Think about it. Please.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In my opinion, the biggest factor is that almost everyone who posts here has both read the books and seen the movies. If one had done only the one or the other, it would be boring to post about it, as there would be no comparison.

The other reason is psychological - the level of satisfaction or disappointment with any given event is directly connected to the level of expectation. You see, for the many of us who read the books long before the movies came out, the hype was extremely great - jacked up by the media and those interested in getting us all into the theaters. So expectations ran very high.

If the movies had been only poor, there would have been little to discuss. (After all, you don't see many people posting about the rather subpar animated movies - they are mentioned only very occasionally here.) But there was much that was wonderful about PJ's products, especially visually and as concerns the music. The dichotomy between wonderful aspects and inappropriate changes often shows up with repeated watching for some people; others are disappointed with the changes at first, then get used to some.

At any rate, anyone here at the Downs is welcome to discuss both movies and books positively or negatively - or both all mixed up. If we all had the same opinion, it would be boring! Two things are important in our discussions - give good reasons for your opinion, then you may encourage those who think differently to think more deeply. But if they stick to their own opinion, let it go. We are all here for fun - don't take yourself too seriously.

After all, we are not in an army - all of you Johnnies and Janes can march any way you want to! Just don't try to trip the others...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

(After all, you don't see many people posting about the rather subpar animated movies - they are mentioned only very occasionally here.)

Don't get me started...

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Well...I'd say that Johnny's mother was quite wrong. If she really loved her Johnny, she'd be willing to see his faults and exhort him to do better next time. She'd criticize him, not out of spite or venom, but out of her love for him, and her steadfast belief in his true potential.

Not sure that I agree. My kids eventually will conform to the world; one day, the clothes that they wear to school will become super-important, and Dad will be embarrassing them when he steps out to get the paper in shorts and long black socks.

Conformity. Sure, when you're in the band, your job is to march to the beat. But when you're not 'on the job,' hopefully you feel free enough choose your own steps. "Me too," is boring.

Another point: My feelings regarding the movies haven't changed since I've watched the EE DVDs the second time. With all of my quibbling and nitpicking, I like them no more or less, regardless of the number of faults that I find with PJ's works.

[Gwathagor]

Whoa...I'm not preaching slavish conformity to the world. Not by a long shot. No sir.

[alatar]

It's hard to believe, but there are other books made into movies out there. Yes, I too was shocked when I learned this, and have started to consider that there just might be a world outside Tolkien...maybe one day I even go there.

This article bears somewhat on our books versus movies discussion. There's more here as well.

Originally Posted by A somewhat relevant quote

Why do people melt down when their favorite book becomes a movie? David Shumway, the director of the Humanities Center at Carnegie Mellon University, has a theory.

"People freak out because they become emotionally invested in the experience of reading the book," he says. "At best, people deeply attached to a book are likely to feel good about the film if it helps them to relive their reading experience.... At worst, the movie will feel like a travesty of the book because its interpretation is different or because it leaves out (and all movies of books have to leave much out) what the reader likes best about the book."

Maybe it's not just us Downers?

[Sauron the White]

alatar - I am sure you and the article you cited is correct. Which is why I asked yesterday about the OZ people. Do you think they still are complaining about that 1939 film which aged Dorothy by at least six years, changed the color of the slippers from silver to red, left out the Winkies, and added all the songs and other stuff which was not in the book?

We know that five years is not enough time to let the water pass under the bridge but is seventy years long enough?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

alatar - I am sure you and the article you cited is correct. Which is why I asked yesterday about the OZ people. Do you think they still are complaining about that 1939 film which aged Dorothy by at least six years, changed the color of the slippers from silver to red, left out the Winkies, and added all the songs and other stuff which was not in the book?

Different times. Today any knight, knave or fool (like me) with a keyboard and internet access can expound ad infinitum about topics both great and small. Guessing if 'Oz' were released today, you'd get similar (maybe not the same) carping. Books, like their readers, are individuals, and so may garner individual responses when made into movies.

We know that five years is not enough time to let the water pass under the bridge but is seventy years long enough?

Not for me, not until seven times seventy...

Aren't people still criticizing ancient religious texts? People still believe in astrology, even though the inverse-square law of gravitation has been around for 300+ years.

Guess some things just take time to get out of our systems. Maybe in a decade or two when the new movies are made, I'll give up my complaints and move on to fresh meat.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Maybe it's not just us Downers?

Noes! You means we Downers isn't as unique and witty and clevers as we thinks we is?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

alatar, thank you for those interesting links! I read the articles with great enjoyment, especially the comments on the Pride and Prejudice movie, as I'm one of the enthusiastic readers who watches the film versions very closely. (They mentioned only the Hollywood movie, not the one and only visual interpretation - the BBC series.) And of course the book is better!! After all, the readers' taste in men is different - I can imagine Mr. Darcy to look exactly as I want him to!

Oh, and any article that manages to use "persnickety" - one of my favorite words! - has my full approval.

I do not agree with the author of the second linked article on the subject of the LotR movie being better than the book, but there's no accounting for tastes, as my old Gaffer would say...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Noes! You means we Downers isn't as unique and witty and clevers as we thinks we is?

Bb behave.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

I do not agree with the author of the second linked article on the subject of the LotR movie being better than the book, but there's no accounting for tastes, as my old Gaffer would say...

Agreed. Like stated, watch LotR with the sound off. You tend not to get as choked up. Can you read LotR (or any book) with the 'sound off?' Is this the difference?

[Sauron the White]

Wouldn't watching LOTR without the sound be a bit like trying to read the books with one eye closed wearing very dark sunglasses? Its just not the same complete experience.

I did read the second linked article where the author says the book LOTR was not as good as the film. Again, you cannot compare apples and cinderblocks so I do not join here on that. I will say that I once read the book FOREST GUMP and then saw the movie. No comparison. The book was racist and offensive in places. The film was uplifting and life affirming.

So there is something to all of this.................


I just am not sure what it is.