Did we lose something?

[Dreran the Green]

This thread is specifically for those who read the books BEFORE they saw the movies, but this is a Tolkien forum isn't it? So thats probably most of us.
Anyway I was looking for a thread like this, but couldn't find one. Forgive me if theres one floating around somewhere.

I was just thinking, now that the movies are out, and we have seen all these actors portraying our beloved hobbits, elves, and so forth, have we lost the ability to see these characters and places through our own imaginations? Yesterday I was rereading TTT, and to my surprise all I could picture when Legolas or Frodo appeared was Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood. Maybe now that we have seen the movies we have lost something that was in the books for each of us personally that we can't get back anymore. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this.

[zinnite]

The last time I read the book was several years before the films came out, so my memory was already a little fuzzy as to how I visualized each character. I have read it several times since I first saw FotR, and one thing I have noticed is that while I was able to basically maintain my imagined appearance for some characters, others have been totally supplanted by the actors in the films.

Gandalf, Saruman (to a certain extent), Gollum, and the hobbits were pretty close to the mark film-wise as I had imagined them, insofar as their mannerisms and appearance are concerned (though certainly not their faces); I have been able to carry on with the reading without seeing Elijah Wood and Christopher Lee, for example, to an overwhelming degree. The same goes for Gimli. And the Elves, well, except maybe for Galdriel, there is no comparison between imagination and "reality." I still see the Elrond, Celeborn, and Haldir I pictured long ago.

Except for Legolas, which does bother me a little bit.

As far as the humans are concerned, however, I now always visualise Aragorn, Boromir, faramir, Theoden, etc., as the actors who portrayed them. I had pictured them all quite differently, and now I don't even faintly remember what I thought they looked like. The same goes for the orcs, too.

Now, I have a sub-question; while I may be able to forget the looks of some film characters while I read, I cannot get their voices out of my head (especially for dialogue that's straight from the book). It's not really a bad thing, as I think the voices in most cases are pretty good (though I think Hugo should lay off the Agent Smith every now and then). Does anyone else experience that?

[olsonm]

I've had no problem seperating the book and movie. My visualization of the book has changed upon each reading as I better undrestood what was being described. In areas where my imagination was vauge (terrain and costume) I have gladly used the movies as 'aides' in creating my own mental image. I don't see the actors faces or hear their voices when reading (though I wouldn't object to the later).

[durin's bane]

I was beginning FotR when the movie came out, so I didn't have a picture of my own. But after the movie, when I continued reading, I still was able to picture things my way, though most of them resembled what the movie showed. So I didn't really have a problem envisioning things my way, but the movie helped a great deal and plained things out for me because I'm not good at following descriptions.

[cassiopeia]

I view the book and the movie seperately. I don't imagine the actors faces when I'm reading, but like zinnite, when I read a bit of dialogue in the book that's in the movie, I hear the actor's voice. The films helped me visualise the settings better as well (Rivendell especially).

[hectorberlioz]

YES. It happens to me when i have just seen the movies, but it goes away eventually.

[Radagast The Brown]

No, I didn't have a problem... with most of the characters, at least.

The only character I coudn't stop imagining as someone from the movie is Elrond... and he was evil & ugly in the movie. I can't magine him as as I used to.

[Dreran the Green]

Elrond is a virus

[SamwiseGamgeeOTS]

i definatly lost my view of hobbits. tolkien described them a bit chubbier and merrier then PJ portrayed them in the movie...or at least as i viewed it. So, now i have a problem everytime i read 'The Hobbit' of read anything that concerns hobbits (lol)

BLAST!

[Elvengirl]

When I read the books now, I still visualize them the same as prior to the movies, but I think the movies did such a good job of portraying the books, no let me specify, portraying the characters and Middle Earth. Though, I defintely don't think it was all perfect, while I was watching the movies, it was as if I was watching it from my imagination. Tolkien created and described Middle Earth and its people so vividly, I can't imagine anyone interpreting it otherwise.

Anywho... to sum it up, no, the movies did not destroy my visualization and ability to imagine the stories and I have Tolkien to thank for that.

[Lalaith]

I don't think that I have lost anything. I like it that I now have a certain picuture in my mind.

[Artanis]

I don't imagine how the persons look like when I'm reading, so in that respect I haven't lost anything. Besides, before the movies I had already seen so many pictures by Tolkien artists, so the movies was really just another rendering.

[Black Breathalizer]

A great question, Dreran the Green!!!

I think I've gained a great deal and lost nothing. Thanks to the films, I now picture the characters with much greater clarity than before. This might not have been good IF the casting hadn't been so incredibly dead-on.

For me, the casting was near perfect. When I first saw Viggo as Strider and Ian McKellan as Gandalf and Sean Astin as Samwise, I was amazed at how Peter Jackson had reached deep into my own imagination and put beloved characters on film to near-perfection. The only people I had envisioned slightly different was Boromir, Saruman, and Legolas and - quite frankly - I've come to believe that the film version was an improvement from what I thought before.

Reading the books now, I still use my imagination. In fact, the film has allowed me to be MORE imaginative, not less. I still envision some things that are different from the films but I have no trouble encorporating my own unique imaginings with Tolkien's and Jackson's. The time since the opening of the FOTR and TTT films has been very exciting because my Middle-Earth is getting more rich, detailed and "real" to me all the time.

[IronParrot]

I would agree with Breathalizer in that my clarity of vision regarding the books has been supplemented, not supplanted by the films - but for me it has nothing to do with the characters, so much as my mental image of the settings. The characters were pretty much as I'd envisioned them anyway, so when I saw the movie, nobody was particularly unfamiliar. I could even tell Merry and Pippin apart at the first viewing, and I know some people who'd read the books who couldn't do that.

Plot changes to the book don't bother me, mostly because I've seen (and enjoyed) so many legendary films that deviated from their sources with respect to certain specifics - Gone With The Wind, The Godfather, that kind of thing.

One thing I really appreciated about the films is that at times, it drew my attention to things in the book that I'd previously glossed over, but upon which Peter Jackson & co. focused. The Watcher in the Water comes to mind, but the things I'm referring to are often much smaller than even that.

When you think about it, Tolkien was very specific as a descriptive writer, so it isn't too surprising that on a visual level, the movies were very much what I wanted them to be.

Regarding Hugo Weaving, I think his role is hurt only because his character in The Matrix was so legendary, and audiences had trouble escaping that. Some actors just won't escape the reputations of their breakout movies, plain and simple - and it's not their fault.

[Anglorfin]

I kind of hate to say this because I have recieved a lot of flak about it already, but the only thing that keeps me enjoying the books as I personally imagine them is the fact that I have to tell my mind to despise the movies. I cannot let myself make any positive connections with the movies. So may say this is extreme, but it's the only thing that keeps my little world of Tolkien intact without intrusion.

[IronParrot]

I kind of hate to say this because I have recieved a lot of flak about it already, but the only thing that keeps me enjoying the books as I personally imagine them is the fact that I have to tell my mind to despise the movies. I cannot let myself make any positive connections with the movies. So may say this is extreme, but it's the only thing that keeps my little world of Tolkien intact without intrusion.

Well, if that works for you, fine - but then that begs the question:

Do you do the same with, say, paintings by John Howe or Alan Lee?

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by IronParrot


Regarding Hugo Weaving, I think his role is hurt only because his character in The Matrix was so legendary, and audiences had trouble escaping that. Some actors just won't escape the reputations of their breakout movies, plain and simple - and it's not their fault.

I've seen Hugo in a few things preceding the Matrix (namely Pricilla, Queen of the Desert), and his acting style was completely different from that of the Agent Smith typecast. It makes think that PJ must have wanted him to act in that style, as opposed to another mode of acting. In which case: I would argue that the typecasting is just a small part of the problem.

[IronParrot]

In which case: I would argue that the typecasting is just a small part of the problem.

You have a valid point regarding how he plays the role. But I don't think it's really a problem, per se, until you bring the typecasting into it.

For example, for me, Russell Crowe will always be Officer Bud White from L.A. Confidential. In Gladiator he plays a similar enforcer and tough guy in much the same ill-tempered manner (just without the American accent), but the fact that he'd done that sort of role before didn't undermine his acting in that movie. And similarly, A Beautiful Mind proved that he was capable of something different, too.

[olsonm]

Weaving's Elrond is different from his Agent Smith. The facial expressions, body language, vocal tone and character are all different. The cadence can be similar but since it derives from different characteristics (Ancient wisdom vs. programmed methodicalness) important to the characters, it can hardly be blamed on the actor. I see many facial expressions on Elrond that immediately remind me of his "Queen of the desert" role.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by IronParrot
You have a valid point regarding how he plays the role. But I don't think it's really a problem, per se, until you bring the typecasting into it.

I guess my question is this: is Weaving so limited an actor that he can't (for a lot of people) bring a distinction between ancient wisdom, and programmed methodicalness, or is it PJ who mis-directed him, or is the problem purely typecasting? I, personally, believe it to be a combination of all of the above rather than just a typecasting problem. I think Weaving was mis-directed. I think there is a problem with the scope of his acting, with regard to certain styles. And yes, I believe that it doesn't help that he as some lines that are perhaps a tad too similar to Matrix lines!

On the whole I agree with your point regarding typecasting, but I don't think it can adequately explain the whole problem, per se. And I do think that to some degree, the actor is at fault, since I don't believe that I have seen his "Agent Smith" style in prior movies to the Matrix.