Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Books are not movies. All visuals are conjured by your mind. Different aspects will have differing importances by each person who reads them. Absent a strong editor, every excruciatingly boring detail the author sees fit to torment his reader with will see print. Books are, by and large, written for the author's gratification and the hope of making a little money, but not necessarily written for the pleasure or entertainment of the reader.
Movies are not books. All visuals are conjured by someone else with the sole purpose of making money, yet with hope of providing pleasure and entertainment. The only aspects of importance you will see in a movie adapted from a book are those bits the director deems important.
I honestly can't understand why anyone would be disappointed, surprised, let alone upset and angry that the story in the book and movie doesn't match in every detail (significant or insignificant). When you compare a book to a movie, you're trying to compare two entirely different creations. Is "The Moldau" a less beautiful symphony simply because it is not a painting of the landscape through which the river runs? Is a painting sacriledge because it is not a photograph? Should we crush the Venus de Milo to gravel because it doesn't capture the same essence as Holst's music?
Having watched and enjoyed the movies, I've started reading the books. Both book and movie have their strengths and weaknesses. However, ultimately, they are incomparable. They are not the same sort of creations... the base nature of a book compared to a movie is such that you may as well try to compare a strawberry milkshake to a roasted porkchop.
Each is what it is, and both are quite beautiful and moving in their own manner. I love the movies, and find no disappointment in reading the books... likewise, I'm not going to burn the books because they aren't like the movie :)
Meriel
- who has no rants and doesn't understand those who do.
I disagree vehemently. I can understand that things in the book must be changed in order to make the movie enjoyable. And many of the changes they did make are understandable, since they either compress the time of the movie or in some cases even make the movie more enjoyable than the book.
But some of the changes that were made add nothing to the story and seem to be made just to confuse and/or annoy people who have read the books (i.e. the entire thing with Faramir).
It's like when CBS (or whichever station) made that TV movie about the bible a couple years ago and totally changed everything, and of course everyone complained. If you're making a movie based on a book that hundreds of millions of people have read and basically memorized, you just DON'T go changing around the story for the sake of changing things. And you definitely can't expect the movie to not be compared to the book, that's just plain silly.
Apu
But some of the changes that were made add nothing to the story and seem to be made just to confuse and/or annoy people who have read the books (i.e. the entire thing with Faramir).
It's like when CBS (or whichever station) made that TV movie about the bible a couple years ago and totally changed everything, and of course everyone complained. If you're making a movie based on a book that hundreds of millions of people have read and basically memorized, you just DON'T go changing around the story for the sake of changing things. And you definitely can't expect the movie to not be compared to the book, that's just plain silly.
Apu
>>If you're making a movie based on a book that hundreds of millions of people have read and basically memorized, you just DON'T go changing around the story for the sake of changing things. And you definitely can't expect the movie to not be compared to the book, that's just plain silly.
Well said, Apu. I agree. And of course you can't dislike or compare a symphony because it's not a painting, or a statue because it's not a musical work. They're not intended to be the same. But a movie based on the works of an author IS supposed to be the same as the book, or similiar in a very real sense.
The movie is supposed to capture the book and translate it to the screen. Does it do that? Mostly. Are there things that make no sense at all about the movie when compared to the books it's based on? Absolutely. And of course everybody has their own vision about what things should look like (ie: How the Ents destroy Orthanc). But nobody can picture Aragorn falling off a cliff, because it's not there. Plus, one of the most enjoyable things ever is arguing (discussing)about things that are important, but don't matter. :D
This is slightly off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of another book/movie difference, The Bourne Identity. If you've both read the book and seen the movie, you'll understand what I mean. As a movie by itself, it's decent, I guess. But as an adaptation of the book, it's pathetic. I read the book in anticipation of the movie, and then they were absolutely nothing alike. I don't even know why Ludlum gave the nod to the movie if it's this different. The point, I suppose, is that the book and the movie are SUPPOSED to be compared. If Jackson's adaptation was as different as the Bourne book/movie, the movie might get a good review as a film, but as LOTR it would be one of the biggest disappointments of all time.
~Katrenos, rambling.
Well said, Apu. I agree. And of course you can't dislike or compare a symphony because it's not a painting, or a statue because it's not a musical work. They're not intended to be the same. But a movie based on the works of an author IS supposed to be the same as the book, or similiar in a very real sense.
The movie is supposed to capture the book and translate it to the screen. Does it do that? Mostly. Are there things that make no sense at all about the movie when compared to the books it's based on? Absolutely. And of course everybody has their own vision about what things should look like (ie: How the Ents destroy Orthanc). But nobody can picture Aragorn falling off a cliff, because it's not there. Plus, one of the most enjoyable things ever is arguing (discussing)about things that are important, but don't matter. :D
This is slightly off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of another book/movie difference, The Bourne Identity. If you've both read the book and seen the movie, you'll understand what I mean. As a movie by itself, it's decent, I guess. But as an adaptation of the book, it's pathetic. I read the book in anticipation of the movie, and then they were absolutely nothing alike. I don't even know why Ludlum gave the nod to the movie if it's this different. The point, I suppose, is that the book and the movie are SUPPOSED to be compared. If Jackson's adaptation was as different as the Bourne book/movie, the movie might get a good review as a film, but as LOTR it would be one of the biggest disappointments of all time.
~Katrenos, rambling.
I'm hard pressed to think of any book which wasn't written after the movie came out which has been better adapted to the screen than these two have been. Frankenstein? Dracula? Moby Dick? Robin Hood? Any James Bond movie? Of Mice and Men? Nope. We've got a GREAT, unprecedented, thing here, folks. The nitpicking is driving me nuts, too. That said I think most of the nitpickers really did love the movie. They just like to be negative and/or hyper-critical.
<<It's like when CBS (or whichever station) made that TV movie about the bible a couple years ago and totally changed everything, and of course everyone complained. If you're making a movie based on a book that hundreds of millions of people have read and basically memorized, you just DON'T go changing around the story for the sake of changing things. And you definitely can't expect the movie to not be compared to the book, that's just plain silly.>>
Well, i think there's a bit of a difference. The Bible is something that people revere as a sacred work. Its part of their religion and their faith. (I'm not saying making the Bible movie's a bad idea...just saying that's probably more why people got upset). LOTR is a great fictional book, but not quite a religious historic piece. (My appologies to those who's religious beliefs focus on the holy book, LOTR).
Secondly, every movie has a director and a vision. I work in theatre, and can tell you that virtually no play gets put on without script changes. Massive cuts, small additions, revisions, word changes, and actors add libbing when the feeling hits them. Why? Because they have their own lives they've lived, and their own feelings about the work. They've lived in a different society perhaps than the original author/playwright.
This doesn't by anyways make the movie/play bad. I mean, how many modern renditions of Hamlet have we seen? (okay, yes, some weren't great, but i loved Kenneth Branagh's). How many modern Romeo and Juliets (okay, okay, so that one sucked...but not cause they decided to change things. Because of the decisions they made. Plus the casting...ugh).
The movie flowed...maybe didn't have all the facts laying out exactly the same as the book. But that's OK. The books are great, the movies have been great too. Just different. I usually enjoy books more than any visual interpretation, just because I can make a most spectacular world in my mind (why I play DR instead of something like EQ). However, I think most of us can agree that the visual world they've created far surpasses most movies we see now a days. I for one am impressed with the movies. I doubt Tolkien is rolling in his grave. Perhaps shaking his head a lil with a chuckle, but i bet he'd be impressed too.
Jalika
Well, i think there's a bit of a difference. The Bible is something that people revere as a sacred work. Its part of their religion and their faith. (I'm not saying making the Bible movie's a bad idea...just saying that's probably more why people got upset). LOTR is a great fictional book, but not quite a religious historic piece. (My appologies to those who's religious beliefs focus on the holy book, LOTR).
Secondly, every movie has a director and a vision. I work in theatre, and can tell you that virtually no play gets put on without script changes. Massive cuts, small additions, revisions, word changes, and actors add libbing when the feeling hits them. Why? Because they have their own lives they've lived, and their own feelings about the work. They've lived in a different society perhaps than the original author/playwright.
This doesn't by anyways make the movie/play bad. I mean, how many modern renditions of Hamlet have we seen? (okay, yes, some weren't great, but i loved Kenneth Branagh's). How many modern Romeo and Juliets (okay, okay, so that one sucked...but not cause they decided to change things. Because of the decisions they made. Plus the casting...ugh).
The movie flowed...maybe didn't have all the facts laying out exactly the same as the book. But that's OK. The books are great, the movies have been great too. Just different. I usually enjoy books more than any visual interpretation, just because I can make a most spectacular world in my mind (why I play DR instead of something like EQ). However, I think most of us can agree that the visual world they've created far surpasses most movies we see now a days. I for one am impressed with the movies. I doubt Tolkien is rolling in his grave. Perhaps shaking his head a lil with a chuckle, but i bet he'd be impressed too.
Jalika
Brava Meriel! Very nice post.
It brings to mind another movie-book correlation. After the phenominal succes of Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton pretty much said 'I'm done, no more'. And we won't even go into the differences between that book and the movie. Then, because of the huge draw it had, -whatever movie studio- pleaded and pleaded with him to write a sequel.
He put them off but eventually wrote "The Lost World".... and they made a movie of it, as was intended when he wrote it. That movie BARELY resembled the book which, IMHO, was far superior to the movie.
You need to take the movies for what they are... beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted. They are Peter Jackson's vision of those books. I've enjoyed both movies immensely, they follow the story very closely and when they do deviate plotwise they follow the spirit of Tolkien's story telling.
We all knew there wood be changes, deletions, additions.... these don't bother me... things about the movies that do bother me are off portrayals: Faramir - missed the mark entirely, he's supposed to be everything that Boromir is not, two sides of the same coin. Elrond - for some reason this portrayal is really bothering me, he's supposed to be the kind grandfatherly type and he's being portrayed as impatient, a little hot-headed and entirely too human. LOL
The whole thing about him chastising Arwen into staying with the elves just sat wrong with me... from my readings I got the impression that the elves were a little more 'do your own thing, fill your own destiny' types. If any elf in Middle-earth should understand Arwen's position he should since he's half-elven himself. And the whole thing about her watching everything whither and Aragorn die... I thought if she chose that life then she'd be mortal and age just as Aragorn would... maybe I misunderstood that...
Anyway.. rambled enough.... talk amongst yourselves, I'm going to see it again in a few.
- player of a few and disturbed by the voices in my head because of it :)
It brings to mind another movie-book correlation. After the phenominal succes of Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton pretty much said 'I'm done, no more'. And we won't even go into the differences between that book and the movie. Then, because of the huge draw it had, -whatever movie studio- pleaded and pleaded with him to write a sequel.
He put them off but eventually wrote "The Lost World".... and they made a movie of it, as was intended when he wrote it. That movie BARELY resembled the book which, IMHO, was far superior to the movie.
You need to take the movies for what they are... beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted. They are Peter Jackson's vision of those books. I've enjoyed both movies immensely, they follow the story very closely and when they do deviate plotwise they follow the spirit of Tolkien's story telling.
We all knew there wood be changes, deletions, additions.... these don't bother me... things about the movies that do bother me are off portrayals: Faramir - missed the mark entirely, he's supposed to be everything that Boromir is not, two sides of the same coin. Elrond - for some reason this portrayal is really bothering me, he's supposed to be the kind grandfatherly type and he's being portrayed as impatient, a little hot-headed and entirely too human. LOL
The whole thing about him chastising Arwen into staying with the elves just sat wrong with me... from my readings I got the impression that the elves were a little more 'do your own thing, fill your own destiny' types. If any elf in Middle-earth should understand Arwen's position he should since he's half-elven himself. And the whole thing about her watching everything whither and Aragorn die... I thought if she chose that life then she'd be mortal and age just as Aragorn would... maybe I misunderstood that...
Anyway.. rambled enough.... talk amongst yourselves, I'm going to see it again in a few.
- player of a few and disturbed by the voices in my head because of it :)
Having listend to the directors/writer track on FOTR, I suspect that the change to Faramir was to give him more screen time in TTT. It wasn't the right decision, but I suspect thats what the reason given on the TTT director/writer track will be.
If you haven't listened to the extra tracks on FOTR I would suggest you do so, they are very interesting in their own right.
Tom
If you haven't listened to the extra tracks on FOTR I would suggest you do so, they are very interesting in their own right.
Tom
In Peter Benchly's "Jaws" the shark died by being shot to death. When the movie was being made, Speilberg wanted the shark to die in an explosion. Benchly had problem's with this because he felt it was too unrealistic, but wisely Speilberg went with an explosion. When Benchly saw the film, he then realized that an explosion worked much better on the screen. I heard about this in an interview with Benchly, but I do not recall show (source).
So when watching 'Lord of the Rings," remember that some things are done for entertainment value. Do not over analyze what should be realistic. For me entertainment needs to be a delicate balance of fantasy and reality. Fantastical enough for the imagination to soar, and realistic enough to be suckered into thinking that the impossible can happen. On this level I commend the GM's on trying to make DR have this balance for so many who have varied needs of fantasy and reality. It's not an easy thing to do.
So when watching 'Lord of the Rings," remember that some things are done for entertainment value. Do not over analyze what should be realistic. For me entertainment needs to be a delicate balance of fantasy and reality. Fantastical enough for the imagination to soar, and realistic enough to be suckered into thinking that the impossible can happen. On this level I commend the GM's on trying to make DR have this balance for so many who have varied needs of fantasy and reality. It's not an easy thing to do.
>>That said I think most of the nitpickers really did love the movie. They just like to be negative and/or hyper-critical.
Hehe, yeah. It's fun, actually. You should try it some time. It makes insignificant things important, and makes people exasperated like you are now. :D
Although I have to say that as of right now, I liked the first movie better than the second one. Some of the people I've talked to outside of the forums agree, but 4 people doesn't make a majority. ;)
~Katrenos
Hehe, yeah. It's fun, actually. You should try it some time. It makes insignificant things important, and makes people exasperated like you are now. :D
Although I have to say that as of right now, I liked the first movie better than the second one. Some of the people I've talked to outside of the forums agree, but 4 people doesn't make a majority. ;)
~Katrenos
