On Tolkien, and on books and movies

[anghara]

I just tripped over Pat Rothfuss's take on the upcoming "Hobbit" movie - here - go read, I'll wait

Comments

[robling_t]

So much word on "John Carter" -- who did they think they were going to draw in with that title that was worth sacrificing the built-in draw of adding the "of Mars"? I mean, I actually went, "hm, John Carter, that name sounds kind of familiar... Wait, is this 'A PRINCESS OF MARS' John Carter we're talking about...?" Completely mistook their audience, methinks.

[thebluerose]

Wow thats a lot of emotion :) And to a certain extent I agree with you. But I think the fact is that they DID pick their demographic and they played to it perfectly

[birdsedge]

I'm with thebluerose on this. I probably am the demographic they aimed the movies at and I loved them. I'm hugely looking forward to Yhe Hobbit. I'm sorry that LOTR disappointed you, but it's obvious that you already have your perfect LOTR movie playing in your head every time you re-read the books, and no one - NO ONE - is ever going to be able to make that movie, probably not even you given unlimited resources and a cast of thousands. It's like Radio. Tne pictures are always better on radio, because they are your personal ideal.

For most of us Jackson's adaptation of LOTR was a masterpiece and yes, some of us did know where it differed from the written word, but we forgave it those changes because at last - AT LAST - someone took fantasy seriously.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I know where you're coming from, but please forgive the rest of us our weaknesses.
:-)

[sartorias]

For most of us Jackson's adaptation of LOTR was a masterpiece and yes, some of us did know where it differed from the written word, but we forgave it those changes because at last - AT LAST - someone took fantasy seriously.

birdsedge beat me to it!

[mcjulie]

My husband was one of those people who never really took to the books, but he loved the movies. I was really happy that the movies had finally made the story something we could share

....look, mayhem, battle, blood, swords, all that - and oliphaunts to boot!

[zornhau]

I rather liked the films in their own right.

I hope that John Carter at least manages that.

[bunsen_h]

Elsewhere, there is a heated discussion about the misogyny of Rothfuss's analogy. And while I understand their point, to some extent... there's a part of me that's saying "Yeah. That's exactly right." about his metaphor.

My first "difficult" moment of the film came in the first few seconds, when the voice-over told us that Sauron had crafted all the Rings, including the Three. And Arwen holding a sword to Aragorn's throat, to show how bad-ass a Warrior Princess she was... you don't do that, any more than you point a loaded gun at someone. Not if you really know how to handle the weapon.

[anghara]

"Elsewhere, there is a heated discussion about the misogyny of Rothfuss's analogy

[lenora_rose]

I rather thought that using Arwen in Glorfindel's place was a good idea. Not for feminist reasons, but for cinematic compression reasons. Films often work better if you compress things that were really done by handsful of people into a couple of characters, tightening the cast into a few more easily identifiable figures.

Then Jackson ruined it by having her, not Frodo, defy the Ringwraiths at the Ford, which suited neither character at all and was for me the first real hint where Jackson didn't Get Tolkien..

I love the movies (in spite of the dwarf-abuse), but they aren't definitive and they aren't Tolkien. They are excellent Tolkien-derived quest fantasy.