The mis-interpretation of dear Gimli

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by davem

But that's the point. I've never thought of LotR as a 'fantasy' novel (I'm not a fantasy fan & find most fantasy juvenile & pointless as well as unreadable), yet the movies are fantasy movies - possibly why I dislike them. Fantasy novels are full of giant spiders & giant fiery demons & the like. LotR is not like that. The point of Shelob (& the only way in which she is bearable to me) is that she is 'an evil thing in spider form'. Reduced to a 'giant spider' she is just another D&D type 'monster'. It is the 'explanation' of her true nature (which as you say can only be communicated by a narrator) which gives meaning & depth to the encounter & raises it above the level of 'sword & sorcery'.

I don't understand how you don't see LotR as a fantasy. It's in a world created where dragons lived and wizards roamed. It sure isn't your typical fantasy, and it transcends by far the chains of everyday "dragons and wizards", but it is a fantasy story, nonetheless.

[Rikae]

I don't think I mean this quite the same way Davem does, but I don't think of the books as fantasy, either. To me, the fantasy genre followed Tolkien, and was a pale attempt to imitate him by incorporating superficial "window dressing" - wizards, dragons, elves, etc.; while what Tolkien wrote was a myth (perhaps the only myth ever "written" by a single author.) I mean myth in the sense of archetypes, of stories that are "more than true", not in the modern sense of "false". In that sense, what Tolkien wrote could not be further from "fantasy"...it is not even quite "fiction".

To stay on topic...I think the movies did manage to communicate some of the mythic quality of LOTR, but they were contaminated and dimished by the filmmakers' tendency to confuse Tolkien with fantasy.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I mean myth in the sense of archetypes, of stories that are "more than true", not in the modern sense of "false". In that sense, what Tolkien wrote could not be further from "fantasy"...it is not even quite "fiction".

I do agree with you, and I didn't mean "fantasy" as in the modern rip offs of Tolkien. When I think of fantasy, I think of mythic creatures such as dragons and wizards. Tolkien's story goes beyond that, but still contains dragons and wizards. I'm not sure if you get what I'm saying, but I do agree with you, at the same time I still think the story deals with fantasy, yet not in the way most readers think of it.

[Celegost]

Did you know that John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) is actually taller than Orlando Bloom (Legolas) and Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn).....

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Celegost

Did you know that John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) is actually taller than Orlando Bloom (Legolas) and Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn).....

Nope, haha, that's pretty funny.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I remember when I first saw the movies I was quite young, and didn't think them so bad, having not read the book for quite a while (I had lost it). But my mind remembered very clearly the final scene, how Gollum just falls over the edge.

In the movie it is exactly the same to that point, Gollum incapacitates Sam, goes after Frodo, who has done everything pretty much accurate to the book (apart from the much-needed "If you touch me again you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom" but nevermind) and I felt the horror at Frodo's finger bitten off.

Right now Gollum is right over the edge, bending backwards, ring in hand, totally distracted, the exact moment when I thought with two minds:

Alright, now Gollum's just going to fall off, just like the book. Awesome!
and
Please please PLEASE don't stuff up now!!

And he doesn't fall off, and there's this Hollywood-made last battle between Frodo and Gollum. It killed me twice before I hit the ground.

The first mind thought 'Aw man, it didn't happen like the book', whereas the second mind thought, 'Oh God, they stuffed it up, nooooo'. Luckily this was stifled by the 'tension' of Frodo reaching out to Sam. But wouldn't it have been great if he HAD just fallen off, complete anticlimax, like a couple of trains dodging each other after playing chicken?

<sigh> It still gets me, that scene.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

And he doesn't fall off, and there's this Hollywood-made last battle between Frodo and Gollum. It killed me twice before I hit the ground.

The first mind thought 'Aw man, it didn't happen like the book', whereas the second mind thought, 'Oh God, they stuffed it up, nooooo'. Luckily this was stifled by the 'tension' of Frodo reaching out to Sam. But wouldn't it have been great if he HAD just fallen off, complete anticlimax, like a couple of trains dodging each other after playing chicken?

I actually liked how they did it in the movie, except for the part when Frodo falls off and miraculously does a huge mid-air turn and catches a little piece of rock to hang on to. It wouldn't have worked theatrically if Gollum just slipped off. Anticlimax doesn't do well on film.