# Book fans vs. Movie fans



## HugoB (Dec 19, 2022)

I know quite a few people who have seen the movies but never actually read Tolkien's books. Many of them tell me they liked the movies a lot, but they are still in no hurry to start on the books. So it appears that the movies have created a new kind of following: people who are familiar with the screen versions but have no interest in reading the books. Would you call these people Tolkien fans? Or should we distinguish between Book fans and Movie fans?


----------



## Amon Rudh (Dec 19, 2022)

Personally I'd say yes, they are all Tolkien fans and why make a distinction? I believe there's room for everyone but I suppose it could make some discussion tricky where the two media differ. 
I like them all, some hate the films and love the books, others love only the films. Who is right? Everyone!


----------



## d4rk3lf (Dec 19, 2022)

I wouldn't call them Tolkien fans.... at best.. I'd call them Tolkien "world's building fans".
The movie have some terrible shallow characters, and some badly written dialogues (arguing and such), and some poorly directed emotional scenes (I wanna puke when I see them crying after the Moria).
If you strip down all the nice visuals Weta created (remove all the effects, epic battle scenes, great looking costumes.. etc), you will get a pretty mediocre movie, with little, or no depth.
If you strip down (for example) the Braveheart movie from epic battle scenes, you will still get a very nice drama... very nice movie.

The sad thing is that it only needed a little adjusting of the characters, dialogues and editing, and movie could look waaay more serious and better, and then, I could call movie fans, a Tolkien fans.


----------



## 1stvermont (Dec 19, 2022)

I would call them Tolkien fans because what made Jackson's movies great was Tolkien!!!!


----------



## Ealdwyn (Dec 19, 2022)

Jacksonians?


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 19, 2022)

The moving image (films, TV etc.) have led to a greater emphasis on the visual. In medieval times you might see some church stained glass if you were lucky - otherwise it was what you could see with your own eyes. The real thing isn't a bad substitute except you don't often see balrogs in real life (thank goodness). With books you have your own imagination but if the book comes first it's not automatically better than the film - but it is always the case that they are different types of experience. Some people may always prefer books over movies or vice versa, unless the book/movie adaptation be truly awful.


----------



## 1stvermont (Dec 19, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> I wouldn't call them Tolkien fans.... at best.. I'd call them Tolkien "world's building fans".
> The movie have some terrible shallow characters, and some badly written dialogues (arguing and such), and some poorly directed emotional scenes (I wanna puke when I see them crying after the Moria).
> If you strip down all the nice visuals Weta created (remove all the effects, epic battle scenes, great looking costumes.. etc), you will get a pretty mediocre movie, with little, or no depth.
> If you strip down (for example) the Braveheart movie from epic battle scenes, you will still get a very nice drama... very nice movie.
> ...



I loved Braveheart. And while I agree with you I think more then enough Tolkien came throw to make the movies epic.


----------



## Sons of the Woodland King (Dec 19, 2022)

As a life principle, I prefer to be INclusive rather than EXclusive, so yes. I personally would consider "movies only" fans, Tolkien fans.

I don't subscribe to:


----------



## d4rk3lf (Dec 19, 2022)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Some people may always prefer books over movies or vice versa, unless the book/movie adaptation be truly awful.


You can't equalize that. 
People that don't like to read books, will never read them, people who do, will always look carefully about adaptation.
(I am not talkin Tolkien here.. but about every adaptation) 
So, in essence we have:
1) People who only see the movie, and never care to look at the book (any book).
2) People who love the book, and then saw the movie 
So, should I equalize them? 
I have people that experienced both worlds, and I have people that experienced only one side of the medal.



1stvermont said:


> I loved Braveheart. And while I agree with you I think more then enough Tolkien came throw to make the movies epic.


Yes, the Tolkien world building, inspired masters of art in Weta studio to inspire millions of peoples out there. I am not denying that fact. 
I am only sad.. because with a just a tiny bit of concentration, we could have had a TRUE trilogy, where many fans wouldn't jump of their beds, because something pathetic is going on the screen. 



Sons of the Woodland King said:


> As a life principle, I prefer to be INclusive rather than EXclusive, so yes. I personally would consider "movies only" fans, Tolkien fans.


That is my principle as well. 
Stay positive, and stay well my friend.  
But there is a line that needs to be drawn.. 
For example.. I really like the book of Robinson Crusoe.. and I read it many times as a kid, and enjoyed it in several movies, or spin offs like Cast Away.... 
So, imagine if today Amazon.. or whoever grabs that story and create any abomination of that story, and turn it into series. 
Sure, that abomination would have it's fans. 
Would you consider these fans Daniel Defoe's fans?


----------



## Sons of the Woodland King (Dec 19, 2022)

d4rk3lf said:


> That is my principle as well.
> Stay positive, and stay well my friend.
> But there is a line that needs to be drawn..
> For example.. I really like the book of Robinson Crusoe.. and I read it many times as a kid, and enjoyed it in several movies, or spin offs like Cast Away....
> ...


I will agree there are levels/shades of fans, but I'm not one to be too concerned about defining those levels. ✌️ 

I guess I can also illustrate my attitude on this matter with an example. Imagine I meet a fantasy newbie who watched the LOTR movies for the first time and LOVED them, in spite of having never read the books. I tell them, "Oh you should try the books they're based on! They're written by this amazing writer, J.R.R. Tolkien.". If they enthusiastically gush, "That's so cool, I'm a Tolkien fan!", I'm not gonna say or even think, "Yeah, not really, read the books first, then get back to me." I'll actually think, "Score, another one to appreciate Tolkien's work!" Because I don't think being a fan requires a minimum depth of appreciation, and I believe being a fan of works based on or inspired by the original work qualifies. 

Again, that's just a matter of opinion. And apparently, my line/bar is probably low. But this is not the first time I'm attesting to that fact. 😂


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 19, 2022)

HugoB said:


> I know quite a few people who have seen the movies but never actually read Tolkien's books. Many of them tell me they liked the movies a lot, but they are still in no hurry to start on the books. So it appears that the movies have created a new kind of following: people who are familiar with the screen versions but have no interest in reading the books. Would you call these people Tolkien fans? Or should we distinguish between Book fans and Movie fans?


My answer is a clear no to film-only fans. The films are derivative, the books are the originals. If someone couldn't care less about reading the books (and I have a *very* low opinion of people who apparently couldn't care less about reading *any* books), then they are PJ fans. Or now Amazoff fans. Which is fine with me, my wife likes to watch a certain daily soap on TV here in Germany, while I've been disgusted by almost all of TV for close to 20 years. JRRT wrote books, and lavished detail on them that no film can ever bring across. In my opinion, his opinion that LoTR is unfilmable remains valid to this day. Just like films can do things books can't, films are also incapable of doing things books can. And one thing books can do is stir your very own imagination. With "moving pictures" of any kind, you're always being spoon-fed the director's imagination (and often of others behind the director whose imagination is pathetically limited).


----------



## Deimos (Dec 19, 2022)

A long time ago (a _very _long time ago, as in pre-internet) my English Lit professor (for freshman) said this: _ A Story read is always better than a sitcom watched. _
Note that he did not say the story had to be well written or engaging. 
What he was getting at was/is that when you read something it forces your brain into an active mode, even if that mode is dislike, because you have to think why you dislike it. That is, willy-nilly, you end up analyzing the story.
That typically doesn't happen (with your brain) when you watch something.

I came across a longer explanation, altho' by someone else, yet the person speaking today pretty much says what he said 30 years ago: 
----------------
FILMS or BOOKS? What's the (Brain) Difference? by Nicola Morgan
22 September 2021 

After a recent talk to staff at Tonbridge School about the reading brain and why and how to promote reading for pleasure in a school, someone asked a great question. I wanted to answer it here as it’s an important question.


> “All those benefits also come from watching films so if I want to encourage the boys [it could apply just well to anyone] to read, how should I answer when they say they’d rather watch a film? What are the differences in terms of the effects on brains, minds and health?”


*First, there’s nothing wrong with watching films.* It’s a perfectly valid way of accessing a story, including a story that has also been written as a novel. It’s a good way to relax, particularly if you need to escape from intrusive thoughts and take your mind off worries. That is something reading also does but watching films does it just as well. It can also be _easier _for many people to get into that zone of escapism, because watching a film takes less effort so it can be easier to dive into it. So, I’m not saying don’t watch films.

*Second, however, note that “less effort” thing.* One of the things about films, compared to reading, is that it’s a passive activity. You sit there and watch; scenes and characters are fed to you; you do not engage your imagination because everything is there on a plate. In terms purely of relaxation, that’s not a problem, but…

… it does mean that *films would have less value in terms of a) exercising your brain and b) empowering and unleashing your imagination and creativity*. So books, in that sense, will give you more.

Connected to that, *reading a book uses a very large number of brain areas and watching a film relatively few*. This is partly _because_ there is less effort involved in watching but also because a whole load of skills aren’t being used: most of the skills that make up the act of reading, including visualisation, narrative transportation and the physical acts of manipulating and decoding print. The language skills used are different, too, and more complex when reading compared to watching passively.

*Third, you have more control over a book than a film.* You go at your speed, stop and go back when you want. Crucially, you get a sense of whether something is about to happen that you aren’t ready for or aren’t willing to go through – and you can stop. With a film, that is much harder and sometimes impossible. By the time the shocking image is there, it’s seared on your mind and won’t go away. But with a book you can control whether or when or how quickly you do or don’t absorb it. Or if you miss something or don’t understand, you can easily go back.

*Fourth, reading is a vitally important set of skills.* A 14-year-old might say, “But I can read really well by now so I don’t need to keep doing it.” Not true. General ability to read isn’t likely to fade with lack of use but fluency is, at the margin, and ability to read _deeply_ certainly is. How many of you adults have noticed that nowadays you struggle to concentrate on something with long paragraphs or sentences, an article that’s longer than a couple of pages? That’s because we do that less nowadays so we have diminished that ability. I know I have – or I had, until I decided to start practising again. I now deliberately sit down to read something deep and difficult every now and then and it’s _amazing_ how quickly you notice the skill improve again.

The more we read the better we get. And we are far more likely to do that quantitative reading if we _enjoy it. _*THAT’S ONE REASON WHY READING FOR PLEASURE IS SO IMPORTANT: BECAUSE IF WE DON’T GET PLEASURE FROM IT WE WON’T DO IT AND IF WE DON’T DO IT WE WILL BECOME LESS GOOD AT IT.

Fifth, the more you read the more likely you are to come across new words.* New words are empowering. the more words you have, the better your set of tools for expressing yourself.

*And finally, the more you read the better you’ll write.* Films can’t do that. Who wouldn’t want to be a better writer than they are? Being able to express yourself clearly, elegantly, powerfully, beautifully, in words – written or spoken – is a super-power. It gets you places. It makes you feel great. The ability to express your meaning is absolutely a skill you’d want.
So, if you want to inspire and encourage teenagers to pick up books _as well as_ watching films, I’d say to them:​
Films and books are *both* great for relaxing; *both* show you other worlds, take you inside other lives, open your mind; and there’s no reason not to watch films
But books give you more:
They boost your imagination, creativity, thinking skills
They exercise more parts of your brain – you’re making your brain better in many ways
They make you better at reading and at reading more difficult and deep things, which gives you access to opportunities, jobs, promotion, and makes you feel good about yourself
They teach you new words
They make you better at writing, allowing you to express yourself powerfully whether for pleasure or work

Language is the gift that humans are wired and born for – it will bring you immeasurable benefits and pleasures – and reading books is how you grow that gift
*I say do both!
-----------------*


----------



## Starbrow (Dec 19, 2022)

Thank you for sharing this. I will take some ideas with this to share with my students.


----------



## HugoB (Dec 20, 2022)

Actually, we can try a thought experiment on ourselves. Probably every single one of us is in this position with regard to some book or movie. For example, I like the Bourne movies, but I have never read Robert Ludlum's books. Do I consider myself a Robert Ludlum fan? Well, no. I think it would be presumptuous of me to do so, and besides, there is a distinct possibility I may not even like the Bourne books if I ever read them (people tell me they are quite different from the movies). So I'm content to be a fan of the Bourne movie trilogy and admit my ignorance of Robert Ludlum and his works.

Another example is Forrest Gump. Most people have seen it and agree it's a great movie, but how many have read the book it's based on? I certainly haven't, and I can't even remember the author's name, so it would probably sound a bit funny if I were to declare myself his fan.


----------



## Amon Rudh (Dec 20, 2022)

I wonder if many film fans are actually fans of The Lord of the Rings films and don't even know who Tolkien was. Again nothing wrong in that per se but quite sad as I feel that they are missing out. Many people don't want to read (or write) more than 160 characters these days it seems.


----------



## d4rk3lf (Dec 20, 2022)

Sons of the Woodland King said:


> Imagine I meet a fantasy newbie who watched the LOTR movies for the first time and LOVED them, in spite of having never read the books. I tell them, "Oh you should try the books they're based on! They're written by this amazing writer, J.R.R. Tolkien.". If they enthusiastically gush, "That's so cool, I'm a Tolkien fan!", I'm not gonna say or even think, "Yeah, not really, read the books first, then get back to me." I'll actually think, "Score, another one to appreciate Tolkien's work!"


I wholeheartedly agree! 
Despite movies done some injustice to Tolkien that keeps triggering me, I must admit that they make a whole new series of book fans, and not even only that, Many of them gone forward with Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales... etc.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 20, 2022)

*Kill Bill* the film is _wayyy_ better than the book I wrote about it.

Just sayin'


----------



## Nienna Núri (Dec 20, 2022)

HugoB said:


> I know quite a few people who have seen the movies but never actually read Tolkien's books. Many of them tell me they liked the movies a lot, but they are still in no hurry to start on the books. So it appears that the movies have created a new kind of following: people who are familiar with the screen versions but have no interest in reading the books. Would you call these people Tolkien fans? Or should we distinguish between Book fans and Movie fans?


I don't believe it's a particular honor to be considered a fan of something, so I don't feel its a question of being exclusive or inclusive, but just semantics. If someone only likes the Peter Jackson films I don't think it would make sense to call them a Tolkien fan. A Tolkien fan would be someone who is primarily oriented toward the Tolkien source material, which would be the books, and would include, at least, the Silmarillion. Most Tolkien fans, as such, would be interested to see the films, regardless of whether they approve of the films or not after seeing them.

For instance, I do enjoy both the Peter Jackson films and the animated films, because I'm fascinated to see the expressions of Tolkien come to life, and interested in different interpretations that come through in these expressions, but also (like many) horrified when I feel the source material has been betrayed.

Short list of top film grievances: Frodo tells Sam to go home so he can journey alone with Gollum because he thinks Sam is stealing lembas and lying about it (!) - Gandalf bashing Denethor on the head and taking over at Minas Tirith - no need to go on, though I could. Despite these unforgivable moments, if there was no book and only the movies, I'd probably be deeply impressed and moved by the films and the parts that ring flase wouldn't bother me as much.


----------



## Deimos (Dec 20, 2022)

As others have said, I hope that the "have only seen the movies" crowd would be prompted to move to the books and get the complete and/or fully accurate stories.
Otherwise they are only marginal participants (yet still members) in the world of Tolkien.
They are missing so much, and that is very sad. ☹️


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 20, 2022)

Deimos said:


> As others have said, I hope that the "have only seen the movies" crowd would be prompted to move to the books and get the complete and/or fully accurate stories.
> Otherwise they are only marginal members (yet still participants) in the world of Tolkien.
> They are missing so much, and that is very sad. ☹️


That's what happened to me, honestly . I had only ever heard of Tolkien very little before Fellowship came out. I saw it and decided to read the books, finished them before the next two movies, found TTF and the rest is history. While I definitely like the movies, I 100% prefer the books over them.


----------



## Deimos (Dec 20, 2022)

Nienna Núri said:


> I don't believe it's a particular honor to be considered a fan of something, so I don't feel its a question of being exclusive or inclusive, but just semantics. If someone only likes the Peter Jackson films I don't think it would make sense to call them a Tolkien fan. A Tolkien fan would be someone who is primarily oriented toward the Tolkien source material, which would be the books, and would include, at least, the Silmarillion. Most Tolkien fans, as such, would be interested to see the films, regardless of whether they approve of the films or not after seeing them.
> 
> For instance, I do enjoy both the Peter Jackson films and the animated films, because I'm fascinated to see the expressions of Tolkien come to life, and interested in different interpretations that come through in these expressions, but also (like many) horrified when I feel the source material has been betrayed.
> 
> Short list of top film grievances: Frodo tells Sam to go home so he can journey alone with Gollum because he thinks Sam is stealing lembas and lying about it (!) - Gandalf bashing Denethor on the head and taking over at Minas Tirith - no need to go on, though I could. Despite these unforgivable moments, if there was no book and only the movies, I'd probably be deeply impressed and moved by the films and the parts that ring flase wouldn't bother me as much.


_"...no need to go on, though I could."_ 
Well, I will ( go on, that is), but only to add PJ's shameful portrayal of Faramir 😠.
The _"Sam, go home" _scene made me simultaneously gag and groan (it's a wonder I didn't pass out too🙄), but his portrayal of Faramir just set me off as no other "movie mis-characterization" ever has. I could have chewed nails.🤬


----------



## Ent (Dec 20, 2022)

HugoB said:


> Another example is Forrest Gump.


I would add to your wee list The Wizard of Oz. 
I would guess MANY people "know" The Wizard of Oz from the 1939 classic.
But knowing that, they know very little of "The Wizard of Oz" by L. Frank Baum. The differences are more than significant.
And yet... what would the world do without the 1939 classic, or L. Frank Baum's real work? 
I once did a website devoted to this issue, highlighting all the similarities and differences. 
(Fortunately, the Huorns helped dig the trench and bury the lloooonngggg cable back into the forest for me.)

It resulted in a number of unforgettable things, regarding the story, the movie, the interaction, disconnection and appreciation of both, and a settling for me of 'a whole new order' in the way I would perceive and handle things going forward.


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 20, 2022)

For me, _fan_ is a person who not only enjoys something, but is invested into it.

Thus by definition, a _Lord of the Rings _movie fan would want to know more about the universe movies are based on - which means reading the books. If he doesn't, then he is not a fan - he is a movie _enjoyer_.


----------



## Deimos (Dec 20, 2022)

Ent said:


> I would add to your wee list The Wizard of Oz.
> I would guess MANY people "know" The Wizard of Oz from the 1939 classic.
> But knowing that, they know very little of "The Wizard of Oz" by L. Frank Baum. The differences are more than significant.
> ...


I don't consider myself a Frank Baum fan for having watched MGM's WoO movie, and I have never read any of his books.
What I do consider myself a fan of, tho', is Margaret Hamilton's portrayal of the Wicked Witch of the West.
_"I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!" _
Even as Miss Gulch she was menacingly great .😁


----------



## Starbrow (Dec 20, 2022)

> What I do consider myself a fan of, tho', is Margaret Hamilton's portrayal of the Wicked Witch of the West.
> _"I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!" _
> Even as Miss Gulch she was menacingly great .


You can't beat her cackle.


----------



## Deimos (Dec 20, 2022)

Starbrow said:


> You can't beat her cackle.


Amen to that, squared and cubed 😉


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 20, 2022)




----------



## Deimos (Dec 20, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> View attachment 20634


How apropos! Bravo! 😄


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 20, 2022)

HugoB said:


> I know quite a few people who have seen the movies but never actually read Tolkien's books. Many of them tell me they liked the movies a lot, but they are still in no hurry to start on the books. So it appears that the movies have created a new kind of following: people who are familiar with the screen versions but have no interest in reading the books. Would you call these people Tolkien fans? Or should we distinguish between Book fans and Movie fans?


I've been mulling over what may be a discrepancy between HugoB's title opening this thread, and the contents of the OP.
I'll just postulate, for argument's sake, that the thread title would imply people who have *both* read the books and watched the movies - in whatever order.
But HugoB's OP focuses on what one could call the movie-only experience of Middle-earth vs. book (plus) experience. There also *could* be people who have read the books, but never seen the films - I'd guess only a small sub-set of the book geeks.

As far as people go who have *both* read the books and watched the movies, and prefer the latter ... they're also *not* JRRT fans. They have chosen PJ's forgery over JRRT's original - which is a matter of taste. But they have chosen PJ's visuals, the equivalent to JRRT's description of allegory as the purposeful domination of an author, here director (and in the background producers), to the applicability JRRT much preferred (using one's own imagination when reading a book).


----------



## Starbrow (Dec 20, 2022)

I think being a fan of an author means you are enjoy most of their books, not just one title. I am a Tolkien fan because I love many of his books. 

I am a fan of the Wizard of Oz movie, but I would not claim to be a fan of L. Frank Baum. Yes, I have read a couple of his Oz books, but I didn't love them. 

I am happy to discuss the LOTR movies with their fans, while recognizing that the books and movie are different.


----------



## Halasían (Dec 21, 2022)

I remember bringing this up back in 2004 at one point in the books vs movies flame wars, though maybe not here on TTF. There are varying degrees and overlapping of people on the chart from Book only fans with absolute no 'contamination' of others' visions of Tolkien's world, to someone who has only played say, LotRO for example and haven never seen a book or even any of the other visual media.

In the end, some people just can't read, so the films, cartoons, TV shows, board games, and video games have given them an insight into Tolkien's world. I think the overall umbrellas is they all are 'Tolkien' fans. How they get under that umbrella is what varies.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 22, 2022)

Interesting that most of the "movie" side here is about PJ rather than Amazon 

There are some cases where the film and book were generated together with close cooperation between the film producers and the books' author. The classic case I'm thinking of is Graham Greene's _The Third Man. _Now I don't think that being a fan of the film makes you a fan of Graham Greene. This is because Carol Reed and the film production team _added so much_ to the story as in the book. So being a fan of the film means being a fan of that style of film making. The story is still important to the film but that's not the main reason this film is considered a great film.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Dec 22, 2022)

Greene was pained by that "cuckoo clock" passage, added, apparently, by Orson Welles. He was no doubt aware of the fearsome martial reputation of the Swiss during the Renaissance, and that cuckoo clocks originated in _Bavaria._🙄


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Dec 22, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Greene was pained by that "cuckoo clock" passage, added, apparently, by Orson Welles. He was no doubt aware of the fearsome martial reputation of the Swiss during the Renaissance, and that cuckoo clocks originated in _Bavaria._🙄


Yes I think that one may well be true (added by Welles) and it wasn't in the book - yet is one of the more memorable scenes in the movie


----------



## Will Whitfoot (Dec 22, 2022)

For me, personally, the books are the absolute basis. The films are cute adaptations, and there are truly some catchy bits. (... "We've had one yes, but what about second breakfast?" ....) But the details that are in the books are what creates the world in your mind. The problem with the films is that after them, almost all fan art is derivative of the films. Aragorn always looks like Vigo Mortensen etc. Whereas before the films there was a huge variety of fan art depicting the characters and events in many ways. It was this breadth of imagination that was key to the majick,. 

So color me a book-based Tolkien fan who enjoyed the films, but laments the narrowing of visualization that they have brought along with them. And I'm sorry.... but I have to say it: Leaving out The Scouring Of The Shire was a WRONG decision!


----------



## Halasían (Dec 23, 2022)

Will Whitfoot said:


> For me, personally, the books are the absolute basis. The films are cute adaptations, and there are truly some catchy bits. (... "We've had one yes, but what about second breakfast?" ....) But the details that are in the books are what creates the world in your mind. The problem with the films is that after them, almost all fan art is derivative of the films. Aragorn always looks like Vigo Mortensen etc. Whereas before the films there was a huge variety of fan art depicting the characters and events in many ways. It was this breadth of imagination that was key to the majick,.
> 
> So color me a book-based Tolkien fan who enjoyed the films, but laments the narrowing of visualization that they have brought along with them. And I'm sorry.... but I have to say it: Leaving out The Scouring Of The Shire was a WRONG decision!


Exactly! I lamented the 200,000+ Galadriel pencil sketches that all looked like Cate Blanchett, or Arwen art that all looked like Liv Tyler. Before that you could find some original minds eye art of the characters. Sadly, I feel sorry for anyone who saw those movies before ever reading the books, because their mind's eye would 'see' the movie characters as they read. Fortunately, some originality is starting to work its way back in as I have run across some who have read the books without seeing those 'old' movies.



> Interesting that most of the "movie" side here is about PJ rather than Amazon



That is because we are talking a known quantity here. the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is a complete book story, and the 'movies' were made using them as their basis.


----------



## Deimos (Dec 23, 2022)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Yes I think that one may well be true (added by Welles) and it wasn't in the book - yet is one of the more memorable scenes in the movie


I've seen the movie, but never read the book. 
I have now added it to my reading list. Thanks (to you and also S-eS) for discussing both the movie and the book.


----------



## Nienna Núri (Wednesday at 4:44 PM)

Deimos said:


> _"...no need to go on, though I could."_
> Well, I will ( go on, that is), but only to add PJ's shameful portrayal of Faramir 😠.
> The _"Sam, go home" _scene made me simultaneously gag and groan (it's a wonder I didn't pass out too🙄), but his portrayal of Faramir just set me off as no other "movie mis-characterization" ever has. I could have chewed nails.🤬


Yes, the whole reinvention of Faramir as an everyday schlub was awful. In some ways it's worse because it just goes on moment after moment, but I think for me it was less painful because he was so entirely different as a character I was able to not even see him as Faramir at all, but some totally new character invented for the films, named "Flaravir" or something, haha. In other words, there was nothing left of Faramir other than his name, meeting Frodo in Ithilien, and being Boromir's brother, (even being Denethor's son wasn't really the same, since Denethor was changed so much.) In many ways, the cartoon-ization of Denethor bothered me more than that of Faramir. Most of my favorite moments from Book V are the ones with Denethor in all of his complexity, strength, pride, wisdom, arrogance, far-sightedness, cunning, and razor-sharp tongue and eloquence, and these were all ruined by making Denethor an oafish clown (and having Gandalf deal with him by clubbing him on the head as if he were Shagrat settling a dispute with Gorbag, as I mentioned earlier).

Oh, I also REALLY hated how in the extended edition Aragorn kills the Mouth of Sauron during the parley, in a direct betrayal of the book where a specific point is made about how the Mouth of Sauron fears being attacked by Aragorn because he's projecting his own base treachery onto him, but Gandalf reminds him that he's dealing with people who have honor even in dealing with dishonorable folks like the Mouth of Sauron. But in the films, Peter Jackson seems to be trying to deliver the message that Aragorn is just as low and dishonorable as the Mouth of Sauron, and isn't that great? Because it's so much fun just to kill people like you're a serial killer whenever the opportunity comes along.


----------



## Deimos (Wednesday at 5:19 PM)

Nienna Núri said:


> Yes, the whole reinvention of Faramir as an everyday schlub was awful. In some ways it's worse because it just goes on moment after moment, but I think for me it was less painful because he was so entirely different as a character I was able to not even see him as Faramir at all, but some totally new character invented for the films, named "Flaravir" or something, haha. In other words, there was nothing left of Faramir other than his name, meeting Frodo in Ithilien, and being Boromir's brother, (even being Denethor's son wasn't really the same, since Denethor was changed so much.) In many ways, the cartoon-ization of Denethor bothered me more than that of Faramir. Most of my favorite moments from Book V are the ones with Denethor in all of his complexity, strength, pride, wisdom, arrogance, far-sightedness, cunning, and razor-sharp tongue and eloquence, and these were all ruined by making Denethor an oafish clown (and having Gandalf deal with him by clubbing him on the head as if he were Shagrat settling a dispute with Gorbag, as I mentioned earlier).
> 
> Oh, I also REALLY hated how in the extended edition Aragorn kills the Mouth of Sauron during the parley, in a direct betrayal of the book where a specific point is made about how the Mouth of Sauron fears being attacked by Aragorn because he's projecting his own base treachery onto him, but Gandalf reminds him that he's dealing with people who have honor even in dealing with dishonorable folks like the Mouth of Sauron. But in the films, Peter Jackson seems to be trying to deliver the message that Aragorn is just as low and dishonorable as the Mouth of Sauron, and isn't that great? Because it's so much fun just to kill people like you're a serial killer whenever the opportunity comes along.


I wholeheartedly agree with you. Well said on every point.
Re Denethor... not a likeable person but his [constitutional] character (meaning his beliefs, convictions) is absolutely required of the ruler of Gondor in the current circumstances. Fully comprehending his character is necessary for the reader to understand him and his behaviour, even, or especially his suicide. .

Viscerally I found the MofS beheading most satisfying (who wouldn't?) but that is really the point, is it not?
That Aragorn giving into "feewings" displays an egregious lapse of discipline for a Ranger, but especially for one who is destined to be king.
The other place was when he kicked the Orc helm in Rohan after the apparently fruitless chase to recover Merry and Pippin.
Very un-Rangerly, definitely un-regal. *shakes head*


----------



## Olorgando (Wednesday at 9:32 PM)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> There are some cases where the film and book were generated together with close cooperation between the film producers and the books' author.
> 
> View attachment 20648


Another classic case is the "2001: A Space Odyssey" cooperation between Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick. Interestingly, in the book the _Discovery's_ destination is Saturn, not Jupiter. Clarke reverted to Jupiter as destination in the three sequels 2010, 2061 and 3001. I'm a fan of Clarke's, having, besides the "Odyssey" tetralogy, the four books of the "Rama" series and the stand-alone "The Hammer of God. And I'm a fan of Kubrick's, having an eight-DVD boxed set with seven films plus a kind of biographical DVD entitled "A Life in Pictures". In each case because I'm familiar withe the books (actually very few books; Clarke's. output was stupendous!) respectively films.


----------



## Deimos (Wednesday at 9:51 PM)

Olorgando said:


> Another classic case is the "2001: A Space Odyssey" cooperation between Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick. Interestingly, in the book the _Discovery's_ destination is Saturn, not Jupiter. Clarke reverted to Jupiter as destination in the three sequels 2010, 2061 and 3001. I'm a fan of Clarke's, having, besides the "Odyssey" tetralogy, the four books of the "Rama" series and the stand-alone "The Hammer of God. And I'm a fan of Kubrick's, having an eight-DVD boxed set with seven films plus a kind of biographical DVD entitled "A Life in Pictures". In each case because I'm familiar withe the books (actually very few books; Clarke's. output was stupendous!) respectively films.


Unlike most book/movie situations the book was not written prior to the movie (which I knew).
_From Wikipedia: It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version * and published after the release of the film *Clarke and Kubrick worked on the book together, but eventually only Clarke ended up as the official author. The story is based in part on various short stories by Clarke, including "The Sentinel" (written in 1948 for a BBC competition, but first published in 1951 under the title "Sentinel of Eternity")_

Without going to Wikipedia for the film trivia I seem to recall the reason Saturn wasn't used was because of the Rings....way too difficult to effect with the current FX technology. In the book tho' there is a clever little nod to how the rings were formed; one sentence but it speaks volumes about the intellect of the aliens. 

I read_ The Sentinel_ years after reading _2001_, not knowing it was the story that was later expanded to become _2001_.
I was not very far into it when I was thinking, "Hey, this sounds like the scene with the monolith on the moon from _2001_!" 😮
Gosh...Imagine that. 🙄😄


_. _


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Wednesday at 9:53 PM)

Are you trying to make us go blind? 😢


----------



## Deimos (Wednesday at 9:57 PM)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Are you trying to make us go blind? 😢


Uhhhh... I don't follow you 😬


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Wednesday at 10:01 PM)

I take it you use dark mode. Here's what your text looks like in light mode:


----------



## Deimos (Wednesday at 10:03 PM)

Oh...sorry...I don't use the light mode at all. 
I'll correct the post (if I can) .

You use the Light mode? That would drive me crazy.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Wednesday at 10:06 PM)

Deimos said:


> That would drive me crazy.


You finally get me! 🤪


----------



## Deimos (Wednesday at 10:10 PM)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> You finally get me! 🤪


No, no.... just using the LIght mode even when everything is the way it's supposed to be would drive me crazy.
I can't figure it out...If I switch to black font when in Light Mode, you can't read the post in Dark mode.
If I go pale grey (not quite white) font in Dark mode you can't read it in light mode.
So how do I navigate this?

It's fine if I don't change anything on the original post. It's legible in the correct colors whether in the Light mode or the Dark mode
*But once I change font color I can't get things back to normal, even when I go back to the original font color. *


----------



## Olorgando (Wednesday at 10:23 PM)

Deimos said:


> Unlike most book/movie situations the book was not written prior to the movie (which I knew).
> _From Wikipedia: It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version * and published after the release of the film *Clarke and Kubrick worked on the book together, but eventually only Clarke ended up as the official author. The story is based in part on various short stories by Clarke, including "The Sentinel" (written in 1948 for a BBC competition, but first published in 1951 under the title "Sentinel of Eternity")_
> 
> Without going to Wikipedia for the film trivia I seem to recall the reason Saturn wasn't used was because of the Rings....way too difficult to effect with the current FX technology. In the book tho' there is a clever little nod to how the rings were formed; one sentence but it speaks volumes about the intellect of the aliens.
> ...


I'll do it for you. If I quote somebody, I can edit the quote (mostly when I just want to reference a single sentence out of a voluminous post) but I can also change the text color - so voila!


----------



## Olorgando (Wednesday at 10:32 PM)

Deimos said:


> No, no.... just using the LIght mode even when everything is the way it's supposed to be would drive me crazy.
> I can't figure it out...If I switch to black font when in Light Mode, you can't read the post in Dark mode.
> If I go pale grey (not quite white) font in Dark mode you can't read it in light mode.
> So how do I navigate this?
> ...





Olorgando said:


> I'll do it for you. If I quote somebody, I can edit the quote (mostly when I just want to reference a single sentence out of a voluminous post) but I can also change the text color - so voila!


Erm - if I read your post correctly, you can't read my quote of your post now? 🤔


----------



## Deimos (Yesterday at 2:14 AM)

Olorgando said:


> Erm - if I read your post correctly, you can't read my quote of your post now? 🤔


I can read it just fine in both Light mode and Dark mode.
I'll have to experiment a bit with my posts, changing the font color, then changing it back.
Will let you know....Thanks


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Yesterday at 7:52 AM)

Is there a reason you have to change the color at all? I’m just wondering because it’s always been readable to me without changing anything. The only time I have changed it is when I want to use a color like blue or green etc. otherwise the defaults seem to work just fine


----------



## Child of Varda (Yesterday at 8:36 AM)

You can like whatever you want, but I think it is unfair to say that a Tolkien fan is the same as a Peter Jackson fan. I mean, imagine if someone told you that they liked, or even _related_ to Faramir or even Aragorn? I feel like we are looking at objectively different characters and therefore the fandoms are objectively two distinct entities.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Yesterday at 2:16 PM)

Interesting point, CoV. 

As someone who read the books decades before the movies were made, I've always been interested in the responses of people who came to the books after the films. 

I wonder how many prefer the characterizations-- pick any one or more -- in the movies over those in the books? Those, I suppose, would qualify as "Jackson fans", rather than Tolkien fans.

Though the testimony of some of our members indicates it's possible to be both. 🙂


----------



## Deimos (Yesterday at 3:59 PM)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Is there a reason you have to change the color at all? I’m just wondering because it’s always been readable to me without changing anything. The only time I have changed it is when I want to use a color like blue or green etc. otherwise the defaults seem to work just fine


Typically that is what I do, to wit, change the color of a word or phrase to draw attention to it. 
But sometimes I get ham-fisted and inadvertantly end up changing the whole paragraph (which kind of defeats the purpose of singling something out🙄).
And trying to get back to the original color seems to, well, not work in reverse...😱 
It's moi, I know it's moi, and moi's E-M aura that is doing it... (it affects the microwave too) 😬


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Yesterday at 4:26 PM)

Deimos said:


> Typically that is what I do, to wit, change the color of a word or phrase to draw attention to it.
> But sometimes I get ham-fisted and inadvertantly end up changing the whole paragraph (which kind of defeats the purpose of singling something out🙄).
> And trying to get back to the original color seems to, well, not work in reverse...😱
> It's moi, I know it's moi, and moi's E-M aura that is doing it... (it affects the microwave too) 😬


I’ve done that too. Never more than a few words luckily but that’s understandable 😂


----------

