[OT] A dark day for Kai Lord....

[Sulimo]

The Tolken estate is very touchy about the LOTR property, if they didn't believe in the movie then it wouldn't of been made.

That is plainly untrue. The film rights to LoTR & The Hobbit were sold long ago. Tolkien Enterprises has held the rights for games, films and other bits for YEARS. Thats how the Bakshi film came about and the ICE RPG. The Estate had no involvement in the film, and was unwilling to even comment on it...aside from Christophers comment that he still felt LoTR was unfilmable.

Which do you like better books or movies, well that's a matter of taste. I won't argue what anybody should like because everybody has their own opinions. Actually I love movies, because I'm lazy.

In this case I definitely prefer the original. The film is a readers-digest version. its my alltime fave book...Tolkien gave me a love of reading, of fantasy, and of history.

 

[Mallus]

Pardon me, this is a hijack...

There are advantages to both media, but I don't think you'll find more in books than you will in moving pictures. As a STORYTELLING MEDIUM, moving pictures can and do tell more all at once, and convey imagery, scenes, dialogue, and action without having to translate the teller's story through the written word.

Wow. No. A million times no... a number of no's equal to the amount in lira of the US national debt.

Doc, I can almost agree with you if you're using a very narrow definition of storytelling. There's no denying the immediacy and visceral power of film. Trying to commit to film what authors can --without much controversy-- commit to the page would get the filmaker committed to an asylum or a jail. Film removes a layer of abstraction and neccessary interpretation: its can scare in the way actual experience scares {though its nowhere near as mimetic as some might claim}.

But there's a lot more going on in some novels than that kind of visceral storytelling. Its a question of information density and mechanics. The static nature of the reading experience allows for as slow a pace as needed, one can reflect, look back, stop and start; it allows structures too complex for any performed media. In a film, play, opera, etc, you have four hours, tops {well, some exceptions} to fully realize your work. There's a limit to what you can fit in there. Consider some dense, hefty books that require a month/s to read, often with professional guides {Gravity's Rainbow, Ulysses}. A perfomed work couldn't bear that load. Saying you won't find more in books than in film is like saying you won't find more in the Pacific Ocean than you will in a bottle of Evian {of course, when I go hiking, I hate to carry around the whole of an ocean...}

Films do some things better, but novels do things film cannot. Period.

And, on the subject of translation{form Blazing Critical Soapbox!} in a very real theoretical sense, all communication/art requires acts of translation. Meaning in art is always created in an act of translation between the work and the viewer, whether you're talking films, books, interpetive dances, or weird stuff with done with yams.... Just because movies tend to look more like the view out of your own head, more than words on the page, anyway, that doesn't mean your seeing {or rather, finding signifigant} what the author intended to convey. There's always translation involved. {put away Blazing Critical Soapbox and break back up into black-clad, beret wearing robot lions}.

I'm not doing a good job hear... maybe from home...

 

[Dr Midnight]

What I'm talking about here is that moving pictures as a medium for storytelling has far more potential to tell the story better, as its author might intend.

Film removes a layer of abstraction and neccessary interpretation

That you think that level of interpretation is necessary is what I'm chalking up to a matter of taste.

Trying to commit to film what authors can --without much controversy-- commit to the page would get the filmaker committed to an asylum or a jail.

Well, I agree with that, but it doesn't mean anything to the point I'm making. It's not an inherent flaw in the medium. In fact, if the same controversial point is made in film as in books, and the film maker is arrested for it and blackballed due to public outcry (for example), couldn't it be said that the story was better told with the film?

The static nature of the reading experience allows for as slow a pace as needed, one can reflect, look back, stop and start

That's one thing I always concede to books, sure.

In a film, play, opera, etc, you have four hours, tops {well, some exceptions} to fully realize your work. There's a limit to what you can fit in there.

Now hold on there. Does the fact that films are not made to exceed three, four hours all that often while books can go on as long as they want make for a flaw for moving pictures? You can put a bookmark in a book and walk away- you can stop your DVD and take a break. You're not expected to, though. Films are made to be viewed all at once, while books allow a more convenient breakup of several readings. That's fine. It just doesn't mean that moving pictures as a MEDIUM is inferior. I think it's a shame that fourteen-hour films aren't made, that tell a novel's full story from beginning to end. I say this comes down to budgets.

Two hour movies are made because that's what you can sell to people for big money. Stories in bite-size chunks that they'll pay $10 to see. Books cost less to write, less to print, and less to buy. If a movie cost as much to produce as it costs to pay a writer, editor, and printing fee, then yes- I think we'd see novel-length movies.

Again- I don't believe this affects the potential of moving pictures as a storytelling medium.

Saying you won't find more in books than in film is like saying you won't find more in the Pacific Ocean than you will in a bottle of Evian

Countering that, using the metaphor: They don't make Evian in ocean-sized bottles, because of prohibitive costs.

Films do some things better, but novels do things film cannot. Period.

Film do some things novels cannot, and novels do some things film cannot.

Just because movies tend to look more like the view out of your own head, more than words on the page, anyway, that doesn't mean your seeing {or rather, finding signifigant} what the author intended to convey.

If not, that's the author's (director's, producer's, etc...) fault, not the medium's. Moving pictures has the POTENTIAL to convey EXACTLY what the author intended.

There's always translation involved.

Right. There's just less of it with moving pictures. Less translation is needed to tell the storytold just what is happening.

Wokka wokka.

 

[Tom Cashel]

What I'm talking about here is that moving pictures as a medium for storytelling has far more potential to tell the story better, as its author might intend.

First, the qualifier "better" is completely meaningless on internet messageboards and elsewhere. There's simply no such thing, once you eliminate subjectivity. "Better" is a matter of preference.

Secondly, the idea that the closer a story is to the author's intention, the "better" it is, is not neccesarily true. The history of storytelling is full of examples of stories that have surpassed (in meaning) what the author intended...how about Star Wars, or Shakespeare's plays? Are these better or worse than perceived? Than the author perceived?

Mallus, you make some extremely good points, especially about prose allowing for structures too complex for film. Plots mixed with subplot upon subplot that work just ducky in prose would be complete goobledygook on film, no matter how skilled the director and how long the film might run. But...

Saying you won't find more in books than in film is like saying you won't find more in the Pacific Ocean than you will in a bottle of Evian.

You might find more in the Pacific, but at least you can drink the Evian.

If not, that's the author's (director's, producer's, etc...) fault, not the medium's. Moving pictures has the POTENTIAL to convey EXACTLY what the author intended.

...with moving pictures...Less translation is needed to tell the storytold just what is happening.

First flaw of film: it takes a whole committee to get one made. Lots and lots of people...director, script writer, producer, camera man, key grip, actors...even auteurs who write, direct, produce, edit and act can't do everything in a single film. Hence no film can be constructed solely upon the author's intentions...it's muddled by all those other peoples' involvement.

BUT...the idea of a piece of storytelling that tells you only what the author intends strikes me as, well, boring. Stories gain life and staying power based on the interpretations they spawn; something that can only be seen one way is, IMO, inferior to something that can be interpreted in many ways. One shuts down all discussion while the other gives life to it.

Now I'm not applying this to books or film, because I like them both for different reasons and for the different things thay can do. I'm just saying that where there is no possibility of interpretation, no multiple viewpoint, there is stasis. It might make a damn good film, but the shelf life is very very limited.

 

[Mallus]

Doc...

Secondly, the idea that the closer a story is to the author's intention, the "better" it is, is not neccesarily true. The history of storytelling is full of examples of stories that have surpassed (in meaning) what the author intended...

That's a good point Tom. Its part of what I was trying to say. I don't think meaning {in film, text, any artform really} should thought of in terms of being something that the creator {or gaggle of creators for film} "transmits" to the audience. Its always made from both what the makers and the viewers bring to the table. That's the real joy of it. And you're so right about ambiguity being a vital part of any good, lasting work. The same work can be revisted many times, each being a new experience. And surely a work can transcend the creator's direct intent or vision. Sometimes I think of individual works of art as stepping stones --not the diminsh what artists do in any way.

So Doc, that's the point I should have stressed. There's no ideal medium to use in bringing about artist vision. There's only the choice of medium and the constraints found therein. Filmakers should make films, writers should write, and performance artists should do whatever it is that they do.

You're absolutely right in saying film does what text can't. And vice-versa. I was wrong to argue for the surpremacy of novels... That's just me bias showing. So we agree that neither film nor prose offers the more "robust toolset"... just different tools.

And Doc, back to earlier point. No medium offers an artist the potential for convey exactly whe he/she intended. In order to garauntee the the exact meaning/experience is conveyed {and that's assuming a lot about the creator explicitly knowing said meaning}, the viewer would need the exact same knowlege, life experience, heck they'd have to be the exact same person. Different people take different things away from the same work.

I stand by what I wrote: everything need to translated and interpeted. Films as much as books, albeit in different ways. There's no pure method of storytelling. And that's a great thing...

And my crack about jailing filmakers was my way of giving props to the power of film as a medium. Film can be affecting in a way text just can't. As text can be complex and discursive in a way filmed narrative can't.

And lastly, wasn't this about LotR??! Let me ask this... Could you create Middle Earth in film alone? Peter Jackson's movie is stunningly beautiful, but I'm convinced that no film and filmaker could create such a rich, vivid, living world --and history-- as Tolkien did in the books. The camera just can't do that...

 

[jdavis]

That is plainly untrue. The film rights to LoTR & The Hobbit were sold long ago. Tolkien Enterprises has held the rights for games, films and other bits for YEARS. Thats how the Bakshi film came about and the ICE RPG. The Estate had no involvement in the film, and was unwilling to even comment on it...aside from Christophers comment that he still felt LoTR was unfilmable.

Granted, I can't actually back what I said up as I cannot remember where I read it, but I seem to remember reading that the estate was happy with the movie. I do know that the estate has always been real touchy about everything. I'll defer too "sorry I might of mispoke about the movie and the estate."

The whole point to all of this is that in the case of LOTR you need to read the book. As good as the movie is and as hard as they try, you still need to read the book. It is the template for modern Fantasy and just a real good read. You should also see the movies as they will be very entertaining, but the book is a must.

 

[Replicant]

Ouch...

Can a movie do LotR better than Tolkien did it? Yup.. especially if it cuts out the clunky prose and streamlines the spastic plot. I have no problem with writers that throw the unities to the wind and Aristotle be damned.. but Tolkien, while I liked LotR enough to read each book in a day or two when I was 9, I cannot stand anymore. The movies are the only way I will have any further contact with *that* story.

Wow, that description seems a trifle harsh, considering LOTR is almost universally regarded as the greatest fantasy series ever written.

A spastic plot? How to explain, then, the legion of authors that have either drawn heavy inspiration from, or out-and-out copied Tolkien's story since its publication? That "spastic plot" did a pretty good job of capturing the imagination of a generation (nay, generations) of writers.

And call his prose clunky, I call it magic. Perfect? Heck no. Tolkien can be meandering and annoyingly tangential. But there's plenty of authors with clear, sharp prose styles that don't have one-tenth of Tolkien's inspiration or storytelling ability.