Eambar: Off-Topic Thread

[Nimbrethil]

Falathrim

Okay, seriously? Its because I realized early on that the movies could not possibly follow the books to the letter. You need to decide where canon-whoring is and is not applicable, and then you need to decide whether or not you'll shun it or not. I decided that they were just too damn beautiful to shun.

Ok. Well, the thing is, if you're going to make a movie version of a book, it's important that the movie bears more than a passing resemblance to the source book. Otherwise, why use the book at all? Just so that you can draw on an already-established fanbase? So that the script is half-written for you? Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Especially with a book like LotR, where the integrity of the work was important to its creator in the first place. Tolkien didn't put in things like the Scouring just because he felt like writing some more. Each detail contributes to the overall effect of the novel.

It's like paraphrasing a poem and saying that the paraphrase still communicates the poem's original idea just as effectively. Except that it doesn't and can't.

Films can be beautiful and meaningful in their own way, apart from literature, but to try to move from one medium to another pretty much never works. And I'll side with the original source literature every time. 3nodding

Phew. That was a long one. sweatdrop

Falathrim

And I can forgive you for despising the Dark Lighthouse of Barad-dur. That was just plain cruel and unusual punishment, and in this case I CAN think of better ways to do it that would make sense to everyone.

Oh, good. I was afeared of your death-inducing Force Powers.  

[Falathrim]

Nimbrethil

Ok. Well, the thing is, if you're going to make a movie version of a book, it's important that the movie bears more than a passing resemblance to the source book. Otherwise, why use the book at all? Just so that you can draw on an already-established fanbase? So that the script is half-written for you? Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Yeah, because the movies don't resemble the books at all. Why, if you hadn't told me it was Lord of the Rings, I never would have been able to guess!

Now that I've filled my sarcasm quotas of the day... Are you really trying to suggest that the movies don't resemble the books? I don't see how you could possibly make that claim.

I've explained why the Scouring could't possibly fit in. I've given reasoning for the Dead at the Pellanor Fields. And in the end any Tolkien fan should be able to realize that its about as close to the books as you can get without throwing at us a six part movie, each at least five hours long.

Nimbrethil

It's like paraphrasing a poem and saying that the paraphrase still communicates the poem's original idea just as effectively. Except that it doesn't and can't.

I don't see where anyone made that claim. In fact, I've been making the opposite claim. Paraphrase the poem so that it conveys the original idea, but don't ever claim that's its just as effective because that's impossible with two completely different medias.

Nimbrethil

Films can be beautiful and meaningful in their own way, apart from literature, but to try to move from one medium to another pretty much never works. And I'll side with the original source literature every time.

The movies were a success. It worked. Just because its not an absolutely perfect transcription from the books doesn't mean it's inherently flawed, as you seem to be claiming unless I read that wrong. There's a reason that it's credited as being based on the books by J.R.R. Tolkien.

*suffocates you anyway*  

[Nimbrethil]

Before I continue, I'm just gonna say that even though it sounds like I hate the movies, I really don't. I'm glad they were made. I'm just more glad that the books were made. 3nodding
...

There was no dire need for the movies to be made. No small children were being held prisoner until Peter Jackson & co. finished up filming. So my point was, that for people who claim to love the book so much, they sure took some pretty heinous liberties with it. Not even in the good and ever-lovin' name of parody, either. They were serious. Remember how they almost put Arwen at Helm's Deep? Remember in TTT EE where Gimli (or possibly Legolas) says "central nervous system"? Remember the numerous character massacres that took place? So do I.

So the only reason they really wanted to film these movies was to make some cash and spend some time in New Zealand. If this is as close to the books as they can get within given constraints, then perhaps LotR was not the film that they wanted to make. Scratch that; perhaps LotR was not the film that they should have made. Maybe it should have stayed unfilmable for awhile longer.

About the paraphrase bit:
Who wants an essentially watered down version of LotR, even if it is made with pretty moving pictures? I can read the books more cheaply, and recieve the full impact of JRR's vision, rather than half of the impact of Jackson's necessarily limited interpretation of JRR's vision. If it's not as effective, what good is it?

Falathrim

The movies were a success. It worked. Just because its not an absolutely perfect transcription from the books doesn't mean it's inherently flawed, as you seem to be claiming unless I read that wrong. There's a reason that it's credited as being based on the books by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Well, like I said, films do not equal books. I don't think that there can be a "perfect" transition from book to film, since "perfection" has to do with the nature of language and narrative and they way that the book is originally concieved in its purely linguistic format.

So no, you can't change a book into a film perfectly. But you can keep the the basic storyline and characters, even if you sacrifice other things. The films did not keep the original storyline and characters as they were written. So maybe they are inherently flawed, looking at them in comparison to the books.

Yes, I think it's a mistake to expect some kind of perfection and a smooth transition from page to screen. But come on. It's Tolkien. You can't just ******** that s**t up.

(I'm sorry, I ran out of words. You know what I mean. Just imagine I scraped together some eloquence at the end there. xp )  

[Falathrim]

What beauty and eloquence! eek

I don't think I can debate such an eloquent ending, sorry. sad


Of course there wasn't a dire need to make the movies. There wasn't a dire need for Tolkien to write The Lord of the Rings, either. Don't think there were any hostage situations in Iraq over the lack of a Hobbit sequel. Certainly didn't stop the guy.

Wait. Was Iraq around then? Lesse here... Iraq... was part of Ottoman Empire, I think. I guess it was! Yay off topicness!

The CEO of New Line wanted Lord of the Rings because it meant money. I have no doubts that the innumerable people invoved in the actual production did it for the sole reason of unceasing love for the movies. Or, most of them, at least. I have my doubts about some of the actors. Again, though, that's hardly the point, because a few actors =/= the entire team.

The way you type suggests that the movies strayed from the book more often then they followed it. That would be a horrible lie.

Time necessary to watch LotR = nine hours
Time necessary to read LotR = lots of hours

I'm kind of surprised that you think that there is no one on this good earth who doesn't like reading, yet still enjoyed Lord of the Rings. My sister hates the books with passion undying yet begged me to take her to the movies. Essentially, she preferred the watered down version with pretty moving pictures. I'm sure she isn't the only person in the world who feels this way.

You seem to be the mind set of wanting all of it or nothing. Sometimes you need to be willing to sacrifice some parts of a thing in order to get anything at all.

Nimbrethil

So no, you can't change a book into a film perfectly. But you can keep the the basic storyline and characters, even if you sacrifice other things. The films did not keep the original storyline and characters as they were written. So maybe they are inherently flawed, looking at them in comparison to the books.

You seem to be suggesting that PJ took the books and turned them into a movie that in no way whatsoever resembles the original book. At all. I don't get what you're trying to get at here.  

[Nimbrethil]

Falathrim

What beauty and eloquence! eek

I don't think I can debate such an eloquent ending, sorry. sad

Quiet, you. razz

Falathrim

Of course there wasn't a dire need to make the movies. There wasn't a dire need for Tolkien to write The Lord of the Rings, either. Don't think there were any hostage situations in Iraq over the lack of a Hobbit sequel. Certainly didn't stop the guy.

You missed my point. My point was that if you're going to make a film from an existing book, you might as well do it properly. And by "properly", I mean "without ******** s**t up", as in Elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir, and leaving out various integral parts of the basic storyline (Saruman's death, Scouring, etc).

Falathrim

The way you type suggests that the movies strayed from the book more often then they followed it. That would be a horrible lie.

What, you wanna do percentages? Number of seconds changed versus number of seconds verbatim? It's not about time, or "more often" versus "less often". Every part of LotR is important. It doesn't matter "how much" they strayed from the book. It matters that they did at all.

Falathrim

I'm kind of surprised that you think that there is no one on this good earth who doesn't like reading, yet still enjoyed Lord of the Rings. My sister hates the books with passion undying yet begged me to take her to the movies. Essentially, she preferred the watered down version with pretty moving pictures. I'm sure she isn't the only person in the world who feels this way.

I'm assuming you're talking about the "watered down" part. Those people would not be missing an essential part of themselves if they did not see the movie, like you or I (I'm assuming) would be without having read the books. The movie, in comparison to the book, is ephemeral fluff. Sure, it's nice to look at and it's kind of a fun ride, but for the "movies-only" people, it's not more than that. They don't care about LotR for the same reasons people in this guild do. They wouldn't have debates like this. Therefore, (though their aversion to the written word does not make them bad people, necessarily) they just don't count for the purposes of this discussion.

Falathrim

You seem to be the mind set of wanting all of it or nothing. Sometimes you need to be willing to sacrifice some parts of a thing in order to get anything at all.

Yep, you're right. I am thinking in terms of "all or nothing". That doesn't bother me, though. I can live without the movies.

Falathrim

You seem to be suggesting that PJ took the books and turned them into a movie that in no way whatsoever resembles the original book. At all. I don't get what you're trying to get at here.

Ok, I'll admit it. I'm exaggerating for the purposes of argument and hoping you won't notice. It's kind of hard to argue something I don't really believe in that strongly in the first place, though. I actually tend to agree with you. You have the easy side, so gimme a break. xd  

[Falathrim]

I have suddenly come down with a very splitting headache, so I'm only going to counter one point because if I think too much I think I might asplode or something.

Nimbrethil

I'm assuming you're talking about the "watered down" part. Those people would not be missing an essential part of themselves if they did not see the movie, like you or I (I'm assuming) would be without having read the books. The movie, in comparison to the book, is ephemeral fluff. Sure, it's nice to look at and it's kind of a fun ride, but for the "movies-only" people, it's not more than that. They don't care about LotR for the same reasons people in this guild do. They wouldn't have debates like this. Therefore, (though their aversion to the written word does not make them bad people, necessarily) they just don't count for the purposes of this discussion.

Well, the movies are made for all people, not just the pre-existing fans. As such, unfortunately, they do count for the purposes of this discussion.

...

Wow, that explanation sucked. I need an advil...

Nimbrethil

Ok, I'll admit it. I'm exaggerating for the purposes of argument and hoping you won't notice. It's kind of hard to argue something I don't really believe in that strongly in the first place, though. I actually tend to agree with you. You have the easy side, so gimme a break.

There's a reason I'm not in debate. I am incapable of playing Devil's Advocate. wink  

[Nimbrethil]

Falathrim

Well, the movies are made for all people, not just the pre-existing fans. As such, unfortunately, they do count for the purposes of this discussion.

Sort of like those crappy "one-size fits all" garments? Unfortunate, indeed. They played us book-fans like we were a Super-NES console with the latest version of Tetris already stuck in there and waiting to go.

If you're not feeling up to scratch, we can just end there. We do not want your head to a splode, because you are not made of many green lines. It means I win, of course, but Darth Vader dies in the end, anyway. wink  

[Onoj]

...Holy Crap!! I got to band and to the doctors and you guys get into this HUGE debate?! My goodness.
I admit it was good though. I love a good debate and I find this a really good topic to debate about. That is only because I hate the movies though.  

[Nimbrethil]

Onoj

...Holy Crap!! I got to band and to the doctors and you guys get into this HUGE debate?! My goodness.
I admit it was good though. I love a good debate and I find this a really good topic to debate about. That is only because I hate the movies though.

Yar! I have backup! xd

I said "Yar" like I was a pirate or something. O.o  

[Kementari]

Nienna of the Valar

Oh yeah! I had a Gaia dream last night. whee I dreamt that I was at my Creative Writing club when someone started dissing LOTR and getting facts wrong. Falathrim came in, smacked the person in the back of the head with a replica of Gandalf's staff, and then lectured the club on LOTR. Then, all of a sudden I was in the Green Dragon, and Longbow was sitting, drinking. Kementari came in and scared all of the Hobbits with her zombie-ness, and Longbow, me, and Gandalf(who randomly appeared) had to convince them that she was a nice zombie. Then we all just sat around and drank a lot of ale. 3nodding

Very odd... sweatdrop

Yay, I made it into a Gaia dream.
In reality I wouldn't want to scare the Hobbits.

I like the TE of RotK, and I believe I'll love the EE.
I know that the book and movie are two seperate mediums, and that they couldn't be exactly the same.

And I saw the trailer for the EE on TV today, I was so happy. It was big (bigger then the one on my computer) and didn't have PJ and the actors interupting it with talking.  

[closer]

Zurgiea

Searchlight Sauron makes me laugh. Someone get him some eyedrops sweatdrop

Where the hell is Ben Stein and his beach ball analogies when you need them?  

[Zach McClure]

closer

Zurgiea

Searchlight Sauron makes me laugh. Someone get him some eyedrops sweatdrop

Where the hell is Ben Stein and his beach ball analogies when you need them?

Sauron. Try clear eyes. LOL No.

I (*coughEllycough*) had a Lord of the Rings dream last night, unfortunatly, there were no Gaians I can remember in it.

It was right before the wedding of Aragorn and Arwen, and the minister was nowhere in sight. So, *ahem...* the talking bird sweatdrop flys off into the forest to find him sleeping on a tree. The minister who was supposed to conduct the ceremony was the squirrel from The Emperor's New Groove sweatdrop sweatdrop and he was sitting there eating an acorn. So the bird had to fly over there (he brought an Ent with him) to convince the squirrel that he needed to be at the ceremony. Meanwhile, Aragorn and Arwen are standing there waiting, much like the scene from the Fellowship movie, with Howard Shore music in the background. And I think Eru was in there somewhere, but I can't remember where. I just woke up with a strong urge to read The Silmarillion again.  

[Falathrim]

Onoj

...Holy Crap!! I got to band and to the doctors and you guys get into this HUGE debate?! My goodness.
I admit it was good though. I love a good debate and I find this a really good topic to debate about. That is only because I hate the movies though.

...but why do you hate them?  

[Caeleste]

Falathrim

...but why do you hate them?

Because he's a**l retentive. I don't know.

I like the movies, and I like the books. I like them in their respective medium/media. Books, and movies. They are both wonderful pieces of art in their own respect.

I say that simply because I saw the movies before I was finished the books. It's partly my dad's fault for giving away his LOTR boxed set from like, 1980 something (not that I would have wanted to read it in french...) and for renting the movie. The first time I saw FOTR, I was so confused, I kept asking my dad what the hell was going on, who that person was, etc.
This got me to pick up my FOTR copy and try and get to The Council of Elrond chapter. At least so I could know who those people were when I watched the movie again.

And so, at the end of that week, I became an apprentice Ringer. I read FOTR twice before watching the movie again. I entertained myself by making random comments about the film. ("OMGWTF GLORFINDEL?! Arwen? WHA?")
I never did read TTT before the movie. In fact, it took me about 3 months to read it. Because it was summer vacation and I let Mr. Manana take over when it comes to summer vacation. (Pardon my crude spanish. And the lack of accents.) So by the time I got started on RoTK, the movie was out in theatres. And then schoolwork got in the way, so I ended up reading RoTK back in April. Record time though, 3 hours for the whole thing. Equivalent of reading HP and the Philosopher's Stone in 1.45 hours.

...I'm not making sense am I? I didn't think so. I forgot the point of writing this post. Which is why I suck at writing essays. And I suck at debating, so I'll just step aside now...  

[Khorkalba]

Good god, I have missed a lot. eek