for the movie in some cases were completely unnecessary. And I agree with all that Galadriel was completely misrepresented in the movie. I enjoyed her in the story, but I hated her character in the movie, and I believe that they completely ruined her when they transitioned from book to movie. Especially in the scene where Frodo offers her the ring. In the book, she becomes illuminated and makes a speech about what she may do with the ring, but in the movie she turns into some crazed tyrant woman and rather than looking "illuminated," the film just looks bad and maybe over exposed. The book is so much better than the movie. And from what I've heard on this board, they are preparing to make many more alterations, and that is also dissapointing to hear. The movie may be based on The Lord of the Rings, but it certainly is not The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien imagined and shared with us.

08-18-2002, 03:02 AM	#39
cassiopeia Viggoholic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 1,749	What Galadriel said in the book is similar (if not the same, I can't remember) to what she said in the book. But I agree that the special effects made her look horrible. I like what they did to Gandalf when Bilbo would no hand over the ring. __________________ Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

08-18-2002, 03:13 AM	#40
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	It wasn't so much the light... I could have overlooked that, as it was in the book, albeit less distorted. But did they really have to do that awful voice? __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Lord of the Rings discussion project	azalea	LOTR Discussion Project	460	01-20-2008 11:35 AM
The Entertainment Do You Know This...	Grey_Wolf	Entertainment Forum	100	12-05-2007 08:30 AM
Eragon the Movie	rohirrim TR	Entertainment Forum	70	06-02-2007 03:07 PM
It's a pity that this book is so much "underground"...	Peter_20	The Silmarillion	5	04-29-2007 12:17 AM
The Movie Quote Game	Nariel Starfire	Entertainment Forum	316	04-29-2004 05:02 PM