True Tolkien fans do not acknowledge any of the Lord of the Rings movies. Do any other true fans agree that enjoyment of his stories should only come from reading?
2007-06-16 13:47:13 · 16 answers · asked by MISSY E 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
No, I don't agree either. And if I'm not a true fan, why did I fall in love with LotR standing in the Salt Lake City library reading the APPENDICES at the back of vol. 3?-- I *think* because vol. 1 and/or vol. 2 was checked out to someone else! Or why did I buy Donald Swann's song cycle, "The Road Goes Ever On"? Etc.
Yes, there are a few glaring problems with the movie. The big three:
1. The disposal of the ring ties up various strings the wrong way.
2. Jackson omits the Scouring of the Shire because he didn't "like" it. Of course he didn't like it; who could? It's all about loss and adulthood, and he didn't want to film that sequence. But that's the movie (or series) he should have made. It's been pointed out that every major character in the entire saga loses--often consciously sacrifices--something important to them; and they nevertheless win the conflict that matters. Omitting of the Scouring obscures that.
3. I don't know why Jackson omits Tom Bombadil. But I've got two clues. First, if that section were made, it would have to have been either wholly in animation, or animation w/ live-action like "Who Killed Roger Rabbit?" Second, I've talked to one guy who claimed to have read the book and couldn't remember the character at all. (See footnote misfiled under Sources below.) This is a major lack though not, in the end, a distortion.
Yet despite their flaws, the movies have brought Tolkien to a larger audience, practically all of whom are at minimum aware that there IS a book, and that people they know and respect have read it.
Finally, allow me to kid you on the square: As a gay man with a 50-year passion for heraldry, I was almost literally stunned by one still photo inside the back cover of the "Rough Guide to the Lord of the Rings": Viggo Mortensen wearing Aragorn's surcoat. That shot alone was worth all those years in New Zealand.
2007-06-16 14:30:14 · answer #1 · answered by georgetslc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"True Tolkien fans do not acknowledge any of the Lord of the Rings movies."
Twaddle! I first read the book 35 years ago and have read it a dozen times since then. I own the extended DVD version of the film and love that as well. It is Jackson's interpretation of the book which could not have been filmed as it was written. Interestingly, when I re-read the book I still visualise the characters as I have always done not as Jackson portrayed them. Frodo is a lot older for instance.
Even so I love both the book and the film and I am sure Tolkien would have been happy with the film. His grandson was, he even had a part in it - he was shot with an arrow in Osgiliath when the orcs crossed the river.
Leaving Tom Bombadil out didn't bother me at all. In many ways he was incorporated into Treebeard. The Scouring of the Shire fitted into the book but there really was no way it could have been done justice in an already lengthy film. The extended DVD version goes for nearly 12 hours. There was a glimpse of the troubles in the Shire in Galadriel's mirror as a possibility of failing to destroy the ring. I do not see its omission as a failing of the film.
2007-06-16 14:32:36 · answer #2 · answered by tentofield 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your first statement is wildly inaccurate, friend. Not only do many Tolkien fans acknowledge the movies, but also enjoy them. Yes, there are certainly problems with the movies that most "book" fans will be quick to point out, but overall, they were well done, and have led many people TO the books, who might not have otherwise read them. And really there is no reason to say that enjoyment ought to come only from the reading.
2007-06-16 15:45:54 · answer #3 · answered by Liath 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Lord Of The Rings movies were very well done, but a human's imagination is always better. You take a classic story like this and try to make it visual you are not going to please everyone. They have had to long to formulate their own vision in their head.
I am a big fan of King's "Dark Tower" series. I pray they never make movies out of these books. It would take away from what I have envisioned after reading the books 3 or 4 times. We visualize what we create. We create from what we know. It's never the same for everyone.
2007-06-16 13:55:59 · answer #4 · answered by Chazman1347 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a true fan of Lord of the Rings, and I LOVE the movies. They were not entirely accurate to the books, but pretty much so...except for taking out the scouring of the Shire at the end...I'm still POed about that one...but you have to admit the acting was good...Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd as Merry and Pippin was a perfect choice. And I loved whatshisface as Aragorn...That guy from Hidalgo...
The best choice in acting, though, was David Wenham as Faramir...he was exactly as I pictured him, and his acting was brilliantly done.
Peter Jackson, I think, did a pretty good job making a movie of the most intricately written fantasy story...it could not have been an easy task.
Edit: That guy up there is right...there were parts of the script that were taken directly, and I mean WORD FOR WORD out of the books...the movies were great!
2007-06-16 13:53:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I consider myself a true fan of the books, but I also enjoy the movies. I know that there are differences between the books and movies, but I also feel that since I didn't spend hundreds of hours making the movie, as Peter Jackson (the director) did, I don't exactly have the right to decide if he made it the "right" way.
Also, for those who don't have "strong" imaginations, the movies may help the stories to come to life for them. And, due to the amount of publicity for the movies, and their popularity, many more people have read and enjoyed the books.
2007-06-16 14:58:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i've read the book at least 15 times, but the movies are good too. for some people, the movies are the only way they experience the story. the theatrical versions are not as good as the extended releases, but peter jackson did an excellent job in keeping with the plot, unlike some other movies based on books (ella enchanted anyone???)
2007-06-17 13:18:10 · answer #7 · answered by kris 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The movies were great. They inspired my 2 kids to read the books, and even better... I got to meet a couple of the people who did created some of the sets for the movies.
2007-06-16 13:50:59 · answer #8 · answered by Carol B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I own and love all the movies. The book was ever so much better and included tons of intricacies that the movies decided to leave out. My favorite part of the book is when they meet Tom Bombadil. I do feel that because of the movies more people have been reading his books.
2007-06-16 13:55:55 · answer #9 · answered by becca7396 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've never read the books and I really enjoyed the movies, especially 'the tower'.
I think those movies being made gave Mr.Tolkien new fans also.
2007-06-16 20:31:02 · answer #10 · answered by tani n 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋