Book ----> Film

[Willem]

I always warn people who want to read Lord of the Rings for the first time, after seeing the movie that the first book is pretty hard to get through. Slow start, endless talking at the Council of Elrond, loads of poetry interrupting the narrative flow, it could really put people off. Don't get me wrong, I like the books, I try to re-read them every once a while, but it can drag along a bit.

[Jan Van Quirm]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the LOTR trilogy was much better as films Yeah, Jan'll get me, but I just found the books a bit dry with too many wierd bits, and an ending that I thought would never happen. The second book in particular was improved.

I'm not saying that the books were bad. I just wouldn't be tempted to read them again.

For general fans I'd agree that the films are better in terms of pace of storytelling. On a forum basis the films brought the punters in and made it fun to roleplay but the ones who stayed and gave the content spin and polish were the people who understood and appreciated the sheer depth of the books.

Tolkien's one of those people that you're really into or not at all and a lot of his appeal is far away from the martial aspects (which Tolkien was crap at writing - character development too in some respects). The 2 commercial books are only the very pinnacle of the iceberg (even less than the tip) of what Arda's all about and, in a similar manner (but not style naturally ) to Terry, there's more than a simple story of Elves and Trolls and a big bad Dark Lord etc.

Where Tolks is cerebral and analytical, Terry's satirical and humane - neither of them do much in the way of authentic war action (as opposed to focusing heavily on specific acts of evil or violence) that's actually not important to either of them. Tolkien created a whole world that he literally mapped obsessively and approached in an academic manner. Even the linguistic aspects (which is mainly geared to Elves I admit) is only a quarter or less of the sheer detail and depth that he built into his world that's truly anal but totally fascinating to seriously addicted fantasy nuts.

Terry's far more accessible to a modern, intelligent audience and, with his books they largely make lousy films that don't really deliver the true tone and message of his work - they obviously keep the wisecracks but for me totally miss the root message. so are all form and no real substance, but I've only seen glimpses of the various TV films and animations and they just don't work for me. On the other hand Peter Jackson's LotR screenplay reeks of Tolkien and so does make the transition literally magical in places, except for certain liberties with the story to justify hiring Liv Tyler and the utter travesty of the ending for which Newline has to take the flak as it's absolutely a cop-out to give the US audience their feel-good hit

No movie can ever really carry over the atmos and spirit of a well-written book - we see this with Twilight, I think although I've not seen any of the movies or read the books and probably never will. They're not good books so people are saying on here, but they can make good movies (if you're the right age and have the required teen hormone levels) that have initial fan impact by good casting and lots of gory-ish action, but will likely fade eventually because the glamour can only last for a certain about of time without good storytelling to back it up - it's just the latest step in the cult of the vampire/werewolf that isn't even original (Dracula for instance does have true romance and searing tragedy even though that too isn't a terribly well-written tome and the rest is just Hammer Horror tinsel). Twilight doesn't even have the more mature and in your face appeal of the Ann Rice books (Interview with the Vampire) or even the Blade series for instance - it doesn't really add anything to the genre, but it does have a lot of pretty faces and that of course gets it the attention of the Hollywood bankers.

In the end it's how a book can get into your soul without relying on visual impact and as we all probably know on this forum, visualising words and literary themes is beyond the ability of some people to imagine with any degree of fondness or appeal - they need the movie and not all movie-makers have the ability or heart to make something like the LotR trilogy that does manage to capture the true spirit of the books, even though they had to sell out in places.

[poohcarrot]

No movie can ever really carry over the atmos and spirit of a well-written book - we see this with Twilight, I think although I've not seen any of the movies or read the books and probably never will.

Can I nominate this line as probably the best Jano has ever written?

How can you say the movie didn't have the atmos of the book if you haven't seen the movie or read the book (and probably never will)?

[Who's Wee Dug]

The mind boggles.

[Jan Van Quirm]

Because I've read small bits and seen some clips of Twilight book/film in 'what's coming next' as I have with Wyrd Sisters & Hogfather etc. The reviews of Twilight book or film that I've read from people whose taste I have respect for also indicate that it's not for me, so I'm not tempted to go near them in any way. The movies may well be better than the books which those people say is definitely not well-written - I don't care either way as they don't interest me.

OK - so I'm not a fan of that, but I am a fan of other genres and nothing really works in all respects, so I do think it's almost impossible to get a well-written book onto film/TV adequately. Twilight is not generally admired in adult circles for it's writing, but is for a good-looking Edward Cullen (see - I know the hero's name so I 'know' something of it ) so I therefore made the comment as being my opinion.

LotR Trilogy I couldn't not see because I wanted to see if CGI made a difference (having seen the Ralph Bakshi animation which was awful despite having John Hurt in it). It was brilliant in places and mostly good overall, but the films were not better than the books for me though I can see why a lot of people found them better than the books because those are an acquired taste.

They're not good books so people are saying on here, but they can make good movies (if you're the right age and have the required teen hormone levels) that have initial fan impact by good casting and lots of gory-ish action, but will likely fade eventually because the glamour can only last for a certain about of time without good storytelling to back it up

That any better?

[superfurryandy]

I usually find that Stephen King's books don't translate onto screen that well, notable exceptions being Shawshank, The Shining, Stand By Me and Misery, but even then I wouldn't say they're better as such - even in the case of Shawshank the 'happy ending' they tagged on in the film still irks me.

At uni we had huge, but friendly, arguments over ' Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' and 'Blade Runner' - I much prefer the latter.

[chris.ph]

plus they are bugger all like each other sfa

[Dotsie]

It was the travesties with the LOTR rings plot that made it better though, cutting out some frankly wierd characters and bigging up others - the strong female characters came across much better in the films, and weren't really given a proportionate amount of time in the books, which were clearly all about the boys.

[Jan Van Quirm]

I take Arwen rescuing Frodo very personally since I RP Glorfindel an awful lot (he's the arch enemy of the head ringwraith who poops his pants whenever he sees my shininess and bloody greatsword)

Aside from the gooey bit where Aragorn falls off a cliff before Helm's Deep and the bit where she's 'sick' supposedly they made pretty good use of an appendix to the LotR which went into Arwen backstory a bit more - in the book she's just a tying the ends off for the legacy of the Elves to the Kings of Westernesse (her father's twin was their 1st king)

I think they very rightly cropped some way boring bits out of it (Tom Bombadil is a total waste of space except for the lorists and poetry junkies) and some of the additional action/fight sequences were great. The one bit I can't forgive is axing the Scouring of the Shire - no wonder Christopher Lee blew his top and went all flouncy on Peter Jackson. They could easily have cut the Pelennor (or Elrond bringing Aragorn his sword which was also a waste of valuable time as it didn't happen) and had the Hobbits kicking ass back home for 10 minutes or so - talk about saccharine pills!

[DaveC]

The one bit I can't forgive is axing the Scouring of the Shire - no wonder Christopher Lee blew his top and went all flouncy on Peter Jackson.

I agree, especially as they teased it in the Galadriel scene in Fellowship.

[Penfold]

The one bit I can't forgive is axing the Scouring of the Shire - no wonder Christopher Lee blew his top and went all flouncy on Peter Jackson.

I agree, especially as they teased it in the Galadriel scene in Fellowship.

100% agree on this as I had been looking forward to the Scouring of the Shire.

BTW, does anyone know how the proposed film of 'The Hobbit' is going to be extended to two films as I thought there would be barely enough material for one (longish) movie?

[DaveC]

The 2nd will bridge the gap between Hobbut and LOTR - eg. looking for ring, i don't as I skipped the appenaces, just read main text

[Jan Van Quirm]

Re the Mirror of Galadriel scene - this is why Christopher Lee went Librarian-shit because they did film it or planned to and he was looking forward to appearing in the final part of the Trilogy. It's also why they're having to rebuild Hobbiton out in NZ for The Hobbit as they torched parts of it for the scene in Lothlorien that did survive in Fellowship.

It was a pure production decision to take the Scouring out and also why PJ and Newline also fell out briefly as the screenplay (that won an Oscar and was written by Jackson and his wife Fran Walsh) did include the true ending as it was a crucial part of the story but also spoiled the happily ever after ending which for Frodo and Bilbo was completley wrong (they went on the white ship to 'find peace' (i.e. die) in Elfland basically).

With the Hobbit the plan is to split it to have the 1st part ending with Bilbo and the Dwarfs in Mirkwood somewhere I would imagine and then in Part 2 splice the 'missing' part of the action in the actual book

where Gandalf leaves them at the western side of Mirkwood and then follows him down to southern Mirkwood to Dol Guldur for the face off with the 'Necromancer' (really Sauron). There'll be another huge battle scene, possibly featuring wizard fire down there which wasn't covered in the book, as Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel join forces, besiege and then kick the nasssty Necromancer out of the castle. However, because of Saruman giving them duff info, they foul it up and in fact bring total war (as per LotR) closer by doing so, as Sauron promptly heads off to Mordor etc etc...

The rest of the book of the Hobbit also has another big battle and Smaug etc which would of course quite easily make a single but very, very long film.

The 'new' bit is v. interesting indeed as Tolkien yet again only outlined the Dol Guldur section and skimmed it in LotR (where Gandalf gives Frodo the history of the Ring in terms of Bilbo's taking it off Gollum) so Fran Walsh almost had a free hand with dramatising a really meaty bit of lore that's not too well known outside of Tolkien study circles.

[DaveC]

this is why Christopher Lee went Librarian-shit because they did film it or planned to and he was looking forward to appearing in the final part of the Trilogy. It's also why they're having to rebuild Hobbiton out in NZ for The Hobbit as they torched parts of it for the scene in Lothlorien that did survive in Fellowship.

T least he did get to appear in the Extended editions and have asemi-satisfying demise. They are the only versions of the the trilogy that I will watch. They're awesome!

[Who's Wee Dug]

I'm really looking forward to the Hobbit, it was my favorite between that and the LOTR.