Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Morwen]

What was the significance of the necklace that Tom plucks from the Barrow hoard?

Was there a necklace? I recall that he selected a brooch set with blue stones from the hoard and said that he would give it to Goldberry to wear in remembrance of the past owner.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Morwen

Was there a necklace? I recall that he selected a brooch set with blue stones from the hoard and said that he would give it to Goldberry to wear in remembrance of the past owner.

Sorry; thanks. Jewelry always confuses me. And the significance of the brooch?

Anyway, the inclusion of Bombadil is not on my Top Ten list of things I would have done differently.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by alatar:

Sorry; thanks. Jewelry always confuses me. And the significance of the brooch?

You could check out this thread. It's a whole discussion about the significance of the brooch:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...dil%27s+brooch

[Morwen]

Sorry; thanks. Jewelry always confuses me. And the significance of the brooch?

Anyway, the inclusion of Bombadil is not on my Top Ten list of things I would have done differently.

I think the book is richer for having Bombadil in it. I believe that it's Bethberry who earlier made the point that acts as one of the many helpers that Frodo and the other Hobbits meet along the way, an early example of the "help unlooked for" that Elrond will later tell Frodo that he may find on his journey. But I can understand why one might opt to leave him out of a film adaptation as he appears in 3 early chapters of FotR and never again. So leaving out Bombadil is not among my Top Ten of things I would do differently either.

As for the significance of the brooch - I thought that it connects to the theme of loss in the book. "Fair was she that long ago wore this on her shoulder" but now all that remains is a trinket to remind Bombadil and Goldberry of the unnamed owner/wearer. I don't have the book at the moment but I recall Bombadil wearing a sad expression or at least pensive one as he contemplates the brooch. I thought that he is far from being "goofy" or "cartoonish" in this passage.


Edit: Cross posted with radagastly

[Sauron the White]

Alatar.... the Steelers??? Wasn't that the team that the league conspired with the refs in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago to give them the game despite their quarterback never crossing the goal line and then admitting it on national TV? Just want to make sure that your analogies and comparisons are the same ones that I understand.

and you said

Anyway, I've been trying to figure out Sauron the White

Good luck to you. I have a weekly therapist who has been trying for a couple of years now with no luck.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Alatar.... the Steelers??? Wasn't that the team that the league conspired with the refs in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago to give them the game despite their quarterback never crossing the goal line and then admitting it on national TV? Just want to make sure that your analogies and comparisons are the same ones that I understand.

No clue. I have to admit that I've never drank the kool-aid, and would have to work on caring less. If it weren't for people thinking that I must be recording the games, I'd most likely be rid outa tahn. Regardless, the point that you well make is that some would believe that their team can do no wrong, and react crazily when one suggests it. Others admit it with a chuckle - nudge nudge wink wink - but see it as the nature of things. Still others lessen or lose their interest when they see examples of the game being fixed, even when it's in their team's favor.

Not sure why you're so interested in getting bookites to speak heresy, as obviously you're wise enough to know all of this as well.

Good luck to you. I have a weekly therapist who has been trying for a couple of years now with no luck.

What does he/she think of the films/books? And sorry, but it's always a wonder to me as to what makes people tick.

And thanks, radagastly for the link. Seems that there's been more discussion on that thread since I last peaked in. But I still don't know why Tolkien makes a point of it...anyone have PJ et al's email address? Surely he'll know...

[Sauron the White]

Alatar .. here is the serious answer to your musings.

You have a point and I do understand it. And it does explain alot. Having said that, I would also say this. The concept of being a prejudiced "homer" is one that is foreign to me. I view myself, and hopefuly people here, as intelligent beings who 1) can use their minds well, 2) are open minded, and 3) strive to be free from the sort of prejudgements you speak of. What good does it do the advancement of knowledge, discussion, debate or anything else if we proudly stand up and say

... "well yes I am a provincial yahoo who admits I see things with blinders on and looks at the world with rose colored glasses on so I only see what I want to see..."

To say that most here came from a solid background of books and read them long before Jackson set a single scene to film is no excuse or rationalization for being blinded to the beauty of the movies. Sorry but it just isn't. It explains the prejudice. It explains the blinders. It explains the rose colored glasses. But it is no excuse.

It reminds me of a line in an old Simon and Garfunkel song "The Boxer". "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." I have always strived to not be that man. I would hope that others also do the same.

For my part, I do not fit the description that you hint at. Like many here, I found the books long ago. I first read them right out of college in 1971. I imagine I read LOTR at least a half dozen times before the Jackson films. And by that fact, you can see I am no peach-fuzzed 20something who was dazzled by the films and did not even know there were any books.

I have always been something of a contrarian, a rebel and an iconoclast. I greatly enjoy going against the grain regardless if it be rooting for the visiting team or being the only one in the room to advocate looking at an unpopular social or political position for the sake of discussion. I guess I am like another line from a song from Bruce Springsteen.. "when they said sit down I stood up".

So for you to explain things here by rationalizing that people have more history with the books and see them as perfect and thus its normal to rag on the films .... sorry but that does not ring true for me. It does apply to people who do not want to go beyond their small minded limits. It does apply to people who proudly wear those blinders or rose colored glasses and have no interest in taking them off.

But its still not right.

[Gwathagor]

I don't know about YOU, StW, but I watch sports games for the intellectual high I derive from carefully and coldly analyzing the performance of all involved (from a purely objective standpoint). The excitement of supporting one team over the other strikes me as somehow...provincial and small-minded. Then I say to all those stupid yokels, "Look at me! I'm different! I choose not to enjoy this in the same way you do!" Then I laugh to myself because I am wiser and saner than they. Ba ha ha.

Everybody wears glasses of some color, StW.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

To say that most here came from a solid background of books and read them long before Jackson set a single scene to film is no excuse or rationalization for being blinded to the beauty of the movies. Sorry but it just isn't. It explains the prejudice. It explains the blinders. It explains the rose colored glasses. But it is no excuse........


So for you to explain things here by rationalizing that people have more history with the books and see them as perfect and thus its normal to rag on the films .... sorry but that does not ring true for me. It does apply to people who do not want to go beyond their small minded limits. It does apply to people who proudly wear those blinders or rose colored glasses and have no interest in taking them off.

But its still not right.

Yes, but you're assuming those of us who don't like the movies have taken a dislike to them on principle. I didn't. On the contrary, I wanted more than anything to like them. I dreamt of being able to sit down & be transported to the Middle-earth I knew & loved. Look, I reckon Ive watched the movies more than many of those who loved them. I saw FotR 3 times in the cinema, bought the theatrical version (on VHS) when it came out & watched it probably half a dozen times, same with the DVD extended version (probably more than that, as I also watched it with the commentaries. Same thing with TT & RotK. All that plus watching the movies a couple of times when they were on TV. Lal & I even spent one Sunday a couple of years back & watched the extended versions back to back.

Now, I think that shows that I've tried. I like bits, &, as movies, I find them entertaining enough - if I'm in the mood for that kind of thing. Thing is, now I find I'm very rarely in that kind of mood. The bits I liked originally have lost any interest for me due to having seen them a few times, but the bits that irritated me have become more & more grating.

As things stand (& this is something I've stated before) I'm not violently opposed to the movies. Actually, I find them dull, over-simplified & often illogical, but I can't really summon up the energy to get annoyed about them. I appreciate the effort of all concerned, & can only admire Jackson's persistence. I also accept that he loves the books - that kind of dedication & commitment alone would deserve all the awards & kudos he recieved. I just think that the movies are a heroic failure. They failed to present the M-e I know & love. And yet that isn't down to books & movies being different media. I keep going back to the BBC radio dramatisation. That was an adaptation into a different medium, but it was a faithful one, & when I listen to that I am taken to the M-e I know & love.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Alatar .. here is the serious answer to your musings.

And your previous post wasn't?!?

You have a point and I do understand it. And it does explain alot. Having said that, I would also say this. The concept of being a prejudiced "homer" is one that is foreign to me.

Note that I used the word 'bias' specifically, as to me bias is (quoting someone in Frank Herbert's writings) 'if I can, I will vote for my side,' whereas prejudice (pre-judgment) would mean that, 'regardless of any argument put forward, I will vote for my side.' In fact, before I even read your post or see the movies, I already know what I will think about them. davem's (like the one above) and others posts indicate that they may have a book bias, but were not prejudiced to the movies. Like them, I too wanted them to be great and yield the same thrill as the books. Maybe I set my expectations too high?

And, as my title suggests as my default position, I seriously doubt that you entertain no biases or prejudices. If you are human, then you got them with your DNA.

I view myself, and hopefuly people here, as intelligent beings who

I consider myself intelligent but don't really like chocolate and would not wear anything coloured purple if it were the last shirt in the drawer. Bias is not anti-intelligent. Bias is a filter we use to make decisions a little more quickly. Should I eat the carrot or the snail? Last time the snail made me sick, so I'll grab the carrot.

1) can use their minds well,

The cynic in me wonders if any of us do this.

2) are open minded,

Open minded does not mean accepting all positions, or weighting them equally. Because we are intelligent, we have to sift the data for relevance. That said, because we are all unique, we can arrive at different answers given the same data.

and 3) strive to be free from the sort of prejudgements you speak of.

Sounds good, but striving does not equal attaining. It's been said that one should remove the beam from one's own eye before commenting on the speck in another's. But I hear ya.

What good does it do the advancement of knowledge, discussion, debate or anything else if we proudly stand up and say

... "well yes I am a provincial yahoo who admits I see things with blinders on and looks at the world with rose colored glasses on so I only see what I want to see..."

People who do this do not realize that they are doing so. Or, actually, persons who admit to wearing glasses are at least being honest.

To say that most here came from a solid background of books and read them long before Jackson set a single scene to film is no excuse or rationalization for being blinded to the beauty of the movies. Sorry but it just isn't. It explains the prejudice. It explains the blinders. It explains the rose colored glasses. But it is no excuse.

Not a rationalization, but an explanation. If you grew up hating peas, no amount of argument is going to persuade you to enjoy the yucky green things. Rational? No. But noting that person with a distaste for peas was forced to eat them as a child at least sheds light on why he/she may not like them, even when they've been prepared in a more appealing sauce.

My question to you is: What do you want from these discussions (besides entertainment and some good thinking), and with whom are you really arguing? Earlier posts suggest that it may not be with those that love/prefer the books over Jackson's work, but with those that hold or are perceived to hold views with which you do not agree or think are rational/consistent/other.

For my part, I do not fit the description that you hint at. Like many here, I found the books long ago. I first read them right out of college in 1971. I imagine I read LOTR at least a half dozen times before the Jackson films. And by that fact, you can see I am no peach-fuzzed 20something who was dazzled by the films and did not even know there were any books.

I have always been something of a contrarian, a rebel and an iconoclast. I greatly enjoy going against the grain regardless if it be rooting for the visiting team or being the only one in the room to advocate looking at an unpopular social or political position for the sake of discussion. I guess I am like another line from a song from Bruce Springsteen.. "when they said sit down I stood up".

And here we're getting closer to the real issue. So does this mean that on pro-Jackson sites you argue that he wasn't true to the books and should have included Bombadil? Again, I then see someone who is either arguing for the fun of the play, or is arguing with a voice from the past. Regardless, it's been fun.

So for you to explain things here by rationalizing that people have more history with the books and see them as perfect and thus its normal to rag on the films .... sorry but that does not ring true for me.

So I present evidence (however scant) as an explanation as to some, but not all, persons behaviour, and you, being open minded and a product of psychological Lasik surgery, cannot consider this to be even an approximation of the perfect truth. As I and others have said, we all wear glasses, and it's the coloured lenses that make life fun (most times).

It does apply to people who do not want to go beyond their small minded limits.

Please define "small-minded." The mind is the product of the brain, and not sure if there's been any volumetric data. And if that's not what you mean, I would think that this forum is open to all those that are civil and follow the rules.

It does apply to people who proudly wear those blinders or rose colored glasses and have no interest in taking them off.

Why does that bother you so? Was there someone or group that oppressed you in some way with a "my way or the highway" stick? People here like the books, or movies, or both, or hold obstinate views even when presented with airtight evidence to the contrary. Even I, noted for being exemplary in all matters large and small along with being most humble and unassuming, may, for a moment or two, hold onto a view or idea just for old times' sake.

So what?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

And thanks, radagastly for the link. Seems that there's been more discussion on that thread since I last peaked in. But I still don't know why Tolkien makes a point of it...anyone have PJ et al's email address? Surely he'll know...

I can just imagine! If we go to PJ, we can be assured that he won't say yeah or nay. He'll probably realise that Tom B was the original Tomb raider and decide that Goldberry can be immortalized in a remake of Laura Croft. After all, if he can redo King Kong he can redo anything.

[Sauron the White]

Davem ... yes, I do understand that there are people here who have definite objections to the movies as movies. That is fair and proper and I have no complaint with that. That is not to whom my comments are aimed at.

There is a sizable contingent here who simply object to the movies because they were not like the books. Period. It comes across again and again and again in post after post after post in thread after thread after thread. If you find that sentence repetitive, its intended to mimick the nature of those same carping posts produced by people blinded by their own prejudgments.

This thread is about movies and books. I am reminded of another fine book turned into a fine movie - THE COLOR PURPLE. There is a great scene where Celie is talking to Shug Avery about Celies abusive husband Albert. It seems that Albert is the lover of Shug and he is tender, doting and caring with her. He is not abusive in the slightest to Shug. And when the two women open up and exchange their very different experiences to each other about the same man, Shug cannot understand why Albert does what he does to Celie.

Celie sums it up in one concise sentence.

"He beat me 'cause I ain't you."

And that fits like a glove on the hand of many posters here. They do not like the movies because they are not the books. You do not have to wander far to find evidence of this. Simply look at this threads title.