<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> If hardcore Tolkien fans can't agree on just who the heck old Tom is, he'd certainly leave uninitiated moviegoers scratching their heads before the movie's first reel was even over.<hr></blockquote><br> Sorry this reply is so late, but I disagree. I think the problems with 'who was TB' arise as a result of knowing more about the ME. If you don't know all the history and races and such, you aren't going to have any problem with who Tom was, he'd just be Tom. It's only when you learn more and realise that he's not like anything else, but could possibly fit into all kinds of categories that the confusion arises. <p></p>

<BR><br><br> Deving13, I hope you aren't cooking up some story about how Tolkien geeks hate the movies and want to crucify Peter Jackson, because there are lots</b> of us who can't wait for the movies to come out -- I'm betting at least as many as have already decided that they'll be crap. We're just not as vocal as the naysayers. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000005>Mister Underhill</A> at: 1/16/01 12:14:46 pm<br></i>

<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> &quot;Tolkien geeks hate the movies and want to crucify Peter Jackson&quot;<hr></blockquote><br> <br> Do I qualify as a &quot;Tolkien geek&quot;? I don't hate Jackson or the movies. I just don't plan to see them. <p>And at that hour the sun went down beyond the rim of the world,as a mighty fire;and Tuor stood alone upon the cliff with outspread arms,and a great yearning filled his heart.</p>

<BR><br><br> Anyone who trolls (pun intended) Tolkien sites on the web, debates the origins of Tom Bombadil, and fires off quotes to stump fellow Tolkien-ites qualifies for a charter membership in some chapter of geek-dom. Of course, some of us are geekier than others (I did author a twelve page article on the subject of troll origins, I readily admit). <br> <br> Nothing personal towards you Inziladun. I'm not going to try to talk you into going to see the movies, and I respect your intention to abstain (we'll see if you'll be able to hold out when the chips are down, though!). I'd just be a bit bummed if our intrepid Newsweek reporter friend is working on a slant about how LotR fans think the movies are heresy. I guess there is that faction, after all. I just wanted Deving13 to know that there are many of us out here who think the trailers look super-promising and can't wait to see the movies. <br> <p></p>

<BR><br><br> Hurray! I am a Tolkien geek, I am helping put together a new Silm. But I am still going to see the movies and I hope I like them. You see I look at it like this, there are several ways to tell a story. Just like when Aragorn said that in Rivendell you will here the story told aright. That must mean there are different versions of stories, why can't these movies be a different version of LotR. <p></p>

<BR><br><br> No offense taken, Mr. Underhill. I just thought we here were normal everyday folks. <br> If I do break down and see the movies,it will only be to understand what everyone here will be talking about for months afterward. Right now I still don't plan on it though.<br> <br> As for what sort of slant the article will have,only time will tell. <p>And at that hour the sun went down beyond the rim of the world,as a mighty fire;and Tuor stood alone upon the cliff with outspread arms,and a great yearning filled his heart.</p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> Wow. We're all Tolkien geeks. And half of y'all are Star Wars geeks as well. <p>Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> Well, I suppose spending countless hours in front of our computers discussing the aspects and histories of something that doesn't exist could be classified as symptoms of geekie-ness by some. But then one begins to question the definition of 'geek'. Geek and proud.<br> <br> Hey, I watched Castaway the other day on the big screen. Those trailers <i> do</i> look good. But then if the storyline is corrupt, it still may not be very worthwhile. I'm going to wait and see what the outcome is before I see it. It won't make any difference, though. 'Like it or hate it, you can't ignore it.' They will be big. <p>Gwaihir the Windlord <I><A href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">the barrow-downs</A></I><BR> 'Sing now, ye people of the Tower of Anor,<BR> for the Realm of Sauron is ended for ever,<BR> and the Dark Tower is thrown down.'<BR></p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> Well, I suppose spending countless hours in front of our computers discussing the aspects and histories of something that doesn't exist could be classified as symptoms of geekie-ness by some. But then one begins to question the definition of 'geek'. Geek and proud.<hr></blockquote><br> Yes, I have enough troubles trying to convince myself of my sanity without the question of Tolkien-geek-ness coming into it. <br> <br> <p></p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> The movies are a good thing. Whether the movies are a good adaptation or not one thig is certain: they will be worth watching. If the movies are a good adaptation then they'll be great, I have no doubts about that. And if they are a poor one? I have a saying that may well apply to the general population: &quot;I like ****ty fantasy movies.&quot; Who wants to see a bunch of fruity elves sitting around talking about the distant past? Not me! But what about samurai elves battleing hoards of scaly monsters or a crusty old man fighting a giant demon? Count me in!<br> <br> Movies (all of them, not just LotR) should be enjoyed on their own merits, whatever they might be. A movie based on any book can never live up to that book no matter how well of an adaptation it is, and it is silly for anyone to expect anyone other that the original writer to come anywhere remotely resembling perfection.<br> <br> You have to remember that movies aren't books, that they are two very different media. They each have their own, different, restrictions. When translating from one to the other certain inevitable concessions must be made. Movies are mostly visual and aural while books are almost completely mental. When making a movie from a book things that were previously only described, and perhaps vaguely described (balrog wings), must be given a concrete form, though this form may be unliked.<br> <br> When you go to see this movie, and most of you will eventually, don't go in with any preconceptions, they'll only hurt what could otherwise be a very enjoyable experience. <p>What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways?</p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> good post <p></p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> Aha! Look at these remarks in Letters from Tolkien regarding his reactions to a synopsis for a proposed (animated) film adaptation of LotR. It seems the prof wasn't quite as fetishistic as some of his present day fans are about preserving every little detail of his books:<blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> You will receive on Monday the copy of the 'Story Line' or synopsis of the proposed film version of The Lord of the Rings. I could not get it off yesterday. ....<br> An abridgement by selection with some good picture-work would be pleasant, &amp; perhaps worth a good deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation: a pull-back towards more conventional 'fairy-stories'. People gallop about on Eagles at the least provocation; Lórien becomes a fairy-castle with 'delicate minarets', and all that sort of thing.<br> But I am quite prepared to play ball, if they are open to advice – and if you decide that the thing is genuine, and worthwhile.<hr></blockquote>These abominations (people galloping about on Eagles! Lórien a fairy-castle?!) make even Arwen swinging a sword around seem like small beans in comparison, yet the professor was willing to &quot;play ball&quot; and was obviously open to the idea of adapting his work into other mediums.<br> <p></p>

<BR><br><br> Good post. Although I think the Proffesor would have approved of the recordings than a movie (despite the remarks you quoted) as they allowed the listener to make his/her ME what he/she wanted it to be. That way the imagination and depth is not lost as it is when PJ puts his personal incarnation of ME on the screen. But I'm not complaining; I'd quite like to see the movies. Sorta. <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> What in the heck is wrong with Legolas with blode hair?The movies could be good but they could be bad because when people see the movies (with elves and hobbits with pointed ears)their gonna say &quot;I pictured so and so with black hair instead of brown and so I'm gonna change my mind about so and so's hair being black&quot;instead of going with what they think the character looks like they change their minds because of a movie that could be a bad thing,but a good thing could be that when people see the movies they might want to read the books and find out about the characters with their courage and all if you know what I mean <br> Samwise of the shire <p></p>

<BR> Re: Are the movies a good or bad thing?</b><br><br> I believe that the movies will be a good thing, as you said it will spread the works of Tolkien, but I think the director should be prepared for much criticism beause of the movies flaws. I think that it will take years to properly draw out the movie, but a movie a year will most likely be innacurate. Middle-earth is probably best shown through cartoon form where your imagination can't create settings and characters. So the answer to would probably be yes, because I want to see my favorite books on the screen, as would all Tolkien fans. <p></p>

<BR> Welcome!</b><br><br> Welcome to the Forum, GothmogBalrog! Interesting name. For the sake of it: Do you have wings? Good points. I don't think anyone should really complain; Reading is one thing but I'll be first in line when the movies come out. As long as Gollum looks good... <p>- <i>enep</i></p>

<BR> Re: Welcome!</b><br><br> Hi GB (yes the nicks have already started )!<br> Just a small correction. I don't think ALL Tolkien fans are eagerly awaiting the movie. MAny of us are dreading them too. <p>Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

Unfortunatly the ineviteble will happen, exploitation is the marketers only recourse......Dolls, figurines, toys, etc. Its such a shame, because it belittles the Author, and the validity of the books. But we must indure, this too shall pass

Its interesting now that the movie HAS come out, how many of the people who posted on here still hold to their prejudices? <p>[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: LePetitChoux ]

The movies are neither a good thing, nor a bad thing. How's that sound? I read the books long before the movie and I liked the movie when it came out. Sure, it ruined my image of a dark-haired Legolas and yeah, Rivendell will never be the same for me, but the movie got hundreds, thousands, etc. of people to <i>read the books</i>. With the decline of interest in reading these days, I'm physched that a movie has gotten so many to read a wonderful book. I'm pretty sure Tolkien would approve too. <BR>To me personally, I don't care one way or the other whether the movie is going to ruin my imaginings or not. To me, all that matters is that a movie made people read. That's all that really seems important.

I like the movies. They're enjoyable. there, done.

Hay, the movie won 4 Academy Awards and was nominated for Best Picture. Need I say more.<P>My mom likes it and see never knew anything about it. She agreed to read the books, if each movie 'went home' with at least one Academy Award. She sure was shocked that spring.

Wow this is an old topic! Anyways... well, I was just wondering, why did you all think that elves <I>didn't</I> have pointy ears? Before the movies came out I always envisioned them with pointy ears.<P>About FotR... I loved it, it was really true to the book and the parts that weren't (Arwen saving Frodo w/the river-horses, etc) didn't hurt it. And about Tom Bombadil... well, I really didn't get the point of him in the book. Why was he there? Was it bad that he wasn't in the movie?<P>I've heard that Shelob isn't in TTT. I'll have to see if it turns out OK, but Shelob <I>in</I> TTT would be really sweet.

The movies aren't a bad thing. Are they an accurate representation of the books? Certainly not. But movies never are and never can be. What useful purpose do they serve then? You can't necessarily learn a whole lot about Middle Earth from just watching the movies. These movies are good because they expose people to Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings who might not otherwise hear of them. I heard the hobbit on tape and thougt it was good, and someone even gave me the Lord of the Rings for my birthday, but I never read it. I started, but I got bogged down at the beginning. Then I saw the movie. I read all three books in the next month and the Silmarillion and the Hobbit soon after that. What the movies do is they show a huge number of people what a great story the Lord of th Rings is. Some people no doubt will just simply watch the movies and be done with it. Some will probably start the books and maybe finish them, but will never become Tolkien fans. And others will become die-hard Tolkien fanatics. In any case, everyone has still heard of the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien, and Middle Earth. The movies are great in their own fashion, and the books are better. Those who just watch the movie have seen a great movie and know a little about the incredible world Tolkien has created. Others will be inspired to read the books and will get an even more incredible insight into Tolkien's magnificent creation.

The movies are very expensive (and really quite decent) FAN FICTION.