Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[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.

[Sauron the White]

Alatar ... lets look at our common ground --- if that exists.

Bias exists in everyone. Agreed?

We should accept that. Agreed?

We should try to realize our own biases? Agreed?

We should strive to overcome our biases. Agreed?

I guess thats why I keep coming back again and again much to the chagrin of matthewm... I view overcoming bias as an ongoing sturuggle and a very good thing which advances the individual.

You might say I am here to help you become a better person.
And to a lesser degree, you help me to improve if indeed you can find any faults that need 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."

[Kath]

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.

But it seems that in your world we aren't allowed to accept what it is and still dislike it. Comparison with the books aside, there are things in the films I sincerely dislike just because of what they are or who the actors are. My view on the films isn't entirely mediated by what I know of the books, though obviously it has an effect.

[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.