Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[hectorberlioz]

What would be better? a good adaptation? or a good film?. It would be nice to have both, especially something tolkien wrote. As the perfect was not produced im still for both.

not all thoe who wander are lost-from bilbos poem

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
What would be better? a good adaptation? or a good film?. It would be nice to have both, especially something tolkien wrote. As the perfect was not produced im still for both.

And what makes you think a good adaptation would not make a good movie? Why does a story that has been loved by millions around the world and held in high regards need to be changed just because it is told visualy instead of on paper?

Tolkien's work is a masterpiece, and not just for books, but for stories in general.

But some people feel that the movie audience is to brain dead to enjoy a good story without a ton of action and characters who are no more the comic relief.

I would rather have no movie then the disgrace PJ has done to a brilliant story. He either did not care about the story or had no respect for the author and his fans.

[LutraMage]

Well, I've read hours of the stuff on this thread (in the end I had to give up - 881 Posts is just too much to read in one lifetime)!

By the end of it I can come to a firm decision - A plague on both your houses!

[Lizra]

Well...you get an "A" for effort LutraMage! (plus you have the coolest avatar on the moot! )

[LutraMage]

Lizra, why thank you very much wasn't expecting any compliments, but all the more grateful for that. May the Light of Earendil's Star forever illuminate your path. Raises Wizard's hat to Lady and bows.

[Black Breathalizer]

Last night I reread Shadow of the Past and found myself becoming very uncomfortable when Gandalf picked up the Ring. I was like, "no, no, no, Gandalf...you can't do that!"

It's interesting how Peter Jackson's wonderful LOTR movies are changing the way we view the source material now. What I once viewed as simply odd, I now view as a big mistake on Tolkien's part. The ring is altogether evil and made with Sauron's own blood and fused with much of his power. Gandalf would never have touched it, let alone hold it in his hand.

[Lizra]

Your vacation turned you into a real "comedian" eh! That's pretty rich BB. It seems you have become BBB....Brainwashed Black Breathalizer! My Goodness!

[MasterMothra]

i am going to go on the record and say that Black Breathalizer is dumb.

To illustrate my point, I would encourage any Mooter who would argue that Black Breathalizer is not dumb to please provide specific examples of plot deviations that CHANGED THE UNDERLYING THEMES of my main post.

[Black Breathalizer]

So you are going to tell me with a straight face that it's okay for Gandalf to be playing with the ring?!?!??!!?

Peter Jackson isn't perfect, but neither was The Master.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
So you are going to tell me with a straight face that it's okay for Gandalf to be playing with the ring?!?!??!!?

Peter Jackson isn't perfect, but neither was The Master.

It was a fictional book. Tolkien could do anything since he WROTE the book. You may think that Gandalf couldn't touch the ring - but your opinion really doesn't matter. It's Tolkien that matters.

And yes - I think that for a short time - Gandalf could touch the ring. The only reason why Jackson had Tolkien not touch the Ring was becuase as with EVERYTHING he needed to make it over the top.

BB - I have come to the conclusion that Jackson's movies have brainwashed you. Obviiously that must be the case if you think that Jackson's opinion of what can and can't happen in TOLKIEN'S Middle Earth - supersedes Tolkien's writing.

[Black Breathalizer]

The litmus test for any discussion about "right" or "wrong" in Middle Earth is the whole notion of "keeping it realistic" given the fantasy parameters that JRR Tolkien established.

Given these standards, it makes much more sense that that a wizard as powerful as Gandalf wouldn't have wanted to even touch the ring. In this situation, Jackson presented a stronger and more compelling case for the way the ring should have been handled.

Saying that whatever Tolkien originally wrote has become Law and is undebatable is nothing more than intellectual laziness.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The litmus test for any discussion about "right" or "wrong" in Middle Earth is the whole notion of "keeping it realistic" given the fantasy parameters that JRR Tolkien established.

Given these standards, it makes much more sense that that a wizard as powerful as Gandalf wouldn't have wanted to even touch the ring. In this situation, Jackson presented a stronger and more compelling case for the way the ring should have been handled.

Saying that whatever Tolkien originally wrote has become Law and is undebatable is nothing more than intellectual laziness.

Why do you think that Gandalf couldn't even TOUCH the Ring? It was powerful - but it did NOT corrupt immediately - so what is the problem with him touching it for just a second? Gandalf was also not human - so he didn't have the same frailities of man.

[azalea]

I understand why PJ made the Ring a very "all or nothing" type power, because he had to demonstrate in a short amount of time its properties/ qualities in a very dramatic way. But Tolkien created the Ring to be subtle -- and that is why I maintain that corruption by the Ring is not an instantaneous occurance. It draws "weaker" beings in immediately (ie, desiring to possess it), but doesn't immediately make them "evil" or what have you. Gandalf, being very powerful and also knowing a lot about "magic" rings, would be able to touch it and not be compromised (I think that's the word I'm looking for). It is only if he were to become the "owner" that he would feel its draw more and more, and then over time be corrupted by it so that he would be tempted to use it, thereby causing the spiral into "evil" use.

Again, the Ring itself is subtle and works its change over time, but in the movie, it had to be more dramatic to allow the unknowing viewer to understand both the extent of its power AND why Gandalf or another being of power couldn't just do the deed himself. However, I of course much prefer the "book way," and of course I think there are other avenues that could have been taken in a film version to demonstrate the same things I mentioned above. I love the movies, but will never be joining the "J improved T" club.

[jerseydevil]

i agree Azalea - hence the dumbing down of the books and spoonfeeding the audience. It could have been much more suspenseful about the dangers of the Ring if it was done like the books - but Jackson basically just lays it all out there and makes it all very black and white.

[Cirdan]

Wasn't there an aspect of the ring that made it a problem to take it from the owner, but the aspect of it being given by the owner was ominous? That subtly was left out of the b&w version of the ring in the movie. I didn't think the change was very significant, good or bad. Just a minor detail.

[MasterMothra]

"So you are going to tell me with a straight face that it's okay for Gandalf to be playing with the ring?!?!??!!?

Peter Jackson isn't perfect, but neither was The Master."

are you for real, or just trying to cause a scene? of course its ok for gandalf to play with the ring. you know why? cause TOLKIEN WROTE IT THAT WAY. and last time i looked, tolkien, not PJ, wrote LotR and everything else that has to do with middle earth.

here, let me simplify it for you:

who created the character of gandalf? Tolkien

who created the concept of "the one ring"? Tolkien

who created the situation where gandalf touches the ring? Tolkien

who created the whole concept of the LotR in vivid detail? Tolkien

what did PJ create? a movie about LotR

who's opinion would you trust more; pj or Tolkien?

[Lizra]

Having Gandalf touch the ring and not freak only shows what a awesome wizard he is! (IMO) Gandalf the Great!

[Black Breathalizer]

Whether or not the ring would have had an impact by Gandalf merely touching or holding it is certainly open to debate. But would the Gandalf we've grown to know from reading the books over and over have handled the ring the way Tolkien wrote in Chapter Two? I'm not so sure. Loooooooooooong before the movies came out, I thought Gandalf handling the ring was odd and seemed to contradict the way he dealt with the ring at Bilbo's departure and the way he talked about it in Bag End and at the Council of Elrond.

I would also like to address MasterMathra's rant. First, we all know who wrote LOTR. But once the story was retold on radio, then in Bakshi's movie, and now PJ's movies, the story became our modern-day version of mythic storytelling. Just like there are numerous "versions" of King Arthur's tale or the Greek and Roman myths, there are now variations on "what really happened" long ago in the lands of Middle Earth.

Mythology isn't about copyright ownership, it's about the mindset of the story's fans. Yes, the Tolkien estate OWNS the novels, but they don't own the imaginations of LOTR fans around the world.

It's funny, when SW: The Phantom Menace came out, legions of fans expressed outrage at George Lucas for "selling out" his series and not staying true to what made the original trilogy great. There were others that said, "What are you talking about?!?!? GL owns Star Wars, he can do with it what he damn well pleases." But as is the case of all beloved stories, the fans have their own voice and their own power. If anyone disagrees with me on this, remember what happened to the Highlander series after the disaster that was Highlander 2. Basically, Highlander fans told the writers with their voices -- and their wallets -- that they blew it. The producers of the series listened and then proceeded on with developing a Highlander 3 movie as if Highlander 2 had never even existed.

I think there are some very interesting points to discuss between Tolkien's original version and Jackson's. But if the Purist response is: "Tolkien wrote it...that's all there is to it...end of story, " why bother even posting here??? All it does is cut off any interesting discussion about which approach is more realistic and works best for a movie adaptation. This is a movie discussion board, not a Book Purist Endoctrination Camp for crying out loud.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would also like to address MasterMathra's rant. First, we all know who wrote LOTR. But once the story was retold on radio, then in Bakshi's movie, and now PJ's movies, the story became our modern-day version of mythic storytelling. Just like there are numerous "versions" of King Arthur's tale or the Greek and Roman myths, there are now variations on "what really happened" long ago in the lands of Middle Earth.

It's not the same. King Arthur was an ORAL legend - not a written book. Same with many of the Greek and Roman myths. You can not compare them and it is ridiculous that you try.

Mythology isn't about copyright ownership, it's about the mindset of the story's fans. Yes, the Tolkien estate OWNS the novels, but they don't own the imaginations of LOTR fans around the world.

So does that mean that whatever anyone choices to say about Middle Earth would be acceptable? Does that mean we can just start adding new creatures? Maybe someone can do movie of Middle Earth where the elves are actually aliens from another planet.

It's funny, when SW: The Phantom Menace came out, legions of fans expressed outrage at George Lucas for "selling out" his series and not staying true to what made the original trilogy great. There were others that said, "What are you talking about?!?!? GL owns Star Wars, he can do with it what he damn well pleases." But as is the case of all beloved stories, the fans have their own voice and their own power. If anyone disagrees with me on this, remember what happened to the Highlander series after the disaster that was Highlander 2. Basically, Highlander fans told the writers with their voices -- and their wallets -- that they blew it. The producers of the series listened and then proceeded on with developing a Highlander 3 movie as if Highlander 2 had never even existed.

Under both of these you are talking about a work in progress. Lord of the Rings is finished. What Tolkien wrote is what he wrote.

As for George Lucas and the Star Wars Series - Star War (episode IV) - was good. After that - they progressively became more and more cartoon like and hollywoodized.

I think there are some very interesting points to discuss between Tolkien's original version and Jackson's. But if the Purist response is: "Tolkien wrote it...that's all there is to it...end of story, " why bother even posting here??? All it does is cut off any interesting discussion about which approach is more realistic and works best for a movie adaptation. This is a movie discussion board, not a Book Purist Endoctrination Camp for crying out loud.

Well it's not kiss jackson's a$$ forum. either. I think the movies aree pretty much crap. Even if they weren't associated with tolkien - I would think they were only average except for the scenary. The movie is cliched and I do not think it is a good interpretation of Tolkien's books. You may disagree - and that your opinion. My opinion is that you basically would like to see a simplistic movie and accept hollywood's arrogant attitude that the audience is too dumb to understand it without having everything spelled out.

[cassiopeia]

Regarding Gandalf handling the Ring in the book, he holds it for perhaps twenty seconds at most, not long enough to be corrupted, especially considering he's a maia. And Gandalf handling the Ring has an important function: he throws it into the fire to confirm that it is actually the One Ring. Frodo had it in his breeches-pocket; it was not in an envelope like in the movie. I have no problem with that scene from the book.