Well, I tried to watch LOTR.

WTF? The movies were almost exactly like the way I imagined events in my mind, and where they differed, I found that it was an improvement. Tolkein may have invented the fantasy genre but a number of improvements have occured since his time. In particular it's way, way better that Aragorn doesn't recieve the re-forged Narsil until the third movie. Tolkein kind of blows his load too early by having that happen in the first novel.If you think these movies were somehow not good, then you need to see the other LOTR dramatizations, which suck hardcore simply because they cleave too closely to the original.

I would certainly agree with that, but I disagree that the themes experienced significant "tampering". If anything I think that the changes, or to look at it another way, corrections, actually succeed in bringing out themes that Tolkein had undercut in the original books. Not quite the beginning; we are after all introduced to Aragorn under an assumed name, in a kind of self-imposed exile. Reluctance to fight is a theme in Tolkein's conception of Aragorn; a theme that he catastrophically undercuts by having Aragorn adopt the mantle of king (symbolically, through his acceptance of Narsil) almost immediately in the first book. Which makes the title of the thrid book kind of stupid: "Return of the King"? The King returned in the first book, not the third. I dunno. Honestly, the books are so damn boring that I've never made it past the middle of the second one. (The bit between Gandalf and Saruman was better than I had imagined it, though.) Like I said, I think the changes in the movies made Tolkien's work better, because they fixed mistakes he never would have made had be been writing the novels now, with 50 years of fantasy genre development behind us, rather than when he did. If you want to see LOTR movies that cleave to the books, those are out there. And they're terrible. The movies succeed as well as they do because they depart from the source material, which just isn't that great. It's treasured, but it's not that great.

Yes, and to that alone.In the movie, however, the title carries a double meaning - both the return of the king to his rightful throne, and the return of the "king" within Aragorn, from the self-imposed inner exile he had been in. That's a brilliant symbolism, but one that Tolkein didn't think of. No fault of his; it's simply an invention, now de rigeur, in the fantasy genre since he wrote the novels. I was aware of it. Tolkein missed an opportunity in his plot pacing to set up a brilliant double meaning. Peter Jackson did not, and the movies are an improvement on the books as a result, at least in that regard.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-11-2004 06:59 PM

I agree. I don't mean to knock Tolkein from his throne - his books were a considerable achievment, and invented Second World fantasy as a genre (and sub-genre), but better works have been written since his time, objectively; and subjectively, I've enjoyed other fantasy works far, far more than LOTR, like Tad William's "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn" books, or Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" novels. Look at it this way. Edison may have been the Wizard of Menlo Park, but today we have far, far better light bulbs than any he invented. So too with Tolkien. That I find his pacing awkward, his plots meandering, and his descriptions often possessed of frivolous and unnecessary depth, doesn't deminish the fact that the entire genre owes him a debt of gratitude.But if LOTR came out today, instead of when they did, and if everything else about the fantasy genre was the same, the LOTR books would be dismissed as mediocre at best. On their own merits, they're just not that good. In their historical context, they're brilliant.

Lol! Heh, thanks Nosy, but I'm not worried about some "Frodo Lives!" fanboys.

Bah. I mock your stick, and invite you to attempt to apply it to my hindquarters as you suggest - provided you attempt to do so at my apartment.My apartment full of swords.

My mistake. As you had not hitherto specified the location of the whuppin', I assumed the target was the customary one in such cases.But much as Musashi carved a boken from an oar when he grew weary of steel, I'm prepared to cross sticks with you. You may choose the island, in the ancient tradition.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-12-2004 01:01 AM

But it's possible for contemporary writers to affect that older style of writing without boring the pants off the reader. As an example I offer Steven Brust's "Phoenix Guards" books, a set of fantasy novels written in a faux-Alexander Dumas "Three Musketeers" style. Both gripping and charming. Or the Lemony Snicket novels. I love Jules Verne and H. G. Wells, so it's not that I can't stand the earlier writing. And it's possible for modern writing to be too fast-paced, and skimp on the details (Clive Cussler, I'm looking in your direction.)But Tolkien just doesn't do it for me, but to say so apparently brings all the fanboys out of the woodwork, or something.

Oh, yeah. I say one of those at the local pothead store. You turn it upside-down and all the seeds fall to the bottom and sound like rain.How soothing!

Yes, you're right. Didn't mean to move the goalposts like that.As near as I can tell, as objectively as anyone can be about judging art, Tolkein is not a compelling writer by today's standards. Again, that shouldn't be taken as "Tolkien isn't a great writer", but rather, as indicative of how the fantasy novel has advanced in the last 50 years.Yes, he doesn't do it for me, but my larger point is that, compared to the field of fantasy literature today, Tolkein wouldn't do it for the majority of fantasy fans if the historical context of his books was removed.

Rather than mock you for your opinions, which you're good enough to be honest about, I thought I'd ask you some questions so that you might elucidate on them.Both my parents have graduate degrees that include stage costuming, and as an erstwhile medevial reenactor myself, I have somewhat of an eye for the autheticity of costume. I found the costumes very compelling, very authentic, and exactly along the lines i had imagined them from the book. Maybe you had a different mental picture, and I'd like to know in what ways you found the costuming deficient.For instance I found these guys:a lot better dressed than these guys:Why isn't Aragorn wearing pants?Now, that's comparing animation and live action, but if you want to delve into some crappy fantasy costuming, here's Conan: The Governor:I found the costumes in LOTR quite, well, succulent, if you will. The general trend in english-ethnic fantasy movies is to costume from the anglo-germanic angle; it was nice to see a fantasy movie tied together with celtic trappings (not just the costumes, but the music, too).

Leaving what out, exactly? The Balrog? The Nazgul riders on their evil wyverns? The ents? The hobbits? Aren't those all kind of important to the story?These were the best special effects I've ever seen, simply because so many of them were completely unnoticable. Did you know that Elija Wood is almost as tall as Ian McKellan?I certainly didn't see any effects that were gratuitous, and nothing would have improved the movie by being left out, as near as I can tell. "Swooping noises"? Examples?Is it possible that your TV is adding artifacts to the movie, and making "effects" and "noises" that aren't really there? Surely you have a friend with a better setup?

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm referring to the actors that (so magnificently) played Frodo and Gandalf.Elija Wood is not a midget or a child; none of the hobbits are. Their diminutive stature was the result of special effects, but you'd never know it. It's not obvious? That the evil of the Nazgul brings evil, gross stuff out of the woodwork? That's not obvious too? It's to display how unnaturally evil the black riders are. They're not just bad people; they're evil beyond the normal world. Correcting another one of Tolkein's mistakes, if you ask me. Same with the Tom Bombadill ridiculousness. I don't recall them ever described that way in the books. No, I'm fairly observant when it comes to sound. (Perhaps "observant" isn't the right word - earservant, maybe?) It sounds like it's either your tv or your ears.I mean, I think Fox goes a little overboard with their graphic effects and the commensurate sounds that go with, but I don't remember any such nonsense in LOTR. Just the sounds of the stuff that was happening.I gotta ask, do you watch a lot of movies? Some of the comments you make are like a guy who goes to the theatre and afterwards is asked his opinion, and replies "it was ok, I guess, but who were all those guys up there in funny clothes?" In other words it seems like you lack a basic familiarity with a lot of the conventions of cinema.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-12-2004 04:32 PM

Maybe I'm too used to the clear distinction drawn in fantasy games, but I couldn't understand or see the difference between orcs, Uruk-hai, and goblins, or if there even was one.

But this isn't just bad-guys-in-robes taking-candy-from-babies evil. This isn't just "don't like the looks of this guy" evil.This is "evil flowing off of them in waves, like cheap cologne" evil, evil that you're supposed to feel, even if you can't see them. But since movies can't transmit feelings directly, they have to do it in pictures.Now you may say "no, I got all that without the bugs bit", but I submit that you didn't, and had that scene been ommitted, we might have seen you say "you know, I just don't think the Nazgul looked evil enough" and you might have faulted the costuming, or something.In short I think the bugs bit had the intended effect on you, but because you don't watch a lot of movies, you weren't able to recognize that it was the bugs that made you get that sense about them. Much as most people - including me - knew that there was a great wrongness about Grima Wormtongue the minute we laid eyes on him, but until someone said something about it, we had no idea that the reason he looked so evil was because he had no eyebrows.Subtle, yet, right there out in the open. Tolkien describes them this way:

quote:

---

The Nazgl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death.

---

Not very "fair", I would say. So this isn't so much the movie not adhering to the books; it's your imagination not adhering to the books. AbE: Didn't realize that that passage is actually from the Silmarillion. Like, say, the One Ring? Do you think that maybe that's what Tolkein was symbolically referring to?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-12-2004 08:51 PM