Movie = series burning in hell.
Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch
-
Cagliostro
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9360
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Colorado
Oh, sorry, yes...I agree that he isn't right for Covenant. I was mainly addressing those that said that he can't act.Wayfriend wrote:Well, not every actor is suitable for every part. Mortensen made a very good Aragorn (or rather, Jackson's Aragorn). He would not be right for Thomas. It doesn't matter how dedicated he would be if he is the wrong basic material.
Life is a waste of time
Time is a waste of life
So get wasted all of the time
And you'll have the time of your life
-
Guest
... some bits trashed by Wayfriend ... E.g. most viewers of Lord of the Rings, who have never read the book, will forever wrongly think that it was Aragorn, rather than Gandalf, who devised the strategy to divert Sauron's attention by marching on the black gate, that Denethor was a villainous, good-for-nothing piece of work with no redeeming qualities, that the armies of the dead turned up at Pelannor Fields to save the day, and that Faramir had a pretty nasty streak in him ... some bits trashed by Wayfriend ...
Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Uh oh. I accidently hit 'edit' instead of 'quote' when replying to Landroval. (I am a Moderator in this Forum.) It seems there's no way to fix this. Me bad.
If a movie doesn't alter a book, then it should be true that a book doesn't alter a movie. The movie-story is the movie-story, and nothing else; it can be a fair or a poor adaptation, but it isn't 'wrong', at least in the sense you claim, because it isn't fair to hold the book as more authoritative than the movie (as much as we'd like to). It's two different stories with similarities; not the same story told correctly one time and incorrectly the other time. Like it or not, Jackson, Walsh, & Boyens wrote the story in the movie, not Tolkien, and as such it is their story, and cannot be 'wrong'.
I don't understand how people can be "wrong" because they saw a movie. Much less be stuck being 'wrong forever'.Landroval wrote: E.g. most viewers of Lord of the Rings, who have never read the book, will forever wrongly think that it was Aragorn, rather than Gandalf, who devised the strategy to divert Sauron's attention by marching on the black gate, that Denethor was a villainous, good-for-nothing piece of work with no redeeming qualities, that the armies of the dead turned up at Pelannor Fields to save the day, and that Faramir had a pretty nasty streak in him.
If a movie doesn't alter a book, then it should be true that a book doesn't alter a movie. The movie-story is the movie-story, and nothing else; it can be a fair or a poor adaptation, but it isn't 'wrong', at least in the sense you claim, because it isn't fair to hold the book as more authoritative than the movie (as much as we'd like to). It's two different stories with similarities; not the same story told correctly one time and incorrectly the other time. Like it or not, Jackson, Walsh, & Boyens wrote the story in the movie, not Tolkien, and as such it is their story, and cannot be 'wrong'.
Last edited by wayfriend on Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
Wayfriend,
I don't entirely agree.
How can I put this? A movie version of a book, in my opinion, has some responsibility to the original. It shouldn't trivialise or radically alter the original tale or message. For example,imagine if "Churchill, The Hollywood Years" was not a spoof. Or, imagine a version of the New Testament that protrayed Christ as a villain. An extreme example, but the point is that a movie can affect the public perception of the original tale to it's detrriment. And that perception is likely to stick, because more people are likely to see the movie than read the book. Even if the tale itself remains unscathed, individual character reputations can be damaged.
Obviously this is less important with fictional series, for what does it matter if the reputation of a fictional character is damaged? Well, I think it does matter to some people, especally some of those who grew up with and loved the original books. You might say that they're taking it all a bit too seriously, but if you grew up with a particular idea or image of a character or situation, and then saw it grossly simplified or distorted in a mass market movie, then the chances are you would not be overly pleased.
To be fair, I didn't think that Jackson did that bad a job with LOTR, although many, many of the so called "purists" were absolutely furious with him. But I do think that, as the trilogy went on, Jackson imposed more and more of his own ideas. Hence ROTK saw a bit more Jackson invention than i'd have liked.
Incidentally, for the record, Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien estate don't agree either. They have publicly disowned the films, perhaps for the same reasons as i have outlined.
I don't entirely agree.
How can I put this? A movie version of a book, in my opinion, has some responsibility to the original. It shouldn't trivialise or radically alter the original tale or message. For example,imagine if "Churchill, The Hollywood Years" was not a spoof. Or, imagine a version of the New Testament that protrayed Christ as a villain. An extreme example, but the point is that a movie can affect the public perception of the original tale to it's detrriment. And that perception is likely to stick, because more people are likely to see the movie than read the book. Even if the tale itself remains unscathed, individual character reputations can be damaged.
Obviously this is less important with fictional series, for what does it matter if the reputation of a fictional character is damaged? Well, I think it does matter to some people, especally some of those who grew up with and loved the original books. You might say that they're taking it all a bit too seriously, but if you grew up with a particular idea or image of a character or situation, and then saw it grossly simplified or distorted in a mass market movie, then the chances are you would not be overly pleased.
To be fair, I didn't think that Jackson did that bad a job with LOTR, although many, many of the so called "purists" were absolutely furious with him. But I do think that, as the trilogy went on, Jackson imposed more and more of his own ideas. Hence ROTK saw a bit more Jackson invention than i'd have liked.
Incidentally, for the record, Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien estate don't agree either. They have publicly disowned the films, perhaps for the same reasons as i have outlined.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
How so, past paying the author/publisher for the movie rights?Landroval wrote:How can I put this? A movie version of a book, in my opinion, has some responsibility to the original.
Characters have reputations? And they must be preserved? I don't think so.Landroval wrote:Even if the tale itself remains unscathed, individual character reputations can be damaged.
I believe it would be fairer to say that they ignore the films, because it has nothing to do - and cannot have anything to do - with Tolkien's books. Coming out either 'for' the movies or 'against' them gains them nothing, and harms them somewhat, in that either way some people will disagree with their choice.Landroval wrote:They have publicly disowned the films, perhaps for the same reasons as i have outlined.
Ah, here is the heart of the matter. You are concerned with public perception.Landroval wrote:An extreme example, but the point is that a movie can affect the public perception of the original tale to it's detrriment. And that perception is likely to stick, because more people are likely to see the movie than read the book.
If you are a fan of something, then you are concerned about public perception because it says something about you yourself. For, if the public thinks LOTR, or TC, is rediculous, why, what does that say about the fans of LOTR, or TC??? About you?
Unfortunately, this doesn't really translate to any mandate to preserve the integrity of the original books as represented in the movie. It's just a nice thing to wish for.
.
Perhaps it does say something about us. But is a desire for accuracy so bad? Who would want to see a version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar which reverses the characters of Brutus and Cassius? Who would like to see Star Wars remade, with the Emperor and Darth Vader shown as kindly rulers who are overthrown by anachistic, self interested rebels? What about a version of Saving Private Ryan that shows US soldiers raping and pillaging the natives?
And if character reputations in fiction are not important, then I suppose you'll have no objections if Thomas Covenant is portrayed in the upcoming movie as a clean cut, all conquering, all American hero. A really decent good guy. Someone like Will Smith or perhaps Brad Pitt would do nicely!
Accuracy does matter, even in fiction. That's why many authors (not just the Tolkien estate) jealously guard the work. Interpretation is important.
And if character reputations in fiction are not important, then I suppose you'll have no objections if Thomas Covenant is portrayed in the upcoming movie as a clean cut, all conquering, all American hero. A really decent good guy. Someone like Will Smith or perhaps Brad Pitt would do nicely!
Accuracy does matter, even in fiction. That's why many authors (not just the Tolkien estate) jealously guard the work. Interpretation is important.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
I would love to see that! Star Wars Imperial propaganda! What an awesome idea...Who would like to see Star Wars remade, with the Emperor and Darth Vader shown as kindly rulers who are overthrown by anachistic, self interested rebels?
Quin, suffering from total amnesia, slowly discovers himself possessed of inexplicable abilities as his world expands...
https://www.quinsabduction.org/
https://www.quinsabduction.org/