In a dream scenario where they can get the right people to do it, I would vastly prefer a TV series. Even with the extended editions, there’s a ton of material in the books we didn’t get to see. Things like the whole sequence with the elves early in the books being turned into “hey look there’s some elves”, no Tom Bombadil, the journey from Rivendel to Moria. And that’s just the first book.
I think most would agree the world building is one of the best aspects of the books and there just isn’t time for that in a feature film.
There’s a difference, metaphorically, between the ballad and the accompanying ambient harp play, and in general background music.
The former is inconvenient - like a book or a tale. It conveys a story, a position, a morale, which inevitably leads to conflict and conflict is bad for business. It also can’t be generated from existing stories and positions to cover all audiences, they’ll average to the same bland product. It can only be borne out of human instincts and experiences. Even totalitarian propaganda has historically used real feelings and experiences.
While the latter can be generated and pipelined.
So the modern “consumerist” recommendation for art is to never look at the root, never search for the ballad itself, only for tables and food and harps and ambient play and windows and stones and the weather. And even if you look at what’s supposed to be the art at the root, it’s assumed that the modern way is to only rationalize it, find technical, formal similarities and intersections with something else, like a style or a touch, but never allow it to bloom naturally. Getting at the essence of things is seen as impolite and asocial.
(Reminds me of that quote about white color and wisdom.)
As some kind of “filler” in a TV series is actually the only way I can see the Tom Bombadil content working on the screen. It’s just too specific to work in any other way IMO, even though I would like to see something. (Especially with Jack Black as Tom Bombadil, can you imagine him ring-a-ding dillowing xD)
Idk if you watched the last of us, but like that Bill episode, which is mostly disconnected from the greater narrative, didn’t feel out of place in the series to me. That’s what I’m getting at. I want to see all of it at a slower pace.
I don’t think there is a version of our world where Tom Bombadil is done well onscreen. While Jack Black has the energy for him, I would see Jack Black and not Bombadil Hey-Dol-Merry-Dol-ing.
Yeah maybe/probably. That’s always my biggest problem with famous actors, you know them as actors and thus the bridge to the character is further. I like when new/unknown actors are cast for large roles for that reason.
It was the same for me, I didn’t spend time imagining who could play Tom, but when I saw this painting, I knew Jack would be perfect. He would be so naturally comfortable in that role, I imagine.
It’s one of the core parts. Makes sense PJ and most commenters agree in discarding it. One can say it’s the closest we get in the book to characters talking to Middle-Earth itself. (Something no sane person would discard from Narnia books, for example.)
I desperately hope so. The amount of effort that went into the current movies cannot be matched by anybody in Hollywood except maybe Christopher Nolan.
Exactly, just look at the horrible Hobbit moves. A breakthrough like LOTR takes an incredible effort, sacrifice, risk taking, and luck. We always look back at these big achievements and think they were inevitable, but that’s not true, it’s hard and rare.
The only thing Warner will achieve is spending a lot of money for somethig that nobody will talk about in 2 years, while people will still rewatch LOTR in decades.
Ah, I prefer “reread”. LOTR movies too have quite a lot of downsides. Like ignoring the whole of the Old Forest. And they lack the lore feeling which I can’t describe easily.
I like doing a reread/rewatch. Read the hook then watch it come to life. Honestly going back after all these years I find it like the movies more than when they released even. At the time I was young and wanted them to be more like the books, but as an adult I can understand and even agree with a lot of the changes. For instance, aragon is pretty different in that he’s given more of an arc in the films, and I like that. But of course there’s a thousand things I wish they had time to flesh out more. If they are going to do a remake I wish they’d do a series that allow them to slow down and really get into a lot of that. That’s really the only way I can see them even possibly living up to the Jackson films
At the time I was young and wanted them to be more like the books, but as an adult I can understand and even agree with a lot of the changes.
This sentence seems a bit manipulative, as if taking that point of view made one “more adult”. I’d understand resistance to movies themselves waning, as a separate thing of art of their own, being a sign of that.
is pretty different in that he’s given more of an arc in the films
Really?
Aragorn and elves, Aragorn and Gandalf, Aragorn and Arwen, Aragorn and the Rangers, Aragorn and Sauron even, Aragorn and Denethor, Aragorn and Boromir, Aragorn and Frodo, Aragorn and Sam, Aragorn and travel, even Aragorn and Gollum, Aragorn and Gimli, Aragorn and Eomer …
Wouldn’t seem so for me.
Sorry for the Reddit-ish tone.
If they are going to do a remake I wish they’d do a series that allow them to slow down and really get into a lot of that.
At this point I’d just want to live till the IP expires and see fans try.
I can only speak for myself. I think personally I have a better perspective on things now than when I was 14, but I guess I could be wrong.
I think you’ve misinterpreted what I mean by arc. I guess I meant the character undergoes more personal growth in the films. In the books aragon knows what he’s about from day one. He is stoic af. And I get why he’s written that way and why some would prefer that. In the films he’s much more unsure about himself and over the course of the trilogy you see him kind of grow into being the king so that by the time he takes the crown it feels like you saw the internal journey that got him there. In the books of course we know that this period is what, like, a couple years of his very long life so that would feel more out of place.
Anyway, those kinds of changes bothered me as a teenager, but looking back at them now I feel differently. That’s not to say I like all the choices Jackson made, but I’ve come around on some, understand others better, and have seen enough other material jump from book to film to be super grateful for the effort that whole team put in to try and do these films right.
I guess I meant the character undergoes more personal growth in the films. In the books aragon knows what he’s about from day one.
Not entirely, if you remember Dunharrow and the Palantir. And then his other transformations, in Rivendell, in Lorien, in Rohan, and after the coronation, and more. Other than those, where would a 70 years old man grow?
In the films he’s much more unsure about himself and over the course of the trilogy you see him kind of grow into being the king so that by the time he takes the crown it feels like you saw the internal journey that got him there.
Well, in the books it was a 50 years long journey.
In the books of course we know that this period is what, like, a couple years of his very long life so that would feel more out of place.
Yes, I think we understand each other.
those kinds of changes bothered me as a teenager,
For me personally they felt strange because, ahem, Aragorn seemed simply unfit for his role. A person which wouldn’t end up on that track.
I was trying to describe to my MIL (who hasn’t seen the Hobbit movies) how they were bad. I ended up with
Do you remember the barrel scene in the Hobbit? How would you describe it?
“It’s kind of where Bilbo really felt his confidence, where he tried the ring for the first time and rescued the dwarves, and they snuck out down the river to the city”
Great great, and do you remember the battalion of orcs trying to kill them while they went downstream with Legolas and Tauriel doing sweet kick flips over them, while Bombur bounced around jokingly killing a dozen of them, and then Fili having a moment of weakness for his elf princess love while he opened the gate and then he gets shot with a poisoned arrow?
…no
Well there you go.
They took one of the most endearing moments of the book and made it a joke. No, they cannot recreate the Lord of the Rings. Even if you don’t like PJ’s version, there’s just no way modern Hollywood can do to improve on it.
It’s not “modern” Hollywood. Hollywood has been pretty consistently trash over the decades, most adaptations in the '90s were shit as well.
Of course no-one’s going to beat PJ at LOTR. Because no good creative is going to be interested in the challenge when PJ already did the thing perfectly so only soulless corpo-ghouls think a remake is a good idea.
But there are still flukes like LOTR from time to time when the moons align and funding goes to actually talented creators. Two years ago we got Dune, this summer we got Barbie.
I wouldn’t put either of those in quite the same category as LOTR but I do agree that good stuff is still being made here and there, I think people just like to complain and also only think about the best bits of the past, while LOTR came out a million shitty movies also did you just don’t remember them.
I agree that it’s unlikely that we’ll ever get a better adaptation. But to say that PJ’s adaptions were perfect is a bit insulting to the books. They weren’t great adaptions. Good movies on their own, but PJ was very opinionated and they weren’t super faithful.
It’s going to be. Don’t have any hopes for it, just don’t. In fact, I’d argue just don’t see it unless we hear that it’s phenomenal for some reason after it’s been released.
Add comment