|
Post by Divides the Waters on Sept 11, 2008 18:01:37 GMT -5
I meant Faramir, sorry. Faramir, in the book, made it clear that he wouldn't touch it with a thirty-league pole. Faramir of the film was much more susceptible to its allure.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Sept 14, 2008 9:31:32 GMT -5
Anyone heard anything new about the Hobbit films?
|
|
CastleLyons
Junior Member
Virtute et Fidelitate
Posts: 83
|
Post by CastleLyons on Sept 14, 2008 14:11:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Oct 4, 2008 10:29:23 GMT -5
Tolkien's works are my all time favorites. There are plenty of things that you can say good and bad about the movies, but I found several scenes/ideas that were actually superior to the books, in my opinion. My very favorite scene fron all three movies was when Gimli attacked the ring with his axe during the Council of Elrond. It showed the charactor of both Gimli and the Ring so clearly, that I can't think of the story without it. The second improved concept was showing Sarumon as the clear enemy in Erigon and the Redhorn pass. This seemed like a weakness to me in the books that again changed the story for me. The last was the depth given to Borimir's charactor during his conversation with Aragorn by the river. It made me genuine morn his loss, where in the novel, his loss was a relief.
Scincerely,
Scintior@aol.com
|
|
CastleLyons
Junior Member
Virtute et Fidelitate
Posts: 83
|
Post by CastleLyons on Oct 4, 2008 11:56:45 GMT -5
I can see how Boromir's death might have been a relief, but in his death scene, there was redemption. He confessed his fealty to his king (Aragorn), and Aragorn accepted it. I was so glad that the movie did not leave that out. It's a very touching scene, and a great picture of our being accepted by the King when we repent.
Also, Boromir dies in a heroic act of trying to save the Halflings. His true character shines out in his final scenes in both the book and the movie. But I do agree that the movie actually brings this out a lot more clearly than the book does.
|
|
|
Post by JC Lamont on Oct 19, 2008 0:56:12 GMT -5
I list LOTR as the single most influential book(s) in my life. Um, not to be a nag, but you do mean second most influential book right? There's a certain Author who did top Tolkien. ;D
|
|
|
Post by violan5 on Mar 8, 2009 22:30:05 GMT -5
I do like how they portrayed Boromir's death in the film. What do you think about them changing how Saruman and Wormtongue died and leaving out the last chapter about Hobbiton?
(I agree with JC Lamont)
|
|
|
Post by mongoose on Mar 9, 2009 1:35:50 GMT -5
LAME! That was in reference to the post by violan5. I'm almost a purist, I suppose, when it comes to movie renderings of great books. I enjoyed the four hour Bourne Identity made in the 70s or 80s, for instance, far more than the new one.
As for a story/book greater than Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, you have the Silmarillian. But besides Tolkien, you've got 66 books, by a number of different authors, some of whom we can establish as being the authors of some of those works, and others of which were written and compiled by individuals that we can not identify with any kind of certainty. Leaving aside questions of its reliability, authority, innerancy, usefulness etc. some of it is great literature, and some of it, not so much. So I would hope that the Bible would impact our lives more than Tolkien's collected works, but not due, necessarily, to the quality of the stories or the writing. It's power is in its source of inspiration, not in its word choice, or plot or character development, or story structure, or any other literary device used by authors lacking the kind of divine inspiration that was had by the authors of the Bible. Thus ends my rabbit trail.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Mar 9, 2009 11:14:28 GMT -5
The problem with altering the storyline regarding Saruman and Wormtongue is that it lessens the four hobbits' role. They come back to an untouched Shire and all anyone knows is that they left, and now they're rich and wear funny clothes. In the book, they fought for and with their people.
It also diminishes Galadriel's gift to Sam. She didn't give him a rope--he found it in the bottom of one of the boats. She gave him special soil that he used to heal the land of the Shire.
Maybe he should have done little featurettes for the DVDs. One of the burning of the Shire and its rescue, one of Tom Bombadil, and one of the icky caves where Merry and Pippen really found their swords.
|
|
|
Post by duchessashley on Mar 9, 2009 13:19:20 GMT -5
So, this poses an interesting question:
Imagine if you will that YOUR work was made into a movie, but for entertainment/timing/whatever purposes, certain scenes had to be changed or rewritten. How would you feel about that?
Are you so thrilled that your concepts and characters are on the big screen? Or would they have to pull the script out of your cold, lifeless hands before they could proceed?
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Mar 9, 2009 14:57:30 GMT -5
Who's reworking it? Peter Jackson? Steven Spielberg? That'd be alright. Who was it that said when it comes to authors selling movie rights, there should be a large wall around California that authors toss their books over, and producers toss over a check? I can't remember.
|
|
|
Post by duchessashley on Mar 9, 2009 16:04:47 GMT -5
It's an interesting thought to me. I don't know what I would do. Would it be selling out to compromise my initial vision? And if it's something that I, as the author, think improves the story, but my readers disagree, I might end up in big trouble! Tough call!
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Mar 9, 2009 19:56:41 GMT -5
I think the best tact for a non-headlining author is to smile politely, cash the check, and consider it a completely different story told by someone else. If you're a JK Rowling or a John Grisham, maybe you have enough weight to throw around. I think most authors should probably just be thankful if it helps to sell more books.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Mar 18, 2009 19:44:59 GMT -5
Movies have always been completely different animals. They cannot tell the exact same story as the book for a number of reasons (length being one of them...do we really want to have the scouring of the shire in there when the ending is already substantially longer than most films?). I agree that there were some issues with the adaptation, but overall, I thought the producers did a brilliant job of taking a long, wandering story and turning it into a long, focused story. (I learned quite a bit from that, and applied it to my own novel when I did a much-needed rewrite. The point is not to change things, per se, so much as to make everything relevant.)
|
|
|
Post by smr411 on Feb 26, 2010 20:32:33 GMT -5
I hope I am not saying the same thing over, since I didn't have time to read ALL that was on this page but here's my little thought. Just one thing I wanted to say. I have read the Lord of the Ring and the Hobbit once. I own all three LOTR and a few months ago I was starting to read LOTR a second time (I never got through with it though because I purchased another book) and I decided to read the foreword thing this time. Well, in the foreword that Tolkien wrote he made it distinctively clear that he did not mean to put any spiritual themes in his books, that he actually avoided it in LOTR (in the other books I'm not sure). So, while many people like to think there's much deeper, spirtitual meaning in his books, I would have to disagree. So, that's just my little thought.
|
|