|
|
Post by Juliette on Jul 20, 2012 22:54:00 GMT
Hi Taylor, I have to say that I completely disagree with this statement. Of course, if, for you, the only purpose of the movie is to see the book in picture, you will always be disappointed or think that it is not enough. But you have to think adaptations in another way: they are rewriting, they are another and new piece of art. Of course their inspiration comes from something already in existence, but in themselves they are a piece of art on their own. So they can't be just like the book. If they were, yes, it would please all those who love the book in question but that would be so poor in terms of creation. Besides, like every rewriting, a movie is the interpretation of the film maker and/or his crew, their vision of what they read. In this sense, it has to be treasured. We can disagree or don't like that vision of things, but at least, it brings discussion and a point of view/interpretation on the book. Art needs to be always made of new things, it is a perpetuous re-invention. I think that sometimes film makers shouldn't get all their ideas for films from books, because at some point we need something completely new. But at the same time, since the dawn of time, artists have been using stories or myths already in existence and have been interpretatig them to create their own piece of art. As cinema is an art relatively new, it is still hard to see it that way and many people tend to think of adaptations as betrayal of books. But, for example, you would never want a director to stage an opera the same way that someone else did in the past, or a singer to sing the same way than another one, because that wouldn't be interesting. Or think of Hayley, whose repertoire is mostly made of songs that are not her own... But everytime, she tries to make the song her own and to make it another piece of art, she tries to create something new. Sometimes, rewriters fail in their job, or sometimes we are just to attached to the original version and we don't like the new one. But sometimes as well, the rewriting is just brilliant, and a few times can be even better than the original. So, I hope that movies, or songs, or any rewriting, will never be like the originals, because it is then that art will become very boring and uninteresting. Juliette x |
|
|
|
Post by Bamafan on Jul 21, 2012 1:09:06 GMT
Hey Juliette, I completely understand where you're coming from. I mean, I know it isn't always true, but that's why it's called a rule of thumb. Pygmalion/My Fair Lady: prime example of both being different, but good. But, honestly, most people who went to see LOTR went to see a movie version of the book, not a director's work of self-expression. And, usually, the point of making a book into a movie is exactly that. But if it's meant to be a reworking of the story, at least make it different enough so that it is a different story (ex. Romeo & Juliette/West Side Story), not just slightly altered, which, sadly, is how many of these book-to-movie films turn out to be. As to your allusion to Hayley, her work does mainly consist of other artists songs. BUT, usually they are completely her own, and very different from any artist who did it before her, almost making it a different song (ex. Both Sides Now). Not just another disappointing cover of the same song. Not trying to "be like the book". I do agree with you that usually the best movies aren't based off books. It's just that they are completely original, not trying to copy anything. And you can't get biased on something that has no predecessor. And how can you leave out anything from a story that's never been told? Thing is, that when directors/re-writers try to make a book into a film, they often leave out or change the little things. And it's the sum of the little things that make the book. A good example would be "The Lightning Theif". Great book, but so many things were changed in the movie, that it was just... Not the same. It was still supposed to be the book, but it wasn't. But, opinions are opinions. Everyone has their own. So let us step back and put the subject to rest. Whoo! Tired after that.  Not used to typing that much in one post! -Taylor i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jul 21, 2012 2:31:55 GMT
Here's the picture of Boromir from Facebook:  Richard  Thanks, Richard! You're the best!  I would have posted it myself, but I've been having trouble getting to Facebook pages/links these days. It just sits there with a blank page loading and loading, and usually never loads. Sometimes refreshing the page works, but usually, it just refreshes the page you were on when you were trying to get to Facebook! So frustrating! Anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jul 21, 2012 2:35:32 GMT
Well, actually I am not a huge fan of Tolkien's stuff. Fairy tales for adults. But if Hayley was involved in a movie, I would certainly want to see it, if only for the music. Martin D Oh my goodness, Martin. These stories are so much more than fairytales. There are not any giddy fairies flying around with fairy dust, or some nonsense like that. These are dramatic, epic stories here. You know not of what you speak, Martin. LOL Let me guess, you're one of those people who saw the movie once, and didn't get it because you didn't know or understand the story, and it was too long, and therefore, you decided you don't like it. There are a lot of people who don't like it because of this, and make fun of you if they see you reading the books, or bring it up in conversation. I've had 2 co-workers do this to me when they saw me with my book.  I don't understand why people have to ridicule you just because they didn't like the movie. I don't go around mocking people because they like Twilight. The movie seems quite silly to me, but it doesn't mean I make fun of the fans. Elliot, some fans of the books complained about how the movies portrayed Gimli, because they thought they made him too comical. Same with the hobbits Merry and Pippin. They mostly made Pippin seem just funny and with not a lot of sense. That was somewhat true, but the parts about him in Gondor, and then in the Scouring of the Shire, he's a whole lot more than that. Merry too. They pretty much became heroes in the Shire for fighting off all of Saruman's cronies. They didn't just come riding back on a pony like nothing happened, like they show in the movie. It wasn't quite the happy, worry-free place it was when they left, that's for sure. But, obvioiusly, they didn't have time for all that. Oh well. I saw another funny quote today on Twitter: "One does not simply walk into theaters, there are geeks there that do not sleep". LOL I think Boromir said "orcs" instead of geeks. i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 21, 2012 8:11:26 GMT
Myths, Martin. Not the same thing at all  *** Libby, There are some Tolkien fans who pretty much object to the whole thing not being exactly like the book, line for line. I kid you not! I understand the passion, but while I hugely respect Tolkien as a storyteller, I understand that film and novels are very different media and have different requirements. I did find it very interesting that the Scouring of the Shire left Frodo as 'the guy who did nothing' and his three friends as the main heroes to the people of the Shire, who neither truly understand nor care about his role in saving their entire world! Tolkien's whole work is 'in praise of the little people', yet at the same time he sees the limitations to their world view. It's a great understanding of people! But then, he deliberately set out to write a set of myths for the people of Britain, and succeeded in doing so. Who else can just decide to write a whole mythology, and just do it? |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jul 23, 2012 4:42:41 GMT
I know. So in that sense, I guess they still depicted something of the Shire's disdain or ignorance of Frodo's adventures, when they showed that hobbit at the end shaking his head at them as they pass by on the way home. Yet, there is an interesting part with Sam and Rosie where she hints that he hadn't been looking after Frodo the whole time he was away, and Sam just says nothing and walks away. And I think later on there was a part where he told everything to Rosie's family. Then of course, there's the book that Bilbo and Frodo wrote. But would any of the hobbits actually have read it? And this is a delayed response, but I agree wholeheartedly with Juliette that books aren't always better than the movies. Sometimes it's faster to watch the movie, for one thing. As for the LOTR, I definitely like both. And I know I'll like the Hobbit, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 23, 2012 12:43:48 GMT
The Hobbit had me from the moment the dwarves start singing in the trailer. That was just just a perfect moment.
I agree that the other Hobbits probably never read either Bilbo's book or Frodo's. They consider both to be non-Hobbits, in a way. Too weird, too involved with the outside world.
And I love both the lotR book & the films, too. I think they each do different things well. I'm not keen on some of the casting of the minor roles in the lotR films (Eowyn especially is nothing like the feisty battle-maiden she should be), but the Fellowship Of The Ring are all perfect and the world looks so real. I can't imagine Middle earth looking different to that, now. Superbly acted throughout, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jameskparker on Jul 23, 2012 22:32:19 GMT
As a devotee of both the books and the movies...in my humble opinion, the movies were so good that they did do the books justice. I own the "deluxe" trilogy version of LOTR and I saw everything that went into the making of them and the meticulous nature of Peter Jackson. In short...both the books and the movies were awesome.  |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jul 24, 2012 4:48:11 GMT
As a devotee of both the books and the movies...in my humble opinion, the movies were so good that they did do the books justice. I own the "https://i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifeluxe" trilogy version of LOTR and I saw everything that went into the making of them and the meticulous nature of Peter Jackson. In short...both the books and the movies were awesome. I think that's what I have, too! I have a trilogy set, and each movie has the "making of" stuff with it. I loved watching that. I studied every one closely. Part of my interest was from the fact that I knew Peter was filming the Hobbit (I watched them all last year), and I just felt like it was giving me an idea of what everything was like for the Hobbit, too. Not to mention all the production videos PJ posted on his facebook. Between watching all this and reading the books, and knowing basically everything there is to know about Hayley's career, I feel I was adequately-versed on everything enough to write the letters to PJ and Howard. I do wish I could have found Howard's real address a lot sooner though! Elliot, I personally think Mirando Otto was fine for Eowyn, but I don't know many actors, so I wouldn't know who would have been better. I think part of what you're missing from her is that the writers just didn't put as much of the story of Eowyn in as was in the book. That's what I mean about Pippin. They don't represent his character from the book very well, except for the humorous side. Which was probably the best side for them to represent, though, to add humor to the movies. I loved Pippin in the movie, and I loved him in the book, too. I think I was all the more impressed by Pippin's character in the book simply because I didn't expect it, due to the movie's representation of him. So, unlike the Tolkien purists, instead of reading it first, and being disappointed by him in the movie, I loved him in the movie first, and then was surprised and pleased by more Pippin story in the book. I think when I saw the ROTK, I was especially looking forward to seeing Pippin's parts in the movie. I didn't know if there would be much, since I didn't know the story. So getting more Pippin story in the books was definitely a plus for me. I still thought that Merry got more lines than Pippin did. Haha. I do think they represented them the same in the movie, though. Merry the more practical, sensible one, and Pippin the sillier one. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by jameskparker on Jul 25, 2012 1:11:06 GMT
Libby.... Yeah, I got my set for an absolute STEAL too! We have a chain of discount stores over in my area called "Half Priced Books" where people bring in there used books, CDs , DVDs, even vintage LPs, etc. to see what they can get for them. Anyway, my set cost only $40! And I even had a $15 gift coupon which made my total 25. It was in near-perfect, barely used condition. It had only gone on the shelf the day before, so I got lucky. On another note, I really liked the representation of the Ents. What unique and awesome fantasy creatures Tolkien made with them! |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jul 25, 2012 4:43:46 GMT
Oh yeah, the Ents were fun, especially when they make Saruman mad. LOL And it was either Gandalf or Gimli who did the main Ent's voice. I can't remember which one. Hmm... I think they each did a voice other than their main character, so that may be why I'm mixing them up. Maybe. I'm think it was Gimli. And I forgot the actor's name. I know it has Rhys in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 25, 2012 7:20:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jameskparker on Jul 25, 2012 23:26:47 GMT
Oh yeah, the Ents were fun, especially when they make Saruman mad. LOL And it was either Gandalf or Gimli who did the main Ent's voice. I can't remember which one. Hmm... I think they each did a voice other than their main character, so that may be why I'm mixing them up. Maybe. I'm think it was Gimli. And I forgot the actor's name. I know it has Rhys in it. I think it's John Rhys-Davies or close to that. Ooh...I just loved Ewowyn  |
|
Joe
Administrator
Supporting Hayley since 2003!
Posts: 6,715 
|
Post by Joe on Jul 25, 2012 23:56:15 GMT
Oh yeah, the Ents were fun, especially when they make Saruman mad. LOL And it was either Gandalf or Gimli who did the main Ent's voice. I can't remember which one. Hmm... I think they each did a voice other than their main character, so that may be why I'm mixing them up. Maybe. I'm think it was Gimli. And I forgot the actor's name. I know it has Rhys in it. I think it's John Rhys-Davies or close to that. I remember John was in the Indiana Jones movies as well! |
|
|
|
Post by jameskparker on Jul 26, 2012 1:33:53 GMT
Yes...as well as in the sci-fi series "Sliders".
|
|
I don't understand why people have to ridicule you just because they didn't like the movie. I don't go around mocking people because they like Twilight. The movie seems quite silly to me, but it doesn't mean I make fun of the fans.
