[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You pity me for getting delight from something? It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erulasto, that is not what Darkside was saying at all. Quite the reverse, in fact. Darkside does not pity you for loving the film, and I envy anyone who could see past the mutilations and appreciate what the film-makers got right (the scene at Isengard where the young Ent is set afire; the fantastic image of the Morannon and the mounds of the kings at Edoras are examples that spring to my mind). Sadly, I cannot. I thought that Tolkien's plot and characterisation were absolute genius; I think that they would have made a stunning trilogy (or better still a sextet) of films without any changes being made to characters' motivations or actions, without any changes to the order of events, and with a brilliant cliffhanger at the end of <I>The Two Towers</I>, in which everyone who hadn't read the books would think that Frodo had died, only to be flooded with relief when it was revealed not to be true, as I was when I first read the novel.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you don't have anything nice to say, perhaps it's best to be quiet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What does this mean? That if we thought the film of <I>The Two Towers</I> was awful that we should just shut up and lump it? This forum is for the free exchange of ideas about Tolkien and matters relating to him, which means that anybody is allowed to express their opinion, whatever it may be. Be extremely careful what you say, as you are close to advocating censorship.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm sorry, but I find the tone of some of the people bashing the movie to be less than civil. If you spew vitriol, don't be afraid of getting a little back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's funny, but I've noticed the same thing about people who loved the films talking to people who didn't. Why can we not all realise that our appreciation of books and films is not objective? Just because one person loved the film of <I>The Two Towers</I> and another hated it does not make either of them wrong, pathetic or unpleasant. For Eru's sake, we're all Tolkien fans here: don't let some films tear us apart; that's the last thing that the Professor would want.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Seeing Hobbiton or Edoras or Orthanc in full technicolor glory on a giant screen is NOT the same as imagining it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No it isn't. I find that for me imagining it excels seeing it "as the first of May doth the last of December" (Benedick of Padua in <I>Much Ado About Nothing</I>), especially as Tolkien knew exactly how things were supposed to look and described them with enough detail to convey his vision, but with enough left out to make everyone's idea of each place unique to them. This is why I never enjoy a film made from a book as much as I enjoy the book itself. But that's what works for me: it doesn't work for everyone.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The reason I love the books is because Middle-Earth FEELS like a real place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Me too. For Tolkien it was real: as real as ancient Rome or Anglo-Saxon England. He compared Venice to "A dream of old Gondor". He knew that his fictional places had never really existed, but he never lost the child-like magic of pretending that they were real. See? I hated the film of <I>The Two Towers</I>, you clearly loved it, but we agree on something. Isn't that better than insulting each other?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is far more important that Narsil exists than when exactly Aragorn gets it.<P>It is far more important that elves bake lembas than their appearance or non-appearance at Helm's Deep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I quite agree. However, the way I see it if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it makes no difference to the length of the film how Théoden or Faramir behaves or why; if those things do not affect the three-film structure and filming the scenes is possible (with today's computer animation, I fail to see how any scene could not be), then why not just leave it the way Tolkien wrote it? After all, it's easier on the script-writers that way. Changing things for other reasons just looks frivolous and unnecessary to me, but a lot of you clearly didn't mind and that's good for you.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is more important that simbelmynë grows on the tombs of the Eorlings than what Théoden behaves like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can't agree there. I loved the fact that the white flowers grew on the mounds in the film, but for me the way in which Théoden behaves and his motivations are part of who and what that character is. To me if he behaves differently, or for different reasons, then he is no longer Théoden, but somebody else. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The story exists already, unspoiled, untouched, in the 1000+ pages of the book we all love. Consider the movies to be illustrations. They aren't meant to replace the story any more than the paintings on the covers are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hear hear. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that it's wrong to say what we dislike about them, just as we would with an illustration that we didn't like (I prefer Tolkien's to most others, because he and he alone knew for certain how everything was supposed to look).<P>I have to get back to work now. I used my lunch break to type this and haven't eaten. Please, fellow Downers, don't make me have wasted my time by shouting at each other about some films. It really isn't worth it.<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]