The latest Lord of the Rings movie, was simply not Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. And my philosophy is that, unless it's an adaption that stays faithful to the spirit of the books--though not necessarily an exact retelling--then I don't want to see it. So this really good news for me, and I'll rooting for the trust the whole way.
Ultimately, I would like to see a good Tolkien movie made, but unless it's done right I don't want to see it all.
The latest Lord of the Rings movie, was simply not Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
I think you're right. But I also think that it specifically did NOT WANT be Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Heh, go figure.
The main problem is not that there's a different version per se, but that it has made it difficult or impossible for a closer retelling, one that "gets" what the story is actually about, to be made, as the LotR movie niche has been taken up.
Tolkien was voted author of the 20th century. You'd think the work that made him most famous would deserve at least one accurate telling. :) (By accurate, of course, I mean accurate to the spirit, not necessarily the exact plot/structure, like you say.) But one telling, accurate or not, is all its going to get, looks like.
Interestingly, most probably believe the films actually do portray the spirit of the books accurately. :)
In truth, the actual structure and plot of the films is much closer to the books than the "spirit" is.
I am fine with the law suit. I, too, wish the trust all the best, though it result in no more film media of Tolkien's world.
Regarding Jackson's films, they are fun and full of many wonderful visions and scenes. However, some of the choices made upset me. The change with Arwen seems pointless. Theup-tempo change of making the Black Riders appear constantly makes me grind my teeth.
When I was young, some of the scariest things I ever saw had more to do with atmosphere and what you didn't see than what you did, or when you did see it. "Hollywood" today is stuck on always providing action. Wouldn't it be so nice to have the actual action sequences punctuate the movie instead of being just another point of action in the film?
The Black Riders would have been even more menacing if they were correctly filmed as being an unseen menace until their appearance on Weathertop.
Films today are so busy that I have a hard time watching nearly anything all the way through. Even my beloved Bond films are nearly ruined. I have to look the other way to try to enjoy anything. Why is there only one way to make a movie, and that's with stuff either blowing up or some sort of action happening every few minutes of film?
When I was young, some of the scariest things I ever saw had more to do with atmosphere and what you didn't see than what you did, or when you did see it. "Hollywood" today is stuck on always providing action. Wouldn't it be so nice to have the actual action sequences punctuate the movie instead of being just another point of action in the film?
The Black Riders would have been even more menacing if they were correctly filmed as being an unseen menace until their appearance on Weathertop.
Thank you for saying that. :)
Nothing is scarier to one person than their own imagination. Atmosphere provides the materials to paint your own fear, and what you don't see is the canvas. If you see something that is kind of scary, well it's kind of scary but that's it--you know what it is now, and the fear is lessened by that. But if all there is is some scratching sound at the other end of a dark hallway--Oh geez! There could be anything in that dark hallway! You're own personal fears manifest in that hallway.
Er--I digress. But the same idea applies. The Black Riders are scary in the books because they are not in the foreground. You keep hearing about them, but they don't really appear. Where are they? They could show up anywhere!
That kind of subtle fear that feeds on the natural human fear of the unknown is the scariest kind of fear.
Oh wait, we were talking about a lawsuit right? Yeah, those can be pretty scary too; you don't want to be on the wrong end of one.
Like I said I'm rooting for Christopher Tolkien; I personally don't think it's fair to Tolkien to make an adaption that isn't accurate to the spirit of his story.
Looks like they settled it, with the heirs and charity finally getting their due, and also for the movie-philes, a go-ahead for the Hobbit films. Not my first choice for an outcome, as I truly fear what wiz-bang action hero fluff they'll be adding with the Action Jackson team still at the producer's helm. But at least the profits may serve some genuine good this time, in the hands of the Tolkien trust/charities.
Yeah, so true about the film Black Riders. They just aren't very scary in comparison to the way they appear in the books. Tolkien had a wonderful, subtle hand, and he knew that overexposing the scarier elements of the story just wasn't going to be as effective. Unfortunately, this is something the films are terribly guilty of (seriously--a literal "giant eye" blobbing all over the landcape?! Ya. . . Now let's try and say it together boys and girls, "met-a-phor").
I think a really good example of this subtlety versus sensational dynamic occurs when (in the books) while escaping the Shire, Frodo suddenly looks back into the growing dark and sees the distant, shadowy figure of a rider standing on the far bank just watching them. Eeep! Sends chills down my spine every time I read it. Very subtle. Very scary.
The film riders just made me laugh, sorry. Even on horse back they can't seem to outrun a little guy with a legs maybe a foot and a half long, rofl. Forest terrain or not, that's just silly. That they were so continuously pushed in your face in these action sequences really took away their mystery and true scare factor.
But typical Hollywood often loves that kind of over the top shenanigans, and the LotR film makers were unfortunately a bit quick to take up the mantle rather than considering the subtle artistry with which the Professor built his iconic story in the first place.
Tolkien, as a writer and artist, knew full-well that story-telling mediums were not so different from one another, nor that they needed to be treated completely differently when rendering them from book to film or whatever. He stated this in the 1950s I believe, after a reading the script for a proposed LotR film one of the film studios was trying to pitch to him (and which bore many similarities to the recent LotR films ironically!) It's too bad this general wisdom is still greatly lacking in the film-making industry today.
The latest Lord of the Rings movie, was simply not Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. And my philosophy is that, unless it's an adaption that stays faithful to the spirit of the books--though not necessarily an exact retelling--then I don't want to see it. So this really good news for me, and I'll rooting for the trust the whole way.
Ultimately, I would like to see a good Tolkien movie made, but unless it's done right I don't want to see it all.
I think you're right. But I also think that it specifically did NOT WANT be Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Heh, go figure.
The main problem is not that there's a different version per se, but that it has made it difficult or impossible for a closer retelling, one that "gets" what the story is actually about, to be made, as the LotR movie niche has been taken up.
Tolkien was voted author of the 20th century. You'd think the work that made him most famous would deserve at least one accurate telling. :) (By accurate, of course, I mean accurate to the spirit, not necessarily the exact plot/structure, like you say.) But one telling, accurate or not, is all its going to get, looks like.
Interestingly, most probably believe the films actually do portray the spirit of the books accurately. :)
In truth, the actual structure and plot of the films is much closer to the books than the "spirit" is.
Ironic.
Well, you have to remember; they cant make a COMPLETE representation of the books, would cost too much, but I think the fans would be pleased.
Personally, I enjoyed the PJ's films, except for a few bits; namely The Galadhrim in Helms Deep
I am fine with the law suit. I, too, wish the trust all the best, though it result in no more film media of Tolkien's world.
Regarding Jackson's films, they are fun and full of many wonderful visions and scenes. However, some of the choices made upset me. The change with Arwen seems pointless. Theup-tempo change of making the Black Riders appear constantly makes me grind my teeth.
When I was young, some of the scariest things I ever saw had more to do with atmosphere and what you didn't see than what you did, or when you did see it. "Hollywood" today is stuck on always providing action. Wouldn't it be so nice to have the actual action sequences punctuate the movie instead of being just another point of action in the film?
The Black Riders would have been even more menacing if they were correctly filmed as being an unseen menace until their appearance on Weathertop.
Films today are so busy that I have a hard time watching nearly anything all the way through. Even my beloved Bond films are nearly ruined. I have to look the other way to try to enjoy anything. Why is there only one way to make a movie, and that's with stuff either blowing up or some sort of action happening every few minutes of film?
When I was young, some of the scariest things I ever saw had more to do with atmosphere and what you didn't see than what you did, or when you did see it. "Hollywood" today is stuck on always providing action. Wouldn't it be so nice to have the actual action sequences punctuate the movie instead of being just another point of action in the film?
The Black Riders would have been even more menacing if they were correctly filmed as being an unseen menace until their appearance on Weathertop.
Thank you for saying that. :)
Nothing is scarier to one person than their own imagination. Atmosphere provides the materials to paint your own fear, and what you don't see is the canvas. If you see something that is kind of scary, well it's kind of scary but that's it--you know what it is now, and the fear is lessened by that. But if all there is is some scratching sound at the other end of a dark hallway--Oh geez! There could be anything in that dark hallway! You're own personal fears manifest in that hallway.
Er--I digress. But the same idea applies. The Black Riders are scary in the books because they are not in the foreground. You keep hearing about them, but they don't really appear. Where are they? They could show up anywhere!
That kind of subtle fear that feeds on the natural human fear of the unknown is the scariest kind of fear.
Oh wait, we were talking about a lawsuit right? Yeah, those can be pretty scary too; you don't want to be on the wrong end of one.
Like I said I'm rooting for Christopher Tolkien; I personally don't think it's fair to Tolkien to make an adaption that isn't accurate to the spirit of his story.
Looks like they settled it, with the heirs and charity finally getting their due, and also for the movie-philes, a go-ahead for the Hobbit films. Not my first choice for an outcome, as I truly fear what wiz-bang action hero fluff they'll be adding with the Action Jackson team still at the producer's helm. But at least the profits may serve some genuine good this time, in the hands of the Tolkien trust/charities.
Yeah, so true about the film Black Riders. They just aren't very scary in comparison to the way they appear in the books. Tolkien had a wonderful, subtle hand, and he knew that overexposing the scarier elements of the story just wasn't going to be as effective. Unfortunately, this is something the films are terribly guilty of (seriously--a literal "giant eye" blobbing all over the landcape?! Ya. . . Now let's try and say it together boys and girls, "met-a-phor").
I think a really good example of this subtlety versus sensational dynamic occurs when (in the books) while escaping the Shire, Frodo suddenly looks back into the growing dark and sees the distant, shadowy figure of a rider standing on the far bank just watching them. Eeep! Sends chills down my spine every time I read it. Very subtle. Very scary.
The film riders just made me laugh, sorry. Even on horse back they can't seem to outrun a little guy with a legs maybe a foot and a half long, rofl. Forest terrain or not, that's just silly. That they were so continuously pushed in your face in these action sequences really took away their mystery and true scare factor.
But typical Hollywood often loves that kind of over the top shenanigans, and the LotR film makers were unfortunately a bit quick to take up the mantle rather than considering the subtle artistry with which the Professor built his iconic story in the first place.
Tolkien, as a writer and artist, knew full-well that story-telling mediums were not so different from one another, nor that they needed to be treated completely differently when rendering them from book to film or whatever. He stated this in the 1950s I believe, after a reading the script for a proposed LotR film one of the film studios was trying to pitch to him (and which bore many similarities to the recent LotR films ironically!) It's too bad this general wisdom is still greatly lacking in the film-making industry today.