Your favourite movie

[Corwin]

Give the poor man a break, it was made in NZ which can explain a great many things!!

 

[gaboru93]

Star Wars
2Fast2Furious
er... Harry Potter?

 

[xSamhainx]

impossible question for me. I tried once, and it took me hours.

The aforementioned 16 Candles and Weird Science do definitely rank very high tho if we are talking sheer volume, I think me and my brother and friends watched both of those at least once a week for quite a while! They are very good movies too as well, I'm snickering just thinking about Wyatt's asshole brother, Chet, or Long Duck Dong passed out on the front lawn. Might have to give them another look here pretty soon.

 

[Arhu]

I can't understand how anyone who read LOTR could think the movies were better than the books.

Easy - I was spoiled because I had read other fantasy books, which were obviously inspired by Tolkien's work, before I eventually got to LotR. When I did read LotR, the story was ok but not "special", plus I found Tolkien's language a bit.. slow. I enjoyed the Wheel of Time much more, for example (minus the first book and some of the last ones).

I realize that LotR was the forefather of probably all High Fantasy as we know it today and I acknowledge the vast universe that Tolkien has created. Still, the books didn't work for me. In comes the Peter Jackson's version, which I liked a lot for the simple fact that it was the biggest and greatest fantasy movie to date and there hasn't been anything like it before in terms of sheer scope.

I know someone who has been reading LotR annually for who knows how many years, I believe he gets a bit more out of it through every reading or uncovers another hidden truth. I can even see how that's possible, although I couldn't and wouldn't want to do it myself. If I recall correctly he hated the things Peter Jackson changed in the movie, and that's something I will never understand. How someone can believe so devoutly that a movie adaption has to be or could be exactly like the original book. That can't and will never happen. Even Tolkien said as much if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Jaz]

I know someone who has been reading LotR annually for who knows how many years, I believe he gets a bit more out of it through every reading or uncovers another hidden truth. I can even see how that's possible, although I couldn't and wouldn't want to do it myself.

This only happened to me with Greenaway's movie 'The Draughtman's Contract'. Each time I saw it, I thought I had come soooo close to understanding what it was about, only to discover something new the next time I saw it.

 

[magerette]

Easy - I was spoiled because I had read other fantasy books, which were obviously inspired by Tolkien's work, before I eventually got to LotR. When I did read LotR, the story was ok but not "special", plus I found Tolkien's language a bit.. slow. .

I was lucky enough to read Tolkein in the 60's--a few of the "brainy' kids( a pre-geek term) in high school were passing it around. I still re-read it every few years, but it's very much a child of it's time (pre- & WWII Britain) when the advantages of a classical education and the formalities they engender were more commonplace. Back then, if you had a higher education, you learned Greek and Latin and traded quips as a matter of course. The amazing thing about the books is that they are able to transcend these conventions and speak to such an enormous audience.

I enjoyed the films as well, but they'll never be the same to me --like any thing you really love and think is perfect, it's hard to accept someone else altering it to "improve" it, which in this case meant to popularize and capitalize on the original.
To me the films missed a lot of the real emotional cargo of the books and substituted a rather saccharine and schmaltzy rendition of relationships. But Golem was absolutely perfect!

 

[JDR13]

I enjoyed the films as well, but they'll never be the same to me --like any thing you really love and think is perfect, it's hard to accept someone else altering it to "improve" it, which in this case meant to popularize and capitalize on the original.
To me the films missed a lot of the real emotional cargo of the books and substituted a rather saccharine and schmaltzy rendition of relationships. QUOTE]


I agree 100%

 

[Ionstormsucks]

I still re-read it every few years, but it's very much a child of it's time (pre- & WWII Britain) when the advantages of a classical education and the formalities they engender were more commonplace. Back then, if you had a higher education, you learned Greek and Latin and traded quips as a matter of course. The amazing thing about the books is that they are able to transcend these conventions and speak to such an enormous audience.

I'm one of the persons that is still reading Tolkien once in a while and everytime I read it, it becomes clear to me why this book was so damn successful. It's not only a nice story it's also flawless from a technical point of view. Here is someone at work who could actually write, in contrast to the many R.A. Salvatores out there who produce mere fast-food fantasy.
I liked the movies, they are a nice interpretation of Tolkien's books - but they are just that really. The main problem that Jackson was facing was that he was competing with the ultimate teller of fantasy tales, a competition which he could only lose.

 

[Corwin]

Plus, he had to fit 3 LONG books into the movies. Think about it, it takes several hours to read each book, but the movies have to be shorter. What to cut?? I think he did an excellent job!!

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Here is someone at work who could actually write

Personally, I don't believe Tolkien himself would've said that about his works.
(Just read the foreword of LOTR to see what I mean.)

For me, the books were and always are a totally different beast than the movies.
I regard Mr. Jackson's attempt as a fully recognized artistic "version" of the books, but it is - for my personal taste - nowhere near the books.

The main point, which the movies don't transporet at all, but are always there in all of his works of Middle Earth, is the grief and deep, deep, deep sorrow of the High Elves that they have to leave Middle Earth behind. We simply cannot feel this kind of sorrow, because we are mortal beinhs. Elves, however, are basically immortal. So their sorrow is with them as long as they live - and that is basicaly forever.

The Loss of the Two Trees, the Loss of Beleriand, the Loss of the Silmarils, the Loss of Elrond about his brother, Elros, the Loss of Arwen, daughter of Elrond ... the list goes on forever.

So, their lives is spoiled forever. They might live in peace and harmony on their "blesses continent", but the fgrief and sorrow is always there, deep at heart.

Lothlorien acts like kind of a time capsule, keeping all that was dear to the High Elves in a perfect, peaceful form.
With the waning might of the ring responsible for this, the world turned grey for them. All colours, taste and hamonies - vanished. So, the world became dull for them. They decided to leave.

This is the deepest theme I can find in the novels. The loss, and the grief and sorrow over it. This isn't being shown in the movies at all.

To me, the movies are rather like a *very* well made "joyride". The pictures are great, but Mr. Jackson decided to put the "action" point of view rather into the foreground.

That's my personal impression.

I plan to read the other books as well, but they are not too easy to get here - and they are expensive.

But nevertheless : Even the Unfinished Tales are a great read !

From what I've learned and read, I think/believe the main reason to build up this world was for Tolkien the image of a phantastic world. In several early writings the picture appears of "a wind going like waves through the plants of a field", - a thing which i believe must struck him very, very deeply. What, if this hadn't been the wuind, but instead creatures we simply cannot see ? Fairies, Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits even ? What, if this world would be inhabited by sentinent, thinking beings which are similar to us humans, but never there at all ?

I have once tried to put this feeling into words - long before I read the "Unfinished Tales".
This poem was written rather for the music of a song called "Sitting Down here" by one "Lene Marlin".

Faeries In The Sunshine

Dedicated to the Tolkiens (Christopher & J.R.R.) and
the makers of The Dark Crystal.


Walking across the meadow,
I begin wondering...

Could it be,
That there is more than ONE Light ?
Could it be
That there is more than we can see ?
Could it be
That there is more than we imagine ?
Could it be
That there is more than we know ?

(And) Then,
I begin wondering, dreaming
Siting down,
Closing my eyes...


Dancing Faeries, Out of the Shadows,
Walking homewards, search for Truth,
Dancing Faeries, not seen in the sunlight,
At least not by human eyes...

Dancing Faeries, In the Shadows,
Hiding themselves before human sight,
Dancing Faeries, In the Shadows,
Forever dancing, out of human sight...


Opening my eyes, I see nothing but sunlight,
Green, green trees, providing me shadows,
But I can imagine glorious laughter,
At someone (,) who cannot see
them...

Closing my eyes again, I try to see,
The sunlight warms my face, but I look into the shadows
Trying to see them (only) with cclosed eyes
Maybe that's the only way...


(Well, and there are)
Dancing Faeries, Out in the Shadows,
Hiding themselves fro human sight,
Dancing Faeries, lurking around me,
Making unheard laughter, at someone who can't see...

(And there are)
Dancing Faeries, out (of) (there) in the shadows
Knowing that they cannot be seen,
Dancing Faeries, Out of the Shadows,
Mimicking a bird or a tree...


Dancing Faeries, In the Shadows,
Unwilling (yet) to let themselves to be seen,
We all know what they have been,

Dancing Faeries, Out of the Shadows,
Dancing and floating in the air,
Is there ever any chance to see them ?


Dancing Faeries in the Shadows
Unwilling to let themselves to be seen,
Dancing Faeries, in the Shadows,
Do we all know, what they have been ?

Dancing Faeries, In the Sunlight,
We won't ever see them there,
Dancing Faeries, In the Sunlight,
Do we really know how to see ?

[Fade.]



Additional verse.

Dancing Faeries Out in the Shadows
They do not allow themselves to be seen,
Dancing Faeries Out in the Shadows
Do we really look at what we can see ?

Dancing Faeries There in the Shadows
Laughing at the simple human side
Dancing Faeries There in the Shadows
Do we really know what we can see ?


Dancing Faeries Out in the Shadows
Enchantments of Lightning We cannot see
Dancing Faeries Out in the Shadows
(I guess) only a blind one really could see...

Dancing Faeries Out Of The Shadows
Their essence is unreachable for us
Dancing Faeries Out In The Shadows
They're living their own world distinct from us...

(C) Alrik Fassbauer

 

[Ionstormsucks]

Personally, I don't believe Tolkien himself would've said that about his works.
(Just read the foreword of LOTR to see what I mean.)

I've read Tolkien's foreword to LOTR... more than once. Unfortunately Tolkien was very often quite wrong when it comes to the perception of his own works - he also believed that barely anyone would be interested in LOTR (probaly it's British understatement).
One should also not forget that newer literary theories attribute way more responsibilities to the reader than it was usual at the time LOTR was published. Personally I'm not a big fan of the reader-response theory and therefore agree with much of what Tolkien explains in his foreword to LOTR. But I'm also aware that not everyone does, or has to.
One should also not forget that Tolkiens works, first and foremost LOTR, is the only true fantasy novel that is read in an academic context on a constant basis. I know of no other work that could be attributed to the genre of fantasy (as we know it today) could usually be found on English literature reading lists (with exceptions of course).

I have to admit that I am not overly interested in Tolkiens other works - The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are without doubt his masterpieces. I'm also not very much interested in the world that Tolkien wanted to create. What I'm interested in are well-written novels, and at least from my point of view LOTR is one...

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Well, I also had several misconceptions about myself in the past - being too ugly and uninteresting was only one of them.

So I can see why Tolkien might's written this. He simply didn't see it. (The potential.)

I wouldn't call myself great, even if I was a top-seller in terms of books, music or whatever. I'm just me.

 

[JDR13]

I have to admit that I am not overly interested in Tolkiens other works - The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are without doubt his masterpieces.
QUOTE]


You've obviously never read "The Silmarillion."

 

[Corwin]

Actually, some of C.S. Lewis' works are on Lit lists, but then he and the big T were close friends!!

 

[Ionstormsucks]

I have to admit that I am not overly interested in Tolkiens other works - The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are without doubt his masterpieces.
QUOTE]


You've obviously never read "The Silmarillion."

I've read The Silmarillion. And I don't think it's as gripping as The Lord of the Rings. You know, there are reasons why everyone knows The Lord of the Rings, but comparably few people are as enthusiastic about The Silmarillion. It's great that you like it so much, but the overwhelming majority of readers just does not agree with you.
Without doubt the Silmarillion is well written, but here it is the story that is just not as fascinating as that of The Lord of the Rings. Just think about how many other fantasy novels are modeled directly after The Lord of the Rings...

 

[magerette]

Actually, some of C.S. Lewis' works are on Lit lists, but then he and the big T were close friends!!

I've often thought some of his books would make a great rpg--the Out of the Silent Planet/Perelandra/That Hideous Strength trilogy for instance.

 

[Corwin]

How about a game set in Narnia?

 

[txa1265]

How about a game set in Narnia?

Been there, done that ... how about a *good* and *original* game that integrates the themes of the Narnia universe ... that I could get behind

 

[JDR13]

I've read The Silmarillion. And I don't think it's as gripping as The Lord of the Rings. You know, there are reasons why everyone knows The Lord of the Rings, but comparably few people are as enthusiastic about The Silmarillion. It's great that you like it so much, but the overwhelming majority of readers just does not agree with you.
Without doubt the Silmarillion is well written, but here it is the story that is just not as fascinating as that of The Lord of the Rings. Just think about how many other fantasy novels are modeled directly after The Lord of the Rings...

Actually, the Simarillion was written well before The Lord of the Rings and all the mythology in that series: Orcs, Balrogs, etc, was born from that book. I don't doubt that more people know of LOTR because The Simarillion is not an easy book to read. While LOTR tells a fantastic story that is easy to get involved in, The Simarillion reads more like a collection of history lessons that only hardcore fantasy fiction fans can fully appreciate.

As far as how many other fantasy novels were modeled directly after LOTR, I can't think of any. What other novel tells the story of 4 Hobbits, 1 Dwarf, 1 Elf, 2 Men, and 1 Maia setting off on a quest to destroy a ring by throwing it into a volcano?

 

[Khass]

Regarding the whole Tolkien debate (and going slightly off-topic), if Peter Jackson would ever make a movie after Nan i Hin Hurin (Children of Hurin), I'd wander the streets preaching his name. He may not capture the feelings of it entirely, but it's much more obvious than in LotR, so he'll probably (or definately) make it a key element of the movie.