Before and after the movie

[littlemanpoet]

I'm an Old School Fan. My two older brothers were Frodo Lives fans. My oldest brother read Riddles in the Dark to me in 1968, when I was 8 and he was 16, as a bedtime treat. That night changed me. Next day I started The Hobbit for myself.

My mother made capes with hoods for my two older brothers, and they traipsed all over the community in them; my oldest brother grew his hair long and had a scraggly beard, and he made himself a sword. Us boys and my sister were Gandalf, Aragorn, Eowyn, and Pippin. They decided that I was Pippin because I was so immature. I hadn't read LotR yet by then (1968). So us three brothers have more or less digested Tolkien (and Lewis to varying degrees) into our way of looking at the world. He is the greatest authorial influence for all three of us.

I read FotR and TT not long after, but ran out of gas at the beginning of RotK; I think I was disappointed that it was about Minas Tirith instead of about Frodo and Sam. I didn't pick up RotK again for a year and a half. But I finished it pretty soon after that, and started re-reading it in my teens. I read The Silmarillion right away when it came out, and snapped up Unfinished Tales the moment I discovered it in the book store. I was bequeathed by my oldest brother the old Middle Earth map in glossy paper, drawn up by Pauline Baynes, and still have it, and consider myself lucky. It's gorgeous!

Unlike many Tolkien purists (which I admittedly tend toward), I did enjoy the Bakshi film, although I hated the crazy-weird Treebeard with the stomping root-feet! I loved his Shire, Bree, Weathertop, Rivendell, and Moria; I can't remember his Lorien.

I did passionately dislike the Rankin-Bass Hobbit movie, but I did like most of the RotK movie by Rankin-Bass - except for the singing orcs!

You might say that my mind-images of the characters of LotR are influenced equally by my own imagination from the books, by Pauline Baynes' illustrations on the map (where you can only see the Fellowship characters' backs) , and by (cringe) a Lord of the Rings strategy game I bought way back in the late 70's, that came with cards depicting all of the major characters in the books. Actually, I thought those cards did more justice to Tolkien's descriptions than any of the movies, and much of the art out there! I have since given away the game to a friend - he still plays it to this day.

I loved PJ's FotR, but was outraged at TT; but then I found that I could live with his interpretation of RotK. I guess, going by my own lights, I judged that PJ had to jettison Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest, had to merge Glorfindel and Arwen, had to cut back on how much Lorien he showed. I judged that Elves at Helm's Deep was heinous, as was Theoden's querulousness after being healed by Gandalf! And all that pointless arguing in Helm's Deep for the sake of creating tension! blah. And that ridiculous Nazgul scene at Osgiliath, with Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul? An outrage. Same with the mischaracterization of Faramir. But all the changes in RotK I felt had to be made in order to achieve the film - even leaving out the scouring of the shire, no matter how disappointing.

None of the characters' images from PJ's movies have had any kind of lasting impression on me. I can switch to them in my mind, if I wish, but my original images overshadow them.

I can't really speak to changes at BD, because I only showed up in January of 2002, and watched the membership climb in a hurry. I've felt that the intelligence of discussion here at BD was quite high, and that has kept drawing me back. And I've met some internet friends here that have been truly worth knowing. Mark 12_30 of special note, and Diamond 18 too. Now that I've started naming names, I must say that I'm leaving out so many; but I've had LotR and writerly interaction especially with these two individuals, and am blessed for it.

[Ealasaide]

Speaking as an old and rather dusty lit major, I have always preferred books over their movie versions with only a few exceptions. I've always viewed Hollywood's attempts to translate books into movies with skepticism largely because making a good job of it is a nearly impossible task, when one considers all the factors involved in making a big budget film.

In making a big budget studio film, one cannot rely wholly upon the vision presented by the author of the source material. The producer must consider target audience marketability in adapting the script to the screen format, which involves the pace of the film, time constraints, etc, etc. Since the majority of movie-goers are in their teens and early twenties and generally not devout readers, the story line has to be both pumped up and collapsed at the same time in order to appeal to them, which oftentimes leaves not much left of the original source material. Add to this the social and money poiltics of Hollywood and you generally end up with a mess. Taking all of that into consideration, I believe that PJ did a remarkably good job with his films, although they are all flawed to some extent. (I think everybody hated TT. ) Movie-making is a business primarily and an art form only on a secondary basis. With that in mind, I find PJ's movies a remarkable achievement, even though I merely like, rather than love, them.

The Tolkein books, on the other hand, present a very personal vision on the part of one creative entity, J.R.R. Tolkein. I'm sure Prof. Tolkein did not write with focus groups or test audiences in mind. He was not bound by time or money constraints and was able to present a very deep, detailed and well-thought-out collection of works that will endure, I am sure, for hundreds of years, while PJ's movies will eventually become - for mass culture, anyway - a curiosity of pop culture and will remain, as movie technology evolves, a product of their times.

All that being said, I can't comment on what the Downs were like before the movies came out since I arrived here sometime in between the release of FotR and TT, I think. Maybe it was between TT and RotK... I can't remember! At any rate, I came not as a result of a frantic search of the web for anything Tolkein related but by word of mouth from a friend of mine who had been haunting the Downs for some months prior to telling me about the site.

I guess that means I fall in with the post-movie crowd, although I really did not come here as a result of seeing the movies.

[mark12_30]

But Ealasaide dearie-- the question wasn't when you arrived at the Downs; lots of Old-Time Book Fans arrived here post-movie. The question was whether you read the books Before the movies or Because of the movies. Aren't you in the Geezer's Club-- I mean, the Tolkien Coming Of Age Club? Then you must predate at least PJ's movies.

Methinks you are selling yourself short. See Snowdog's excellent chronological rating system in post 65 on page 2 of this thread.

[Ealasaide]

Ah, dear me... that's what I get for being hasty & posting without breaking out my specs and actually reading a thread closely first ....

Yes, you are right, I am an Old School Geezer (wonderful rating system, Snowdog!), having read the books back in the mid-seventies, well prior to the release of any movies.

I just misunderstood the purpose of the thread. I had thought it was contrasting the differences on the Downs before and after the release of PJ's movies. That's why I thought the yardstick was based on the timing of one's arrival to the Downs. My bad!

[mark12_30]

Well, that *was* C7A's purpose of the thread originally. But it's taken a few zigs and zags since then, including Snowdog's enjoyable and thorough Tolkien Addict Location Grid. So far, we haven't gotten our knuckles whacked.

*peers at Sharon*

So not to worry; I just didn't want you to erroneously disqualify yourself from your Geezer's Club rocking chair!

[Ealasaide]

Many, many thanks! I would have missed my rocking chair very much...

[HerenIstarion]

I will sell myself long (is there such an expression or did I just invent something new? )

I consider myself Old-School Book Fan, even though I was born in 1978 and my Tolkien reading started in 1989 (the Hobbit and Smith of Wotton Major, both mysteriously found on a bookshelf, everybody in the family denying buying them when questioned. But I know 'twas my granny who bought them)

The rationale to be found here: Tolkien Middle Age Club

Honestly, I suppose I meet requirements - I did not know about Bakshi version, and that cartoon of Hobbit don't remember by whom till much later, and when first asking for Silm77 and HoME (1994 or 95, same granny) to be bought for me in Germany, where she was going for her health's reasons, I expected to get something finished, probably what happened after, or what happened before, but in no way drafts and comments - more about Sam and Frodo, or Bilbo, and Gandalf.

Later, when I've read all of them and a bit more (Niggle, Giles and company), the thought of movies came in. Movies? I often imagined what a movie may have been done out of those wonderful books, and always concluded 'it were impossible, for it must be perfect'.

But lo! They are already shooting, and release is by Christmas! You should be joking? Nope, I've seen it on TV, they are shooting!

Ah, unlike, Nurumaiel (excellent post (#63 of the current thread), my compliments) I did not like the movies at first. That was wrong, this was a lie, the whole piece of that was missing. Probably, I wanted to see the movie so much I was not inclined to forgive slightest imperfections. But I wanted it strongly for the books' sake.

But now, I consider it as a piece of art in its own right. Not entirely unrelated to the books, of course, but independent I still prefer to read my books, but I suppose a lot of people prefer reading Tolkien's verse, per instance, to my ReVerse - as both me (heh, self-confidence is the thing I never knew the lack of) and PJ are doing the same thing, to an extent - we are sub-sub-creating. I'll make myself more clear - we take somebody else's work and base ours on it. It may be argued that Tolkien did the same - basing his books on this and on that, but he has the wider base, his sources are less known, and skill is far greater. To an extent, his is the thing new, original, not eclectic, (sub-creation with one sub), ours - consequent (sub-sub-creation with two subs)

It does not mean the sub-sub thingy is bad in itself. But by definition it is A. Not the same thing. B Of less value as original (in a sense it is not original idea, it may of course be in a sense of skill - suppose PJ based his movies not on books but on Bakshi version - the result would be better in a sense - contrived with more skill, but worse - not original, sub-sub-created) Or, another analogy - the first man who invented painting is a lot more original, in one sense, than all, per instance, cubists or whoever, though his skill is crude compared to theirs

But I feel I stray in my own thoughts, let me state a conclusion before I get completely lost. Basically, it comes down to:
I appreciate the movies, but I love the books. Movies did not change my appreciation of the books, and of the Two Frodos the printed one is the stronger.

[Snowdog]

HerenIstarion, I guess you would be New Old-school!