tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post1509066202235932893..comments2024-03-18T20:22:06.331-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Meet Dori, Nori, and OriJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-72274436219097136732011-07-14T09:54:37.892-04:002011-07-14T09:54:37.892-04:00"Huh, I had no idea so many people hated Jack...<b><i>"Huh, I had no idea so many people hated Jackson's LOTR."</i> --Marcus</b><br /><br />Watching 'The Fellowship of the Ring' was quite a bad experience. The filmakers seemed unable to do anything right (*). After sixty something minutes of movie I had got enough and left the theater in anger. I didn't feel so cheated since 'Super Mario Bros the Movie'! I'm amazed that there's no more people out there who hates FotR.<br /><br />There's a taste for anything, and some of my favourite movies happen to be silly, crazy and/or immoral stuff which I wouldn't dare to recommend to anybody else. So, if you enjoyed FotR, too good for you. What annoys me is its *massive* success, and Peter Jackson's ascent into godness. <br /><br />(*) Just a drop from the ocean: do you think that there was a need for Sauron to be shown at the very beginning? There's not a right answer to this question. Maybe yes, maybe no: it's the filmaker's choice. <br /><br />But *if* you choose showing Sauron, you don't give him the looks of a deranged Power Rangers bad guy. You don't put him in a shining armour. You don't turn his last stand into a display of cartoon physics (Asterix single-handedly beating the Roman legions can be amusing to see, but doesn't qualify as epic). You don't get him defeated in a goofy way (kiss your Ring goodbye, Lord Butterfingers). And, by the Iluvatar's sake, you don't make him explode in a burst of PRISTINE WHITE LIGHT. He's meant to be Sauron. S-A-U-R-O-N: the Middle-Earth antichrist, not Jesus.<br /><br />There was a need for Sauron to be made into a practical joke at the very beginning? There's an ultimate answer to this question: NO.<br /><br />DISCLAIMER: That's just an example taken out of context. When you put it back into its original context, such a context happens to be more of the same crap.anonimous, emperador en el exiliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13204169087393199959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46445426577826934022011-07-10T23:09:34.203-04:002011-07-10T23:09:34.203-04:00They look like Warhammer dwarves more than JJRT dw...They look like Warhammer dwarves more than JJRT dwarves, IMO.<br /><br />As for the LoTR movies, James M mostly wrote what I would, had I the time. To sum up:<br />1. Good flicks in their own right, probably the best epic fantasy yet filmed.<br />2. Most of the plot is followed, but not all.<br />3. Tone is way, WAY off from JRRT's.<br /><br />I still long for a _small_ Conan(or Solomon Kane)/REH or FatGM/Leiber that gets the tone right and does _not_ involve a plot that requires saving the world.roo_sterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15338844641383965899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63168636377209900752011-07-10T22:53:58.341-04:002011-07-10T22:53:58.341-04:00I can't fathom how, for example, changing Elro...<em>I can't fathom how, for example, changing Elrond from a loving foster-father to Aragorn to a petulant, bitter old crow with a millennia-long grudge against Men can be reckoned mere "editing." It's a significant change in my mind...</em><br /><br />If I had to guess, I'd call it a relatively straightforward case of psychologizing the novel's symbols: recasting a relatively thin (in emotional terms) relationship between a man and a Figure of Myth as a more complicated relationship between stewards of the earth from different generations. It gives the (merely!) human actor playing Elrond something universal to play and ratchets up the human tension around the somewhat abstract Aragorn/Arwen story.Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-1061201501113435372011-07-10T22:49:05.504-04:002011-07-10T22:49:05.504-04:00The book on which it is based ends on a very tragi...<em>The book on which it is based ends on a very tragic note, whereas the movie upends this, thereby completing missing the point of Malamud's novel. </em><br /><br />I don't think it can be granted as a simple premise that 'the point of' an adaptation must (or even <em>should</em>) be shared with its source material. They're not polemics, for heaven's sake, and they're different stories (even if you don't grant the whole medium = message thing). It should be noted that <em>The Natural</em> is still a fine, moving film.<br /><br />Like the thick-headed fools who carry on about Lovecraft's 'cosmicism' being the main or even sole point of his stories - as if he were a philosopher who could only get his papers published in pulp magazines, rather than a fiction writer - Tolkien's 'purist' fans do him discredit. His philosophy isn't the point of LotR; the story is the point. If a good story comes out of it, everyone wins - except the purists, who just want to torture themselves anyway. Which they can go on doing, come to think of it, so I suppose they win too!<br /><br />The antimodern elegiac (and very, very, very <em>English</em>) character of LotR was always going to see an interesting interpretation in the hands of a Kiwi director living in a very post-post-Freud era. I adore the book. I loved the films and am glad to revisit them, even as I find choices I disagree with. The heart of the story ('the world has moved on') remains.Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12215651059418273961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-91582620890279184742011-07-10T11:40:49.208-04:002011-07-10T11:40:49.208-04:00LotR, sorry.LotR, sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-35589681124639245852011-07-10T11:37:41.913-04:002011-07-10T11:37:41.913-04:00"A couple more recent examples are L.A. Confi..."A couple more recent examples are L.A. Confidential and The Prestige. Both are among the best films ever made. And both are also extremely different from the books they were adapted from too."<br /><br />Yeah,LA Confidential would've been a nightmare to film if they'd stuck to the book. <br /><br />And no, LOtFR the movie is not catering to the 60s and 70s audience that made the books popular. That audience doesn't exist any more than does the audience that made 1e a mighty fad exist. I doubt Tolkien's books would see publication with a major company today without serious revisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-6996305829359572252011-07-10T11:17:30.814-04:002011-07-10T11:17:30.814-04:00@James Maliszewski
Thanks for replying and explai...<b>@James Maliszewski</b><br /><br />Thanks for replying and explaining in some detail why your take on this is different from mine. I can see the possibility that you might be more right than I am. In fact, I might be completely wrong. It's been a long time since I read The Lord Of The Rings. I need to read it again, comparing it to the films and keeping in mind the things you've said.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41144299714757624902011-07-10T09:11:57.392-04:002011-07-10T09:11:57.392-04:00It seems you're mistaking for misunderstanding...<i>It seems you're mistaking for misunderstanding the ability of others to assess an author's work more objectively than the author could possibly do themself. But that's what good editors do. And that's what Jackson and company did for Tolkien. Not misunderstanding and unnecessary violence. Just the sort of good editing his work should've gotten before it was ever published.</i><br /><br>You can choose to interpret my disagreement on this score however you like, but I assure you it's not based on a mistake. Jackson and his screenwriters clearly do not get Tolkien. I don't want to play the quote game and cite dozens of examples where Jackson isn't just saying, "This wouldn't work in a film as it does in a book," but where he suggests Tolkien is saying X when he really said Y. Hardly a character in the films shares the personality and motivations of his novel counterpart and it's not because Jackson was a "good editor." The deviations stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what Tolkien was about and what his novel was about. <br /><br />Now, I think, despite this, Jackson made enjoyable enough movies full of fantasy spectacle. I don't hate the films by any means, but they're deeply flawed as adaptations of Tolkien's masterpiece, lacking in subtlety and nuance. They also, in places, set a tone that is completely contrary to Tolkien's own. <br /><br />I find myself reminded of the movie adaptation of <i>The Natural</i>, generally considered one (if not <i>the</i>) greatest baseball movie ever made. The book on which it is based ends on a very tragic note, whereas the movie upends this, thereby completing missing the point of Malamud's novel. <br /><br />I haven't made up my mind whether Jackson did as much violence to Tolkien's tale as Barry Levinson did to Bernard Malamud's, but violence he did. I can't fathom how, for example, changing Elrond from a loving foster-father to Aragorn to a petulant, bitter old crow with a millennia-long grudge against Men can be reckoned mere "editing." It's a significant change in my mind, one that casts not just Elrond and Aragorn in different lights but also much of the plot of the story. <br /><br />Anyway, I've spent more time on this than I intended and since I'm sure I'll be spending more time on it later, I'll end here.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-90754915823892951672011-07-10T08:45:56.407-04:002011-07-10T08:45:56.407-04:00Curious if people think the movies would have been...<i>Curious if people think the movies would have been as successful and approachable for the general public had they kept the tone and spirit Tolkien was going for in his novels?</i><br /><br>I'm generally of the opinion that "the general public" isn't as stupid and narrow-minded as the purveyors of popular entertainment would have us believe. After all, <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> sold very well as a series of books during the 60s and 70s. I see no reason why movies closer in content to them couldn't do just as well.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-3777415942978373082011-07-10T00:07:10.928-04:002011-07-10T00:07:10.928-04:00"The changes made to many characters -- Frodo...<i>"The changes made to many characters -- Frodo, Sam, and Aragorn chief among them -- don't, in my opinion, make the films better than if they had stayed truer to the novel."</i><br /><br />Have you thought about <i>how much longer</i> the movies would have to be to accommodate Frodo, Sam and Aragorn being more like they were in the book? They, and many other characters, were simplified (or eliminated completely) so that the movies could be merely extremely long, not so long that only Tolkien purists would ever want to watch them.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Again, I'm fine that you and others disagree on this score, but let's not pretend that it's a truth universally acknowledged that everything Jackson changed worked and anyone who disagrees is just a narrow-minded ninny who hates everything."</i><br /><br />Who here has ever pretended that? I don't remember seeing that position stated here -- ever. All I've seen is reasonable people, like you and me, say they think the movies are, to varying degrees, good, but also, to varying degrees, flawed, and unreasonable people say that because the movies are flawed in any way, that means they're bad. It's been only the films' haters who've pretended that it's a truth universally acknowledged that everything Jackson changed didn't work and anyone who disagrees is just a simple-minded ninny who likes everything.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Jackson and company made many, many changes that were both unnecessary and did violence to Tolkien's stated intent...Have you seen of the commentary footage from the LotR DVDs? There are myriad places in that footage where Jackson and his collaborators make statements about Tolkien that clearly and obviously in contradiction to what the Professor himself said about his works...There's no crime in this. Lots of people don't understand Tolkien except on a very gross level...and that's how I view the LotR movies. They get the basic facts right (more or less) and present the story in its general outline. The tone and animating spirit behind the story, though, is often lacking and it's that which disappoints me more and more."</i><br /><br />It seems you're mistaking for misunderstanding the ability of others to assess an author's work more objectively than the author could possibly do themself. But that's what good editors do. And that's what Jackson and company did for Tolkien. Not misunderstanding and unnecessary violence. Just the sort of good editing his work should've gotten before it was ever published.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-45616063588004351192011-07-09T23:10:35.255-04:002011-07-09T23:10:35.255-04:00Curious if people think the movies would have been...Curious if people think the movies would have been as successful and approachable for the general public had they kept the tone and spirit Tolkien was going for in his novels?Coldstreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140235342917611032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-81386627506696125272011-07-09T19:02:14.417-04:002011-07-09T19:02:14.417-04:00I never did get why some folks are determined not ...<i>I never did get why some folks are determined not to get the fact that a book and a movie are not the same.</i><br /><br>That's not the issue and never has been. I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that movies sometimes have to make alterations to characters and plots to accommodate their medium. The issue is not merely one of different mediums, but of differing sensibilities. Jackson and company made many, many changes that were both unnecessary and did violence to Tolkien's stated intent. <i>That's</i> what irks me, not that Legolas's hair is the wrong color or whatever.<br /><br /><i>I admit I'm puzzled by James' comment that Jackson doesn't get Tolkien.</i><br /><br>Have you seen of the commentary footage from the LotR DVDs? There are myriad places in that footage where Jackson and his collaborators make statements about Tolkien that clearly and obviously in contradiction to what the Professor himself said about his works. <br /><br />There's no crime in this. Lots of people don't understand Tolkien except on a very gross level -- Gary Gygax, for example -- and that's how I view the LotR movies. They get the basic facts right (more or less) and present the story in its general outline. The tone and animating spirit behind the story, though, is often lacking and it's that which disappoints me more and more.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-65100431369432211332011-07-09T18:52:52.342-04:002011-07-09T18:52:52.342-04:00In almost every case, the changes Jackson made to ...<i>In almost every case, the changes Jackson made to The Lord Of The Rings made it a better film.</i><br /><br>I'm glad you think so, but not everyone agrees. The changes made to many characters -- Frodo, Sam, and Aragorn chief among them -- don't, in my opinion, make the films better than if they had stayed truer to the novel. Again, I'm fine that you and others disagree on this score, but let's not pretend that it's a truth universally acknowledged that everything Jackson changed worked and anyone who disagrees is just a narrow-minded ninny who hates everything.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-75649400023536737822011-07-09T18:49:56.290-04:002011-07-09T18:49:56.290-04:00Adaptation is good. It allows one to innovate, nad...<i>Adaptation is good. It allows one to innovate, nad to look at things differently.</i><br /><br>This presumes that innovation is, in itself, a good thing. Not everyone shares this view -- Tolkien, for one.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15988761041229752872011-07-09T18:40:24.988-04:002011-07-09T18:40:24.988-04:00The dwarves look you know, fine. Before I get too ...The dwarves look you know, fine. Before I get too worked up either way I'll go see the movie.<br /><br />As far as LOTR goes, with respect to the critics, I never did get why some folks are determined not to get the fact that a book and a movie are not the same. I read the Hobbit at 9, chewed my way thru LOTR at 10. I must have read the Silmarillion 2 dozen times in my twenties. But you know what? I love PJs LOTR. I admit I'm puzzled by James' comment that Jackson doesn't get Tolkien. I think he absolutely gets Tolkien. Converting exposition & inner dialog to images is just freaking hard to do without totally losing the feeling of the book. Doing that + making it mainstream enough to get it past the moneymen, into cinemas, and onto the top grossing list for a work like LOTR is, IMO, quite frankly touched with genius.<br /><br />So I love the Jackson LOTR. I love that my 5 yr old daughter has watched it a dozen time and that she trades Pippin & Gollum quotes with me like Python lines on game-night. And now I think about it, I love it that movies like Avatar & LOTR have brought fantasy & sf out of the exclusive domain of a few weird kids like me and shared it with the wider world. YMMV.charles mark fergusonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385121479729236749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41604209874654783772011-07-09T17:05:49.252-04:002011-07-09T17:05:49.252-04:00"Gone with the wind was horribly inaccurate t...<i>"Gone with the wind was horribly inaccurate to the book, removing great swaths an changing more. Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory was so far off from the book in word that Dahl went crazy."</i><br /><br />A couple more recent examples are <i>L.A. Confidential</i> and <i>The Prestige</i>. Both are among the best films ever made. And both are also extremely different from the books they were adapted from too.<br /><br />In almost every case, the changes Jackson made to <i>The Lord Of The Rings</i> made it a better film. The few exceptions are rare moments like the dwarf-tossing references and the shield-surfing. They do detract, but they don't make it a bad film. They're just minor missteps in an otherwise excellent adaptation. I'll be happy if <i>The Hobbit</i> turns out even just nearly as well.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-7236680786911782852011-07-09T16:51:30.288-04:002011-07-09T16:51:30.288-04:00Hear, hear, TP.Hear, hear, TP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46825408466867818752011-07-09T16:38:11.503-04:002011-07-09T16:38:11.503-04:00I'd like to think there's a difference bet...<i>I'd like to think there's a difference between the author of a work choosing to monkey about with his own creation, and another person entirely choosing to monkey about with previous author's creation in an adaptation. (And yet another difference between another person choosing to monkey about with an author's original work, but let's not get into that)</i><br /><br />I'm sorry but that kind've thought is just about the worst excuse for not liking something, and would deny us about 30,000 great variations on the arthurian myth alone, never-mind anything that reused characters and situations from Homer or the Eldrich creatures of Lovecraft. Gone with the wind was horribly inaccurate to the book, removing great swaths an changing more. Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory was so far off from the book in word that Dahl went crazy.<br /><br />Adaptation is good. It allows one to innovate, nad to look at things differently. I love Brut, but I don't consider Once and Future King a betrayal, much less Mort.Turkish Proverbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02423061909797064886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-26039844727581235862011-07-09T08:38:58.807-04:002011-07-09T08:38:58.807-04:00Why? Are they great literature or something?
Yes....<i>Why? Are they great literature or something?</i><br /><br />Yes. Seriously man, do a little digging on the subject. Academic conferences, peer-reviewed academic journals, accredited college courses, dissertations, reams of critical studies, biographies, letters--what evidence is lacking for you?Brian Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05563309422791320114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-70268723867145968922011-07-09T05:07:58.423-04:002011-07-09T05:07:58.423-04:00So much pissing and moaning about film adaptations...So much pissing and moaning about film adaptations changing things from the way they are in books. It's like people don't even know what the word <i>"adapt"</i> means.<br /><br /><b>a·dapt</b><br /><br />[<i>uh</i>-<b>dapt</b>]<br /><br /><b><i>–verb (used with object)</i></b><br /><br /><b>1.</b> to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly: <i>They adapted themselves to the change quickly. He adapted the novel for movies.</i><br /><br />Peter Jackson made The Lord Of The Rings suitable to the requirements and conditions of big-budget, mainstream, feature films which must appeal to as wide an audience as possible for worldwide distribution -- and he adjusted and modified it fittingly to those requirements and conditions. And I expect that he'll do exactly the same thing with The Hobbit too.<br /><br />So, if you either don't like any big-budget, mainstream, feature films or think that The Lord Of The Rings shouldn't have been adapted into that form, then of course you don't like what Jackson did with The Lord Of The Rings -- and you probably won't like what he'll do with The Hobbit either.<br /><br />But the mere fact that you don't like what he did or what he's doing doesn't make it bad or wrong. You just don't like it -- which is your right -- but that's all.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-55084897808381417562011-07-09T04:10:34.689-04:002011-07-09T04:10:34.689-04:00"So the implication that Jackson is betraying...<i>"So the implication that Jackson is betraying Tolkien by changing the book is rather over-zealous. Tolkien would have changed the book himself."</i><br /><br />I'd like to think there's a difference between the author of a work choosing to monkey about with his own creation, and another person entirely choosing to monkey about with previous author's creation in an adaptation. (And yet another difference between another person choosing to monkey about with an author's original work, but let's not get into that)Taranaichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02176999342965850175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-44781861160321044152011-07-08T21:02:41.219-04:002011-07-08T21:02:41.219-04:00"So the implication that Jackson is betraying..."So the implication that Jackson is betraying Tolkien by changing the book is rather over-zealous. Tolkien would have changed the book himself."<br /><br />But he had the deceny not to. it's not about betraying Tolien, it's about betraying The Hobbit. Although I object to Elfdart's tone (there's that word again), I tend to agree that The Hobbit is better than LotR.<br /><br />As we all know, adventures about ragtag parties of n'er-do-wells with a map trying to get rich than those about pretty boys with cool magic items trying to save the world.<br /><br />(And they should have colorful cloaks. Dirty and tattered maybe but colorful. And musical instruments.)Brian (brian_cooper at hotmail d o t com)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02805168206752602148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-81683461558169561082011-07-08T17:21:07.830-04:002011-07-08T17:21:07.830-04:00"you've got thirteen dwarves on screen fo..."you've got thirteen dwarves on screen for most of the two movies--you simply can't make them all comic relief all the time"<br /><br />Oh, good - a challenge!<br /><br />Whatever else happens, I'm sure this will be a pile of crap except for the visuals.Nagorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04934827653905274555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-40597507100809270812011-07-08T16:32:27.782-04:002011-07-08T16:32:27.782-04:00That single image has left more of an impression o...That single image has left more of an impression on me than most of the dwarves ever did in the book, so I'm all for it.<br /><br />Now if we could convince Jackson to change the names into something a little less Dr. Seuss-ish.The Human Targethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18002445258419364816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-38054223443250276412011-07-08T16:22:51.534-04:002011-07-08T16:22:51.534-04:00Tolkien's works deserve better.
Why? Are they...<i>Tolkien's works deserve better.</i><br /><br />Why? Are they great literature or something?Elfdarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17332202910754546307noreply@blogger.com