LOTR Movie=ignorant fans?

[Black Breathalizer]

Agburanar, if you read about the making of the movies, you'll discover that the screenwriters read the books countless times before and during the production. Phillipa said in an interview that there wasn't a single day during a three year period that she wasn't reading the books. And Ian McKellan has mentioned numerous times that the book was used often to settle disputes about what the dialogue should be.

[Cirdan]

I don't care whether people read the book or not. If they just want to watch and pay the ticket so the final two installments are well funded, then great. If one comes to this forum to discuss only the movie and you run into people who prefer the book one shouldn't be suprised since the forum was created for the "book folks." I suspect that it isn't interesting to some whether or not Balrogs have wings or where Tom Bombadil comes from but I find it amusing myself.

[Black Breathalizer]

If a lover of the books comes to this forum to criticize the movie and you run into people who disagree, one shouldn't be surprised since this place is called "Lord of the Rings Movies."

[Cirdan]

How's surprised? We've been coming in droves since Dec 19, 2001.

[theworkhorse]

When I first read this thread, I was in total agreement with the original message. I did believe that one bad side effect of the film would be 'second rate Tolkien fans.' My brother is one such fan: his rediculous ideas, based on the movie and a quick reading of the books soon after, have annoyed me to no end. However, in a moment of self-analysis, I realized I myself am merely a second-rate Tolkien fan. I grew up watching the original cartoons by Rankin-Bass, and Bakshi, (spelling?). When I was eight, I saw an old copy of the Hobbit, and recognizing the title, began to read. Even though the book was immensely different, I had a rough idea of where the plot was going, and so I kept reading. I made my way through all of the books in the next year. I imagine the only reason I picked up that book was because I knew the title from the cartoon. So, I think I will be a little easier on these second-rate fans in the future. Even my idiot-boy brother.

theworkhorse

[Snowdog]

I've been mildy concerned about this for some tmie now. After the movies come out, there is obviously going to be an explosion of people who are into LOTR. What I'm saying is, before the movie, you could meet someone at a party and talk about LOTR and more or less be on the same page.
But after the movie, you could meet someone who says they love LOTR and has never even heard of Tom Bombadil?
I'm just saying I enjoy having deep and intelligent conversations about the LOTR. There's going to be alot of LOTR posers after the movie comes out.

Now that two of three movies are out and Lord of the Rings has become a part of pop culture, it is kind of fun to mention an obscure bit of Tolkien lore to other Lord of the Rings fans to see if they are bookwise. The whole concept of the two kingdoms is usually foriegn to movie fans.

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by Snowdog
Now that two of three movies are out and Lord of the Rings has become a part of pop culture, it is kind of fun to mention an obscure bit of Tolkien lore to other Lord of the Rings fans to see if they are bookwise. The whole concept of the two kingdoms is usually foriegn to movie fans.

lol, i did that to my friend when he asked me what my favorite part of LotR was. I said the old forest because he did not say from the movies ad he got all confused. He was like, 'ummmm...., yah, that part was cool.' I had to tell him it is from the book.

[gollum9630]

also, another one of my friends said the movies sucked because the ring wasnt destroyed. He had no idea there were two more movies, and when i told him he said that Tolkein was stupid for making the story so long. I called him a f*****g moron for saying that, and that he should try reading fo once

[Brokehorn4000]

Thank goodness you set him straight! He probably only said that about Tolkien because he didn't want to look stupid for not knowing about the other two movies. Some people will say stuff just to avoid admitting they made a mistake. Either that or that dude is one lazy fool who doesn't know the first thing about excellent literature.
Sorry if I came off harshly, but I'm angry that anyone would say that Tolkien was stupid! I mean, would he say the same thing about Harry Potter? There are not 3, but 7 books in the series, and each one is turning out longer than the preceding one.
GRRR... It makes me mad...

[Snowdog]

It does warm my heart to see some who only just saw the Fellowship DVD and then saw Two Towers in a theatre want to read the books and learn the true world of Tolkien. Like the youngster Aragorn talks with at Helms Deep...

"They say there is no hope..."
'There is always hope!'

[Black Breathalizer]

Even if some people never read the books, at least Jackson has exposed Tolkien's story to a larger audience.

[durin's bane]

I agree. Jackson is inspiring people to read Tolkien, or for me, when FotR came out, inspired me to read the books faster. I was reading FotR when the movies came out, so I don't know whether I'm book-before-movies or movies-before-book.

I was talking to this one little kid who was 8, and he said he was the biggest LotR fan ever. I asked him if he had read the books and he said, "I've only seen the movies." I bet I cracked at least two ribs trying to contain my laughter. But really, it gets quite annoying when I want to have a long conversation on the books, but the person I'm talking to only knows what the movies are like and they act as if they're Lord of the Rings professionals!

Another thing that bothers me is that my cousin has only seen the movies (he's going to read his dad's copy of LotR though; about time, too) and he completely ignores how great a character Samwise is and just goes for the best fighter. So, natuarally, he's always running around the house with this blanket on saying, "I'm Aragorn!" or "I'm Gandalf!". It's really nothing, but it just annoys me.

[Brokehorn4000]

Yeah, I wish the really honest characters would get as much fame as the fighting characters. I mean, I can't speak for everyone of course, but Sam, Frodo, Merry and Pippin are as equally cool as the fighters. Well, I guess the people who have not read the books have to wait to see the hobbits at their best! The sneek peek of the Return of the King on the Two Towers DVD was sooooooooooo cool!!!!!!! I'm definitely excited for this one!

By the way, I like you avatar, durin's bane.

[Insidious Rex]

Im one of those people who had read the books. THEN saw the movies. THEN reread the books and more Tolkien books (Sil, etc.) BECAUSE i enjoyed the movies so. In many ways I feel sorry for people on either extreme. Either so clueless about Tolkien and unwilling to read anything longer then a comic strip that they continually make themselves look like fools by spouting on about "Tolkien lore" based only on the two movies they have seen OR so fundamentally close minded about "The Word of Tolkien" and so biased against the movies as a rule that they refuse to appreciate a genuinly different art form based on Tolkiens works and they give the movies no chance from the start. Im so glad i came to the movies exactly at the point where I was.

[Snowdog]

... OR so fundamentally close minded about "The Word of Tolkien" and so biased against the movies as a rule that they refuse to appreciate a genuinly different art form based on Tolkiens works ...

Emphasis on based on Tolkiens works The movie is PJ's work based on Tolkien's works. It is not Tolkien's works. The books are Tolkien's works. I accept the movies for what they are, which are an adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings story as told by Peter Jackson. They are very good movies in my opinion, but they are not Tolkien's works, and never will be.

[Durin1]

I agree with the majority opinions on this discussion.

When I was watching the FoTR and TTT with people who had not even read the book, it was difficult to explain to them of things in the background and even things that had been omitted from the movies!

Examples:

1. Omissions of Gil-Galad, Tom Bombadil and Glorfindal (to name but a few)
2. The character of Arwen having more importance than was warranted.
3. The sense of time in the book compared with the movies
4. Elves coming to Helms Deep when they actually hadn't (in the book.

Etc, etc.

Even though I consider myself to be a die-hard ME fan, I can understand the cinematic concessions that would be needed to put a book on the scale of LoTR onto the big screen. However, that does not excuse some of the blatant disregard for important facts that Peter Jackson rearraged or left out. This may not bother virgin LoTR fans, but thought should have gone into not alienating the rest of us.

[scurtis]

One thing that the movies have done though is that because it has become part of popular culture is that it is viewed as just that. My sister wanted to write about LoTR for her free response for her AP history exam and her teacher told her not to because the AP reviewers don't like students writing about anything that has become popular.

[Black Breathalizer]

Durin1's comments in bold.

Omissions of Gil-Galad, Tom Bombadil and Glorfindal (to name but a few)

These people have little to do with the main plot of the story. It is very reasonable to expect that they would not be included.

The character of Arwen having more importance than was warranted.

More importance than was warrented? I think she has been given the importance she deserves. She is going to sacrifice her immortality to be with the man she loves and become Queen of Gondor. I think the movie audience has a right to know who this elf maiden is.

The sense of time in the book compared with the movies

Time passes more quickly in any movie, be it Gone with the Wind or Lord of the Rings.

Elves coming to Helms Deep when they actually hadn't (in the book.

I fail to see how this alteration changed the basic theme of Helm's Deep. It was a necessary cinematic concession that worked.

Even though I consider myself to be a die-hard ME fan, I can understand the cinematic concessions that would be needed to put a book on the scale of LoTR onto the big screen. However, that does not excuse some of the blatant disregard for important facts that Peter Jackson rearraged or left out.

Your comments make it quite clear you don't understand that cinematic concessions had to be made to bring LOTR to the big screen.

[Durin1]

In reply to Black Breathalizer...

You seem to have missed the whole point of what I was trying to get across. I had said that the changes in the movies made it difficult to explain other people who may want to get into Tolkien about the bigger picture of LoTR. I still stand by that. As for your other comments...

1. I did not say that peripheral characters should be included in the movies. I was taking examples of the obvious omissions from the book. However, in terms of Gil-Galad I totally disagree. It would have been nice for a mention of the High King of the Elves at the beginning of the book - nothing more. For a Last Alliance it seems strange that Elrond seemingly leads the Elvish forces when he is not even a King.

2. Arwen. I too love the movies but that still would not make me try and justify the role of Arwen, especially at the Flight to the Ford. And I DO understand that it is important to expand her character in line with the love story between her and Aragorn. Peter Jackson's motive was also that there is a distinct lack of female characters in the books. He wanted his women to play a bigger part in the events.

3. Elves in Helms Deep. Necessary? Who says? The whole idea was ludicrous but still did not make me dislike the movie. But this "concession" has no real basis and could have been left out.

4. Sense of time. We are not talking about such a great and important aspect of the film, but it would have been nice to get a scale of the expanse of ME and that fact that it would have taken days to get anywhere (Gandalf's trip to Gondor at the beginning of FoTR being a prime example). The rule that timescale is quicker in any movie is not the point. You can never compare movies such as LoTR with other smaller scale works.

For YOUR information Black Breathalizer, it seems obvious to me that YOU don't understand that not every single "cinematic concession" has to be justified.

I am perfectly well aware that concessions would be made, my arguement is that not all those concessions had to be made.

[Black Breathalizer]

Durin1: You seem to have missed the whole point of what I was trying to get across. I had said that the changes in the movies made it difficult to explain other people who may want to get into Tolkien about the bigger picture of LoTR. I still stand by that.

BB: The movies were never designed to "tell the bigger picture" nor should they have been. The moment a screenwriter begins adding details (names, people, places, etc.) that have nothing to do with the central plot, all he does is confuse the audience unnecessarily.

There are many things "that would have been nice." Unfortunately, the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases. You will get more of those pieces of cake in the Extended DVDs.