Will the films change fans' relationship with the books?

[Sheeana]

Of all the dumbass questions - will the films change our relationship with books? - well, of course it does, dimwit. I read it now, and I see frellin' Orlando Bloom as Legolas, dratitall.

[Elfhelm]

Actually, I would like to update my earlier statement. If some sort of Hitlerian perverion of Wagner happens using the LotR movies, it will not change my relationship with the books. So I changed my mind over night.

My answer is now, No. It affects how I visualize faces, voices, and some settings, but not my relationship.

[IronParrot]

I wish I were able to see if you and azalea could keep a straight face while explaining why you felt the question, "Has your relationship with the books changed?" is not an appropriate books forum topic. But hey, I understood a long time ago that logic is rarely the deciding factor in message board decisions when a group of "gee, look what I can do" teenage board moderators are running a forum.

It's not that it's inappropriate in the Books forum, it's that it's more appropriate here. There's a difference. As for the "teenage board moderators" comment - try a bit harder, because I've heard a lot worse.

Then why in the world would you remove a legitimate thread trying to address that very fact?!??!?! Moderators should be PROMOTING interesting discussions, not stifling them. I've never understood why so many boards allow its moderators to close or move serious and interesting discussions for the most bizarre reasons imaginable such as "well...uh...gee, uh...it's largely a matter of organization." Riiiiiight. Let's play "The Pants Game" in the book forum but don't you dare ask if the films have changed the way you view the books there!!!

The fundamental reason we have a separate Movies forum, and have had one since the dawn of this board, is not because we want to keep the movies from diluting the books. It's because we are giving the movies special treatment by giving them a forum of their own.

I realize you are above questioning, but nevertheless, I feel I must address your declaration that this thread is "semi-redundant." Yes, there was a thread asking the question "Has Jackson's FILMS captured Tolkien's vision?" This discussion thread -- at least until it was moved and the focus shifted to the movies -- was asking the question whether the films changed the way fans felt about THE BOOKS. Unless I've entered the Twilight Zone and everyone here has become mindless orcs, these two questions are clearly separate and distinct.

As for the semi-redundancy I was referring to Did we lose something? - a thread you posted in and in fact praised. (It was also in the Movies forum.) I was not referring to your 1000-reply "Capturing Tolkien's Vision" thread, which is indeed completely different.

I will quote your post in the thread I'm referring to right here, actually.

A great question, Dreran the Green!!!

I think I've gained a great deal and lost nothing. Thanks to the films, I now picture the characters with much greater clarity than before. This might not have been good IF the casting hadn't been so incredibly dead-on.

For me, the casting was near perfect. When I first saw Viggo as Strider and Ian McKellan as Gandalf and Sean Astin as Samwise, I was amazed at how Peter Jackson had reached deep into my own imagination and put beloved characters on film to near-perfection. The only people I had envisioned slightly different was Boromir, Saruman, and Legolas and - quite frankly - I've come to believe that the film version was an improvement from what I thought before.

Reading the books now, I still use my imagination. In fact, the film has allowed me to be MORE imaginative, not less. I still envision some things that are different from the films but I have no trouble encorporating my own unique imaginings with Tolkien's and Jackson's. The time since the opening of the FOTR and TTT films has been very exciting because my Middle-Earth is getting more rich, detailed and "real" to me all the time.

That clearly addresses the question of how our perceptions of the books has changed. You had no complaints about the thread placement then and you shouldn't have any complaints now.

Oh, thank you, thank you, Oh Mighty One for deeming this trifling, little thread worthy of remaining open in your esteemed Elf eyes. It is truly a generous and lordly act. Thank you from the bottom of my unworthy peasant heart!

I'm not leaving it open because it's worthy of my esteemed Elf eyes (be that as it may). I'm leaving it open because relationship and vision are fundamentally distinct, which is why this differs from the "Did we lose something?" thread I mentioned above.

Also. We moderators are not above questioning - in fact, if you have a problem with the way we're doing things, it's totally your prerogative to challenge our policies.

BUT the appropriate place to do that is by Private Message, and not interrupting a thread where everybody else has been issuing on-topic replies. Please take this to PM.

[IronParrot]

Also - if you want to touch this issue of Books/Movies separation and want to comment on it publicly, please use this thread.

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&threadid=4482

Thank you. Everyone else, sorry about the mess - this will be the last post on this thread about operating policies instead of the actual topic at hand.

I hope.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Thank you. Everyone else, sorry about the mess - this will be the last post on this thread about operating policies instead of the actual topic at hand.

I hope.

Ok cool, now can we start discussion whether the balrog has wings or not?

[IronParrot]

Ok cool, now can we start discussion whether the balrog has wings or not?

Well, that depends. Did watching the rendition of the Balrog in the movie change your relationship with its wings?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Well, that depends. Did watching the rendition of the Balrog in the movie change your relationship with its wings?

lol, it actually did, but only in the respect directly proportional to the air velocity that it can achieve. A couple wise people said the following once:



Soldier #1: Where'd you get the coconuts?
Arthur: We found them.
Soldier #1: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
Arthur: What do you mean?
Soldier #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
Arthur: The balrog may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
Soldier #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
Soldier #1: What? A balrog carrying a coconut?
Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
Soldier #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce balrog could not carry a one pound coconut.
Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
Soldier #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a balrog needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
Arthur: Please!
Soldier #1: Am I right?
Arthur: I'm not interested!
Soldier #2: It could be carried by an African balrog!
Soldier #1: Oh, yeah, an African balrog maybe, but not a European balrog. That's my point.
Soldier #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
Arthur: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
Soldier #1: But then of course a-- African balrogs are non-migratory.
Soldier #2: Oh, yeah...
Soldier #1: So, they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...
[clop clop clop]
Soldier #2: Wait a minute! Supposing two balrogs carried it together?
Soldier #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Soldier #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
Soldier #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
Soldier #2: Well, why not?


See, it's not about the size of the wings, it's how they use them!

[The Gaffer]

Hobbiton, Bag Eng, Bree, Isengard, Rivendell, Caradhras, Lorien, Edoras, Argonath, Helm's Deep, Barad-dur, Minas Tirith and especially Dwarrowdelf: all totally awesomely rendered. The bit where Gandalf "risks a little more light" in Moria still makes my hair stand on end.

Mordor: too close; The Shire: too mountainous; Rohan, not grassy enough.

In the films, Middle-Earth seems smaller than it is in the books.

[Black Breathalizer]

There have been some interesting comments posted here lately about the films. But I'd like to point out this thread is intended to address whether the movies have changed the way you now feel when reading the books.

As IronParrot has pointed out, there are other threads to post your feelings about the films. I'm truly sorry for the confusion about this.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Hobbiton, Bag Eng, Bree, Isengard, Rivendell, Caradhras, Lorien, Edoras, Argonath, Helm's Deep, Barad-dur, Minas Tirith and especially Dwarrowdelf: all totally awesomely rendered.

Those places are truly beautifully rendered, but it is not new. They look almost exactly like illustrations that existed long before the movies were released, pictures made by Alan Lee, who also participated in making the movies. Same with many of the creatures. Just look at Lee's pics of Gollum, Treebeard, the nazgul's flying steeds, the Mumakil, the balrog etc.

I don't really see how the movies could change my relationship with the book. After the second movie I almost see the movies and the book as telling two different stories. In that respect I'm thankful for the deviations from the book.

BTW, welcome to the moot, Gaffer!

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Artanis
BTW, welcome to the moot, Gaffer!

Thank 'ee kindly m'lady *touches forelock*

Well, I find that the rendition of the world is so painstaking that both book and film denote the same thing in my mind. In that way, it's been an absolute joy to watch them; like having a long-distance relationship with someone, then moving to the same town and finding out that they're even better than you thought.

[IronParrot]

lol, it actually did, but only in the respect directly proportional to the air velocity that it can achieve.

Do you mean an African Balrog, or a European Balrog?

[Sheeana]

Ah, the oft' quoted Holy Grail. Can't you guys think of something more original to joke about?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The film actors, the set designs and locations, and the swords and other props, have added a whole new level of detail when I reread the books. For the most part, it has been no adjustment at all because the actors who were cast in the movie were amazingly similar the ones in my head. The wildest thing about this is that I hear the same comments from other fans of the book as well.

There were two exceptions. However, Sean Astin as Boromir and Orlando Bloom as Legolas were BETTER than what I originally imagined and I've had no reservations at all about changing my views.

One of the few things that now feels more awkward when reading the books since FOTR came out involves Samwise. I thought Sean Astin was a dead-on choice for one of my all-time favorite literary characters. I also appreciate his performance. I especially loved the "Taters" scene in TTT and thought it was brilliantly brought to the big screen. What I find a little harder to swallow now is the more "gushy" language Sam uses in the book that is not used in the film.

Also, I was concerned when I first learned that Jackson planned to play down the master-servent relationship between Frodo and Sam. However, strangely enough, I now find myself having difficulty hearing Sam saying "Master" when reading the books after watching the films.

And you claim to not think the movie is better. You say it improves on it, you now judge the value of the book by the movie. Yet when your own words are turned against you, you say you don't think the move is better than the book!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Really the books are about all of these themes of hope and whatnot and the movies capture that in their true forms...

You too? I mean, I knew you liked the movies, but saying that it captures the themes of the book better than the book itself....

Originally posted by Sheeana
Of all the dumbass questions - will the films change our relationship with books? - well, of course it does, dimwit. I read it now, and I see frellin' Orlando Bloom as Legolas, dratitall.

Same here, only with Frodo.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You too? I mean, I knew you liked the movies, but saying that it captures the themes of the book better than the book itself....

You put those words in my mouth, read my statement again, it doesn't say that anywhere...

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
And you claim to not think the movie is better. You say it improves on it, you now judge the value of the book by the movie. Yet when your own words are turned against you, you say you don't think the move is better than the book!

Yes, I love the films. They are the most enjoyable films I've ever watched. I can watch those damn scenes from the DVDs over and over again and never tire of them. But loving the films doesn't mean I can't still love the books too. Yes, Jackson improved upon story for the big screen. Big hairy deal! The only thing PJ has done is deepen my love for the characters and the places in the books. And I seriously doubt I'm alone. I've said many times that the two compliment one another and I still believe that. Do I look at the books a little differently now? Yeah, I admit I probably do. Some things work better now, a few things not as well.

But I have never attacked or trashed the books. Ever. My only crime has been defending Jackson's films against silly, unwarranted -- and often uninformed -- attacks. But that doesn't mean I'm playing the same 'basher game' that the Purists here play.

Both the books and the films have some things about them that are not perfect. Over the course of our discussions here I've pointed out a few flaws from the books and the films. But I prefer to revel in the wonderful things about both rather than tear them down.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Same here, only with Frodo.

That's a pity. Film Frodo is so completely different from Book Frodo, I can't equate them at all. * feels sorry for GW *

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Film Frodo is so completely different from Book Frodo, I can't equate them at all.

If you visualize Book Frodo differently than the film version, that's your prerogative. But to state they are "so completely different" is complete hogwash and is certainly not supported by any real comparison between the two. If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you visualize Book Frodo differently than the film version, that's your prerogative. But to state they are "so completely different" is complete hogwash and is certainly not supported by any real comparison between the two. If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about.

Talking about the appearance of Frodo, I too think they're different. When I read the book I imagine Frodo as looking much older than he does in the movie. In the book he's 50 years old when he sets out from Hobbiton.