Re: From my experienceratcreatureDecember 30 2003, 07:15:21 UTC
I think if I had read it first as an adult or even as an older teenager, I would have never had the same attachment to it. As it is I started to have serious problems with the universe, for example with the racism in it. Not that I want to start a flame war, which is very easy with this topic, but it's more than "superficial" problems like the descriptions of the bad guys, for example this idea of lesser and higher men, and bloodlines being lessened through intermingling between them, and though I know that there are ways of interpreting what is told that are less racist than others, for example when in the appendix of LOTR it is said that the shortening of the Dúnedain's lifespan is due to Middle Earth itself and their greater distance from the light of the West, not due to mingling with the 'lesser' men as the descendants of Númenor themselves thought, or the places where unity in origin of men is stressed, etc., still each time I read Tolkien I have this uncomfortable feeling about his universe.
I actually didn't reread Tolkien for quite some time because of that, but in the end my emotional attachment to Middle Earth far outweighs any problems I have with it, and I don't think that would have been possible if it hadn't made is imprint on me very early.
Re: From my experiencejenna_thornDecember 30 2003, 08:08:43 UTC
But that's true in any universe created in any series of books. My emotional fondness for Narnia is still there, despite the fact that as I grew older I discovered the overt religous iconography for the faith I rejected. I don't read the books myself, because it does interfere with my immediate enjoyment, but I still smile with I think of the Snow Queen and her Turkish delights. My fond memories of curling up with Nancy Drew while quarentined with the chicken pox remain despite well...Nancy Drew...c'mon.
And I'm sure that eventually my son will be embarrassed at the mediocre writing of Rowling as he discovers good writers, but he will always have a soft spot in his heart for Harry and Ron and Hermione.
I believe that anything, be it family member or fantasy world, that we are fond of as children, we tend to remain fond of (barring drastic change) despite later revelations of alcoholism or political agenda.
How this relates to the original post? I suspect that the die hard fans are people like us, whose early ideas of Utopia were based on the illustrations of Rivendell.
Interesting (well, to me at any rate) is the division, I suppose schism is not too harsh a word, within those of us who do share that background, for those of us who filed Santa Claus along with Lothlorien as the 'way it should be but not the way it is' at the age of eight. Amongst that group are (1) those who willingly suspend disbelief not only of the nine to five world of ten key and phones but also of our knowledge of book canon - folks like me, who loved the books and love the movies as separate entities and (2) folks who loved the books and were irate at the changes made and refuse to accept the movies under any circumstance, furious that their childhood utopia has been tainted by being thrown on the big screen. I'd be curious to explore what sparks that difference.
Re: From my experienceratcreatureDecember 30 2003, 09:37:50 UTC
I actually don't much care anymore about any of the other books I've read as a kid. Certainly I'm not fannish about any of them. I mean LOTR isn't really a children's book, so that's part of it, but I really loved Sherlock Holmes too, for example, but now I'm fairly indifferent. I haven't read Nancy Drew (I'm not sure they're popular here, I hadn't heard about these books until I've seen them mentioned by English speakers a lot), and I only vaguely remember reading some of Narnia, but there were plenty of fantasy worlds I did love as a kid and teenager that I never think about anymore. So for me Middle Earth is unique in that respect.
I think I like the movies because IMO while they change events and even characters the universe is still true to the books, and they supplied gorgeous and extremely detailed visuals for that universe which I had been somewhat lacking before. (I don't have detailed mental visual images when I read a book, it's probably why I always preferred comics to books. *g* Come to think of it I still love plenty of the comics I read when I was younger and reread those, so maybe I'm just not as much a book person as others, yet the mechanism you mention is the same after all.) For me the world building has always been the main attraction of Tolkien, not characters or events, so what I care about most, works for me in the movies. Of course I'll still always think of the events as they happened in the books and the characterizations there as the "real" ones. :)
Re: From my experiencejenna_thornDecember 30 2003, 11:47:57 UTC
maybe I'm just not as much a book person as others, yet the mechanism you mention is the same after all
And I am sure that there are television watching (as opposed to book reading) people out there whose concept of feminine beauty was molded as children by Daisy Duke and they still find cut off shorts attractive. Whatever the medium, I suspect the molding process is the same.
Of course I'll still always think of the events as they happened in the books and the characterizations there as the "real" ones
I suspect I will as well, though quite honestly I *like* movie Boromir better than book Boromir. That's my not-so-secret crush on Sean Bean showing, I fear.
they supplied gorgeous and extremely detailed visuals for that universe
and with a very few exceptions did so magnificently. Grond, wow! Minas Tirith, oh yes. Eowyn, cheer!
I like the original Dune movie, as compressed as it was, simply for the visuals, too. Well, and Sting, but I was younger then. But yes, Jackson took the time to make Hobbiton a real place with waving grasses and jumping kids and that earns him a smiley face in my book any day. Because I always wanted to live there and in a small secret part of my heart, I still do. And Jackson fought to give me that, for which I will happily forgive his cutting Tom Bombadil et al.
Re: From my experiencerimrunnerDecember 30 2003, 17:06:44 UTC
I *like* movie Boromir better than book Boromir. That's my not-so-secret crush on Sean Bean showing, I fear.
Oh, I don't know. I observed after seeing TTT (theatrical cut) that the movies had made Boromir less of a jerk, Faramir more of one. Having now seen the EE and RotK, I have to revise that; Faramir's conscience was just on vacation for a little while there, that's all.
They're both nice guys who just happen to be able to slaughter dozens of orcs at a go, even when stuck full of arrows as big around as saplings.
Re: From my experiencejenna_thornDecember 31 2003, 06:17:32 UTC
I was most amused that in the director's/writer's commentary on the dvd for Towers that Jackson and crew spent quite a lot of time defending their decision to have Faramir drag Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath (and almost the same amount of time defending their choice to make Pippin the hero of the Entmoot and reduce the Ents decision accordingly. Perhaps I'm not the only person who was upset by that, after all). They recognize that he needs defending.
And who wouldn't find orc-slaying pincushions sexy? Heaven knows I do. Wow.
Re: From my experienceviridian5December 30 2003, 18:46:32 UTC
I suspect I will as well, though quite honestly I *like* movie Boromir better than book Boromir. That's my not-so-secret crush on Sean Bean showing, I fear.
Partly, but I think movie Boromir is also more sympathetic than book Boromir.
Jackson took the time to make Hobbiton a real place with waving grasses and jumping kids and that earns him a smiley face in my book any day.
I love his Hobbiton. It's somewhat idealized but has enough realism to it to work. Besides, the round doorways make me smile.
Re: From my experienceviridian5December 30 2003, 18:42:05 UTC
It makes a big difference that Peter Jackson obviously loves this world. This is a man who had people spending two months creating chain mail for everyone.
I'm always creating pictures in my head of what I'm reading. It's part of the fun for me.
Re: From my experienceviridian5December 30 2003, 18:27:39 UTC
Some of the class things in Lord of the Rings bothers me too.
I don't have the prior attachment to the books to mess with my views of the movie, but for books I enjoyed that movies were made of, like The Crow and Interview With the Vampire, I tend to see the books and movies as related but different things, so I can say that I wish the movie did such and such from the book but not get really upset about it. I'm told that I'm unusual that way. *g*
unusual that wayjenna_thornDecember 31 2003, 06:32:56 UTC
Oh I don't know. There are some of us out there. 8-)
Kipling's The Jungle Books is another of those works that mom read to me. (Hmm, should have used that as an example in the thread with Ratcreature, because it's very similar to hers. Now I read half of them and cringe at the colonial bombast but at the time, they were adventure stories) yet I love the animated movie that Disney made of them (Not the weird live action adventure thing with Cary Elwes as the Brit. *That* one is another case of borrowing character names and settings and making a movie and calling it by the original's title. Grr. I'm thinking of the animated musical from the late 60's.)
I love movie Baloo and Baggy is a stuffy old man. Once I get 'Bare Necessities' caught in my head, it'll be there for a while and Shere Khan's voice gives me shivers in the best possible way. But in the books, my heart belongs forever to Bagheera, buying a child with a bull. Separate and equally beloved.
Re: unusual that wayjenna_thornJanuary 1 2004, 06:00:08 UTC
And (circling back to the original topic)- I bet you wouldn't feel that way, that personally intimately defensive of, well, to be honest, a fictional character, had you first been introduced to him as a sulking college freshman.
No, he's the hero protector that you first met as a child and built your hero protector image around. That is what a protector should be, not Hoss or Captain Kirk or the cop from the TV show whose name escapes me or the Power Rangers. As my idea of "The Man you want to marry" was built around Faramir, not Boromir, not Frodo. Which is why I was highly grumpy about the way Jacson changed him (though I too, am much calmer now).
Re: unusual that wayviridian5January 4 2004, 05:27:01 UTC
Right. Just because something isn't a total adaptation of the source material doesn't mean it can't have its own merits, some of them entirely separate from the source material.
I actually didn't reread Tolkien for quite some time because of that, but in the end my emotional attachment to Middle Earth far outweighs any problems I have with it, and I don't think that would have been possible if it hadn't made is imprint on me very early.
Reply
And I'm sure that eventually my son will be embarrassed at the mediocre writing of Rowling as he discovers good writers, but he will always have a soft spot in his heart for Harry and Ron and Hermione.
I believe that anything, be it family member or fantasy world, that we are fond of as children, we tend to remain fond of (barring drastic change) despite later revelations of alcoholism or political agenda.
How this relates to the original post? I suspect that the die hard fans are people like us, whose early ideas of Utopia were based on the illustrations of Rivendell.
Interesting (well, to me at any rate) is the division, I suppose schism is not too harsh a word, within those of us who do share that background, for those of us who filed Santa Claus along with Lothlorien as the 'way it should be but not the way it is' at the age of eight. Amongst that group are (1) those who willingly suspend disbelief not only of the nine to five world of ten key and phones but also of our knowledge of book canon - folks like me, who loved the books and love the movies as separate entities and (2) folks who loved the books and were irate at the changes made and refuse to accept the movies under any circumstance, furious that their childhood utopia has been tainted by being thrown on the big screen. I'd be curious to explore what sparks that difference.
Reply
I think I like the movies because IMO while they change events and even characters the universe is still true to the books, and they supplied gorgeous and extremely detailed visuals for that universe which I had been somewhat lacking before. (I don't have detailed mental visual images when I read a book, it's probably why I always preferred comics to books. *g* Come to think of it I still love plenty of the comics I read when I was younger and reread those, so maybe I'm just not as much a book person as others, yet the mechanism you mention is the same after all.) For me the world building has always been the main attraction of Tolkien, not characters or events, so what I care about most, works for me in the movies. Of course I'll still always think of the events as they happened in the books and the characterizations there as the "real" ones. :)
Reply
And I am sure that there are television watching (as opposed to book reading) people out there whose concept of feminine beauty was molded as children by Daisy Duke and they still find cut off shorts attractive. Whatever the medium, I suspect the molding process is the same.
Of course I'll still always think of the events as they happened in the books and the characterizations there as the "real" ones
I suspect I will as well, though quite honestly I *like* movie Boromir better than book Boromir. That's my not-so-secret crush on Sean Bean showing, I fear.
they supplied gorgeous and extremely detailed visuals for that universe
and with a very few exceptions did so magnificently. Grond, wow! Minas Tirith, oh yes. Eowyn, cheer!
I like the original Dune movie, as compressed as it was, simply for the visuals, too. Well, and Sting, but I was younger then. But yes, Jackson took the time to make Hobbiton a real place with waving grasses and jumping kids and that earns him a smiley face in my book any day. Because I always wanted to live there and in a small secret part of my heart, I still do. And Jackson fought to give me that, for which I will happily forgive his cutting Tom Bombadil et al.
Reply
Oh, I don't know. I observed after seeing TTT (theatrical cut) that the movies had made Boromir less of a jerk, Faramir more of one. Having now seen the EE and RotK, I have to revise that; Faramir's conscience was just on vacation for a little while there, that's all.
They're both nice guys who just happen to be able to slaughter dozens of orcs at a go, even when stuck full of arrows as big around as saplings.
Reply
They're both nice guys who just happen to be able to slaughter dozens of orcs at a go, even when stuck full of arrows as big around as saplings.
You can never have too many nice guys like that!
Reply
And who wouldn't find orc-slaying pincushions sexy? Heaven knows I do. Wow.
Reply
Partly, but I think movie Boromir is also more sympathetic than book Boromir.
Jackson took the time to make Hobbiton a real place with waving grasses and jumping kids and that earns him a smiley face in my book any day.
I love his Hobbiton. It's somewhat idealized but has enough realism to it to work. Besides, the round doorways make me smile.
Reply
I'm always creating pictures in my head of what I'm reading. It's part of the fun for me.
Reply
I don't have the prior attachment to the books to mess with my views of the movie, but for books I enjoyed that movies were made of, like The Crow and Interview With the Vampire, I tend to see the books and movies as related but different things, so I can say that I wish the movie did such and such from the book but not get really upset about it. I'm told that I'm unusual that way. *g*
Reply
Kipling's The Jungle Books is another of those works that mom read to me. (Hmm, should have used that as an example in the thread with Ratcreature, because it's very similar to hers. Now I read half of them and cringe at the colonial bombast but at the time, they were adventure stories) yet I love the animated movie that Disney made of them (Not the weird live action adventure thing with Cary Elwes as the Brit. *That* one is another case of borrowing character names and settings and making a movie and calling it by the original's title. Grr. I'm thinking of the animated musical from the late 60's.)
I love movie Baloo and Baggy is a stuffy old man. Once I get 'Bare Necessities' caught in my head, it'll be there for a while and Shere Khan's voice gives me shivers in the best possible way. But in the books, my heart belongs forever to Bagheera, buying a child with a bull. Separate and equally beloved.
Reply
Reply
No, he's the hero protector that you first met as a child and built your hero protector image around. That is what a protector should be, not Hoss or Captain Kirk or the cop from the TV show whose name escapes me or the Power Rangers. As my idea of "The Man you want to marry" was built around Faramir, not Boromir, not Frodo. Which is why I was highly grumpy about the way Jacson changed him (though I too, am much calmer now).
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment