So. We went to see it tonight. I don't fancy I'll be able to say anything about it that hasn't already been said. But I did like it, and it underscored one salient fact to me: people who make movies out of books should be people who absolutely loved the book in question. Not people who read the book and said, "Wow, this looks like it would make a great movie." I mean people who loved the books for their own sake. You could see that in the Spider-Man movie this year too--obvious comic book fans who loved Spiderman were involved in the making of that film, and that's the only way they were able to do it justice. I think the same thing obviously applies here.
Strangely enough, I did not love Tolkein's books. I kind of wish I did. But the truth is, I've only read The Lord of the Rings one time, and have never wanted to read them again. Indeed, I had to force myself through the books when I did read them; I felt like they were something I should read, just because so many of my friends loved them.
This isn't meant as an insult. Not everyone likes everything. I don't think they were bad books. Nor is it that I don't enjoy a good fantasy story, either, because I do. But Tolkein's style isn't the kind of style that resonates with me.
I remember once telling a friend of mine's father that I wanted to be a writer. I showed him some fiction I was working on, and he savaged it. Amongst other things, he showed me a section of The Lord of the Rings where Tolkein went on for (literally) about a page and a half just describing a valley, upholding it as an example of what good writers do. Ever since, I've held that up as an example of something I hate in fiction: endless droning description of scenery. I hated it then, I hate it now. The more of that you give me, the more likely I am to hate a book.
Tolkein gave us a lot of that. This turns some people on, I know. It makes them feel like they're really in the story, gives them very vivid images in their heads to immerse themselves into. Meanwhile, I'm sitting there wondering why the hell I should care about the sparkling water and the curve of the valley and the color of the sky and the rocks and what everyone is eating this morning, and waiting for someone to bloody well say something or do something.
That's how I've always seen those books. I admire the work that went into creating the world of Middle Earth, and the depth beneath the stories. But for me, I also found it all terrifically boring to read. I fell asleep several times, especially while reading The Two Towers. I persevered and finished the trilogy, but never wanted to pick up anything by Tolkein again.
It's mostly just me, I know. I have so many friends who loved these books, I hate to say any of this. The kind of people I tend to get along with famously also tend to be the kind of people who loved these books. So I always hate to let them down by telling them I didn't enjoy those books much at all. The bonus is, though, that I know so many people who loved these books, I feel like I might as well have read them a dozen times anyway. I could tell you all kinds of things about the series even before I read it.
And I must say that all that work Tolkein did paid off handsomely when put into the hands of a director who really knows and loves these books. Whatever else may be said of him, Peter Jackson obviously loved the series, and put painstaking effort into trying to capture them. He did it, in a way that I don't find boring on film at all. The costumes and the scenery are simply fantastic. Although I still confess to being a bit of a philistine--my head started spinning trying to keep track of all the characters and goings-on in the middle of the movie version of The Two Towers--I still found it a beautiful and exciting film, and very much in the flavor of what I've always thought Tolkein was trying to convey.
Those who know a lot about Tolkein the man say he probably would have hated the movies. From what I know of him they're probably right; the man was a hard-core reactionary. But knowing these stories, and knowing something about movies, I have to say that I can't imagine anyone doing a much better job on this.
Oh, and by the way, I will dissent from one thing I've read: I thought the CGI version of Gollum was very nicely done indeed.
I was rooting for Treebeard.
Well, I love the books, and I read them at least once a year -- but I dote on scenery descriptions. But I realize that they aren't for everybody. By the way -- the person who criticized your writing because there were no long descriptions of scenery a-la Tolkien was a fool. Write what you want to write.
PS: Tolkien was somewhat involved in an early attempt to film the book. From his dismayed descriptions of what the filmmakers were doing to the book I have come to the conclusion that he may at least have preferred part of Jackson's effort. (From The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.)
I guess ure a Jefferey Archer and John Grisham fan then.
I guess ure a Jefferey Archer and John Grisham fan then.
So far as I know I've never read a book by either man. I don't even know who Jeffery Archer is.
Dean:
I liked Tolkien's books (OK, loved them) precisely because of bits like Gandalf and the Balrog in Moria, the battle in front of the gates of Gondor, Sam and Frodo in Mordor, the Tower of Cirith Ungol, etc etc.
The poetry bits? My least favorite.
What was up with the dwarf? In the first movie, I thought his character was perfect - funny, but with some diginity still. In this one it looks like they went out of their way to make him an idiot so he was more like comic relief than anything else. Did anyone notice this change?
I don't know about you guys but when Aragorn threw Gimli on to the rampart - my first thought: Good thing they didn't film this movie in France cause dwarf tossin' is illegal there...
;-)
Sushant:
You are correct -- he has become comic relief now.
I thought the dwarf-tossing thing was a bit much. But my kids loved the humor, and I have to admit, it was pretty funny when he was stuck behind the wall and Legolas suggested he stand on a box.
Gimli was humorous in the book, but nothing like that.
I have never read Tolkien, so all I know about him are the computer graphic epics based on his novels that my kids drag me to, then expectantly await my opinion. So here it is.
1) Many of the Germanic legends around which these these stories loosely relate are based on embellishments of ancient historical events, which must have led to some amazing twists of fancy. For example, There really was a most important ring in central European history. But, although its represented riches and power beyond it was not the type one wore around one's finger.
It was in fact a gigantic circular wooden palisaded fortress in the middle of the Pannonian plain which served as the capital of an Asiatic tribe, the Avars, who had spent the previous generations raiding and looting all over central and southeastern Europe. All the stolen wealth was stored in the Ring -- which is exactly what both the Avars and the Germans called it when one of the sons of Charlemagne (or Karl der grosse, the Franco-German emperor renowned in history, led an army into Pannonia in 796 and broke up the Ring and put the Avars into permanent flight from Europe. I think the Ring of the Avars was none other than the "ring" of the later German legends.
2) The best character in the Two Towers was not even human. He was the dwarf done up like an early medieval Gunga Din who so beautifully exhibited the opposing characteristics of seeking human acceptance and companionship on the one hand, and all but uncontrollable greed on the other.
It has occured to me that the film stars of the future may well be computer graphics characters given life-like qualities, like the one played by the luscious Rachel Roberts in the little-noticed SimOne -- a portent of things to come.
In any case, Gangs of New York was a better rip-roaring story than the Two Towers, partly because it was largely based on true American history. They really did almost destroy New York in the anti-draft riots of 1863, when Irish Catholic gangs fought to the death against Nativist Protestant gangs around the Five Points area.
But the film of the year, in my judgement, was that other story about a ring, literally, the Ring. I hope some time to write a review of that film for Dean's website, but here is a tidbit to carry you over:
The Ring was not a horror story at all. It was a story about a malignant ghost and the terror she caused by forcing her victims to choose death or collaboration with murder. That is one of the most difficult moral dilemmas anyone ever has to endure, a sort of Sophie's Choice set in Seattle.
The multiscreen theaters near every suburban shopping center have a couple of nice features about them that one can't achieve with VHS or DVD rental films. First, for an old guy like me, you get out of the house, sit down in a comfortable theater seat, and put your mitts around a tub of popcorn that one's weight-conscious wife won't ever let him eat at home. Second, the Friday matinee seats until 5pm only cost $3 for seniors.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Okay I'm outclassed...
Arnold,
Very excellent insight into the "the dwarf done up like an early medieval Gunga Din."
Gollum is a unique character in literature.
Wait til you see what happens in the third installment.
Dean, Jeffery Archer is a great novelist of our time and has a number of bestsellers up his sleeve. Unlike J.R.R Tolkein, he is a writer who does not trudge into scene descriptions and sticks to the storyline(like John Grisham). He's a British politician as well and I suppose that's his driving force for writing novels on extraordinary political and business lives, but one can be rest assured that he'll come up with a unique and different storyline in every of his novel. Kane & Abel, The Tenth Commandment and The Fourth Estate were instant hits of his and he's now got a great number of readers under his command.
As of recently he's in jail on grounds of false testimony and has a new book out 'Sons of Fortune' which he's written in jail!
I suggest you read this book of his and i know that you'll indulge in the same praise that so many of his readers have.
Im really sorry the above happened!!!!
I take much of the above to imply that Ashar is a fan of Jeffrey Archer at five times the normal intensity. Either that, or he/she has not yet learned the difference between "preview" and "post".
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I I I I I got got got got got the the the the the picture picture picture picture picture.
Ashar: I've fixed your accidental duplicate postings. And I'll keep your recommendations for Jeffrey Archer in mind, thanks! My list of things to read right now is unbelievably long, but there's always room for more. %-)
Dean
Give me a break!
Different great writers write differently. J.R.R. Tolkien, P.G. Wodehouse, Ernest Hemingway, and Charles Dickens are all different in their approaches, but each was a great writer. Just because a Great wrote a story does not mean that you should like it. John Dickson Carr had his detective Gideon Fell make much the same point about detective stories in one mystery (I do not remeber which one). Personal taste and enjoyment in reading is by definition extremely personal and not really open to debate. Like it? Then read it. Don't like it? Then leave it on the shelf.
I haven't seen the movie yet (it only opened yesterday here -in Buenos Aires- ), but I guess it would be somewhat surprising to find an obvious change in the way the characters are presented. Since all three films were shot at the same time, I would expect them to be quite consistent in that matter.
I too realize that Gimli has become a bit of a jester in the sense that nearly every line he says outside of batle has some humor in it. I was not disappointed in this, however, Tolkein might have been.