The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - The Examples of Dumbing

Essex · 10-20-2003, 08:02 AM

your point <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And as to Bombadil’s house being more interesting than Aragorn’s motivation. Well I guess that’s why Bombadil has not been included in either film version or the radio version. Most people who adapt these stories know that what engages an audience is not what landscapes the characters are walking through but what they feel and why. What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take, make the wrong decisions they take. That is where LOTR’s weak point lies <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe for a film (or radio drama) adaptation, but not for a book. This is not a weak point. Bombadil is not about just walking through a landscape as you insinuate above. It is about the LEVEL of control the ring had (not total), the history of middle earth (the barrow wights), the mysterious forces of nature (old man willow, bombadil and goldberry), and the NEED for Frodo et all to get off the road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and for merry to get his sword, not to be given one from Galadriel…….The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. Jackson’s is definitely not!!!!!PS Tolkien built this book as part of his history of arda. he was a professor of anglo saxon as you may be aware. his stories are supposedly set 7,000 years ago, so he has (correctly) decided to give a more 'ancient' air to the language.PPS one of Jackson's worst descisions in my view was giving the orcs cockney accents. this is an example of the improper use of language. (I am almost a cockney (ie not within the sounds of bow bells where I was born, but about 10 miles away), and it was embarissing to hear them speak like this).ppps, you point on <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>what motivation did the following have to 'follow' the ring in the film:1/ Merry 2/ Pippin 3/ Legolas 4/ GimliNOTHING. At least these characters had motivation in the book. ie why they followed and were part of the fellowship. Oh yeah, we can't show that in the film because of 'pacing'. I forgot. The Book wins over the film hands down. Don't get me wrong, the films are excellent, and jackson has done a great, but not flawless job. film 9 out of 10 book 10 out of 10!

10-20-2003, 08:02 AM	#8
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	your point <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And as to Bombadil’s house being more interesting than Aragorn’s motivation. Well I guess that’s why Bombadil has not been included in either film version or the radio version. Most people who adapt these stories know that what engages an audience is not what landscapes the characters are walking through but what they feel and why. What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take, make the wrong decisions they take. <BR>That is where LOTR’s weak point lies <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Maybe for a film (or radio drama) adaptation, but not for a book. This is not a weak point. Bombadil is not about just walking through a landscape as you insinuate above. It is about the LEVEL of control the ring had (not total), the history of middle earth (the barrow wights), the mysterious forces of nature (old man willow, bombadil and goldberry), and the NEED for Frodo et all to get off the road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and for merry to get his sword, not to be given one from Galadriel…….<P>The most IMPORTANT thing in ANY story, be it film radio or TV, is not character (that is second) but PLOT. Tolkien’s is flawless. Jackson’s is definitely not!!!!!<P>PS Tolkien built this book as part of his history of arda. he was a professor of anglo saxon as you may be aware. his stories are supposedly set 7,000 years ago, so he has (correctly) decided to give a more 'ancient' air to the language.<P>PPS one of Jackson's worst descisions in my view was giving the orcs cockney accents. this is an example of the improper use of language. (I am almost a cockney (ie not within the sounds of bow bells where I was born, but about 10 miles away), and it was embarissing to hear them speak like this).<P>ppps, you point on <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What motivates them, makes them take the risks they take <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>what motivation did the following have to 'follow' the ring in the film:<P>1/ Merry<BR>2/ Pippin<BR>3/ Legolas<BR>4/ Gimli<P>NOTHING. At least these characters had motivation in the book. ie why they followed and were part of the fellowship. Oh yeah, we can't show that in the film because of 'pacing'. I forgot. <P>The Book wins over the film hands down. Don't get me wrong, the films are excellent, and jackson has done a great, but not flawless job. film 9 out of 10 book 10 out of 10!