Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's not because they were "not like the books" in the sense that the adaptation process necessarily changed certain things. My great disappointment (and it was truly that- I haunted TORC and TORN and lapped up every bit of leaked news, really looking forward to the release) stemmed from the fact that PJ so clearly didn't understand his source material. I was hoping for an epic-with-brains like Lawrence of Arabia et al, and what I saw (even in Fellowship, whose plot-alterations I didn't often mind that much) was instead a bigger, badder Indiana Jones movie. All of Tolkien's deeper currents beneath the shallow level of 'plot' had disappeared; and in the sequels were indeed frequently turned on their heads.

That I think underlies the distaste many book-fans have for the movies- we couldn't watch them without being painfully aware of how much was missing (not of the plot, but of the Tolkienian mental universe). And this isn't (at least in my case) due to some prejudice against movies or a lack of understanding of the cinemtic medium: I duly took 'History of Film' and 'Cinema as an Art Form' (and got A's)- so I'm reasonably aware of film's potential to convey a tremendous degree of intellectual content and subtext. A film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings didn't *have* to be superficial.

It's interesting that you bring up The Color Purple. *That* Spielberg, the Spielberg who also made Schindler's List, should have been the model, rather than that other Spielberg, maker of popcorn movies.

[Gwathagor]

StW: The thread's title is obviously self-satirizing.

davem: The BBC radio dramatization is truly, truly awesome; easily the best adaptation of the books to any other medium. I listen to it every Christmas, and it still sends chills up my spine. Every time.

In some ways, it's listening to the BBC radio version that makes me inclined to like the movies less than I might otherwise, because the radio series reminds me that however good the movies may have been, they could have been sooo much better. The BBC version, on the other hand, captures the spirit of Middle-earth in a much more complete and deep way. It's a demonstration and a reminder of what The Lord of the Rings films could have been, of the story's full potential for adaptation.

[Sauron the White]

from WilliamCH

we couldn't watch them without being painfully aware of how much was missing (not of the plot, but of the Tolkienian mental universe).

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.

There is a part of Jackson which is the teen-age boy who loves action and "cool stuff". And when you listen to both his interviews and the extras on the DVD's that certainly came across. However, I would disagree with those who maintain that all that was included at the expense of the more sublime portions of LOTR, the more subtle moments, the softer and more emotional scenes and incidents. Its there if anyone just wants to see it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.

Ignorance is bliss, someone said. My wife, not reading the books ever! enjoyed the movies more than I when we saw them in the theater. Now that they've been in the house and on broadcast TV, and now that she's seen them more (still not having read those books) sees many more flaws and has actually used the word, "stupid" when viewing certain scenes. Yes, it's one data point, but our theory of TMU will want to be considered in light of this possible outlier.

There is a part of Jackson which is the teen-age boy who loves action and "cool stuff". And when you listen to both his interviews and the extras on the DVD's that certainly came across.

That makes sense. If only I could be a teenager again.

the more subtle moments

There were so many...

[Sauron the White]

Alatar.... you post before my response to William came up after I posted. So here is one directed to your response to me... (this is getting complicated and where do I get a scorecard?)

I have always associated readers - and I mean avid readers - with those of higher intelligence. No data here to support that. No surveys or longitudinal studies bearing that out. Just my basic hunch and premise that I steer by. Avid readers seem to be the more sharper knives in the drawer.

Thus, I am a bit taken aback when I see those same intelligent beings prone to the same prejudgments and blinders that we (or I) normally assign to the more educationally challenged amongst us.

You seem to be saying that its okay to have prejudices and bias since that is part of the human condition ... and besides..... we were all confortable with our quaint ways long before you hit our sleepy little town ... so if you dont like it here .....

or as Matthewm once told me "just leave".

I do enjoy the exchange especially with you and several others and will stop at currying favor by naming names. It is fun and works the mind a bit and right now I need all the mental exercise that is available to me.

My previous reply to you

Alatar .. here is the serious answer to your musings

.

And your previous post wasn't?!?

I guess it was like that line in the Kris Kristofferson song ....

"I'm a walking contradiction
partly truth partly fiction".

Thought the winking smilie tipped that off.

Just thought you deserved a more literate reply to your longer post than "good luck".

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Alatar.... you post before my response to William came up after I posted. So here is one directed to your response to me... (this is getting complicated and where do I get a scorecard?)

Why won't everyone just take turns...me first.

I have always associated readers - and I mean avid readers - with those of higher intelligence. No data here to support that. No surveys or longitudinal studies bearing that out. Just my basic hunch and premise that I steer by. Avid readers seem to be the more sharper knives in the drawer.

Knives are great for cutting, but useless when brushing one's teeth. I've worked with learned (note that I'm pronouncing the word with two distinct syllables - learn - ed) persons with advanced degrees who I would not trust to comb the dog or wash the car. Either they would spend/waste hours discussing the subtle issues, never getting to the work at hand, or get themselves hurt. Others without the desire to read 'stupid books' can be great problem solvers. With the mixing of DNA, results can vary (by design!).

So your hunch may be biased by your experience.

Thus, I am a bit taken aback when I see those same intelligent beings prone to the same prejudgments and blinders that we (or I) normally assign to the more educationally challenged amongst us.

How open-minded?!? Coming from a commoner background and working with persons from the ivory (and other bone coloured) towers, I've come to realize that we are all one big family and all prone to the usual issues.

You seem to be saying that its okay to have prejudices and bias since that is part of the human condition ... and besides..... we were all confortable with our quaint ways long before you hit our sleepy little town ... so if you dont like it here .....

Nope. Understanding that a bias exists does not mean that I condone it. I try to understand why people think thus, and know from familial experience that some hold dearly to views that are illogical, contradictory and otherwise crazy/foolish/harmful, and that try as I might (and I've quit trying), they will continue to hold onto these.

You are welcome in my town, but if you continually are trying to change a person's viewpoint time and time again even when your best arguments have failed, I'd have to start wondering after your sanity, as, well, you know that old saying.

or as Matthewm once told me "just leave".

How nice of him.

I do enjoy the exchange especially with you and several others and will stop at currying favor by naming names. It is fun and works the mind a bit and right now I need all the mental exercise that is available to me.

Much agreed. If we all loved the movies as you do, it'd be a slow day at work.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

We are handicapped by knowledge?? If PJ would have made a work comparable to the books, in depth, spirituality or morality, - but somehow with a different message, then this argument would have had some merit. But that was not his purpose nor his achievement. If I had to choose between knowing the books and somehow better appreciate their hollywoodization, the choice would be obvious for me.

Its there if anyone just wants to see it.

My regards to someone who has this much imagination .

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

Great post, great ending .

[Sauron the White]

Raynor -- yes Yes YES a hundred times yes. Yes you are handicapped by knowledge..... if that knowledge of the books has the following effects on your ability to sit and enjoy the films ............

if you do not know the difference between a book and a film

if you refuse to accept the difference between a book and a film

if you refuse to accept the different elements and constructs of the two different mediums

if you refuse to accept the constraints and limitations of the mediums as they compare to each other

That is a huge handicap that some have here that prevents them from performing the most simple task ---- accepting something for what it is and not what it is not.

In addition, yes, voluminous knowledge of the books is indeed a handicap in enjoying the films IF it results in

you sitting before the screen making comments to yourself "the book was not like that".... or "that did not happen in the books"..... or "the wrong character is speaking those lines"..... or "what happened to my favorite character of _______" .... or "they combined several events together" ..... or "they left out some stuff" .... or any one of ten thousand other objections that basically mean "when I compare the medium of the book to the different medium of the movies, they end up different". As they say these days.. "DUH?"

Like Robert deNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER. "This is this. This isn't something else. This is this."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.

Why should that be a 'handicap'? There was no reason the movies had to oversimplify Tolkien's work, excise central themes & characters & replace them with, frankly silly & certainly unnecessary scenes & motivations. Neither was there any necessity for stupid running gags about 'Dwarf-tossing' (or the whole Denethor human torch marathon). Of course, the former might not have grated on so many of us had we not known the books, but the latter would have annoyed me anyway - whether I'd read LotR first or not.

Anyway, I think 'handicap' a strange term in this context. These movies are hardly high art. Its not as if those of us who don't care for the movies have missed much - yes, Jackson et al put Minas Tirith, the Shire, etc, on screen, but they already existed in my mind anyway, so I didn't actually need to see them - not to mention that my own versions are different to Jackson's. Arguing that knowing the book was a 'handicap' because it prevented me truly appreciating the movies is kind of equivalent to arguing that having a good palate is a handicap because it prevents one truly appreciating a greasy burger from a dirty all night diner.

[Gwathagor]

You strike like the blind man, StW. 'Twas the boy who stole your food, and you'll beat the post.

For such an open-minded person, you seem to have a difficult time appreciating our positions. You construct straw-men (quite proficiently), talk around us, and generally flail about. Maybe you NEED glasses. Rose-colored vision (if you insist on calling it that) is better than your near-sighted blindness (particularly when you don't realize you are blind, and try to pass it off as a sort of higher plane of being).

The idea that too much knowledge is dangerous sounds hardly like your professed uncompromising open-minded objectivity.