Dear All of You,

Ashlin Airevingiel [ ashlaegl@... ] has sent you an ecard from
123Greetings.com.

Send free ecards from 123greetings.com with your choice of colors, words and
music.

Your ecard will be available with us for the next 30 days. If you wish to keep
the ecard longer, you may save it on your computer or take a print.

To view your ecard, choose from any of the following options:

--------
OPTION 1
--------

Click on the following Internet address or
copy & paste it into your browser's address box.

http://www.123greetings.com/view/KA90101191432163

--------
OPTION 2
--------

Copy & paste the ecard number in the "View Your Card" box at
http://www.123greetings.com

Your ecard number is
KA90101191432163

If you need help in viewing your card or any other assistance,
please visit our Help / FAQ section located at
http://www.123greetings.com/help/

If you need further help, feel free to write to us at
support@...

Best wishes,

Postmaster,
123Greetings.com

*If you would like to send someone an ecard, you can do so at
http://www.123greetings.com

I think the films are about as perfect an adaptation as one could ever hope
to see.

Rob

Well I just picked up The JRR Tolkien Companion and Guide, by Cristina Scull
and Wayne Hammond which gives me approx. 30 Tolkien books so I would have to
disagree as PJ did take literary license in numerous parts which did not
necessarily enhance the film.

Bungo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <fredwestermeyer@...>
To: <TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: [TolkienDiscussions] LOTR - The Films


>I think the films are about as perfect an adaptation as one could ever hope
> to see.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
> Come and visit our Tolkien Discussions group online and take advantage
> of our Messages, Chat, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls, Members,
> and Calendar sections.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TolkienDiscussions
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Jack

To: TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:34 AM

Subject: [TolkienDiscussions] Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday to you!

Happy Birthday to you!

Happy Birthday Prof Tolkien!

Happy Birthday to you!

 

http://www.tolkiensociety.org/toast/index.html

 

:o)
Jack
(Hard work never killed anybody. But why take the risk?)
Click here for jokes, cartoons, and voluptuous redheads:
mailto:moraldepravity-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

PS I lied about the redheads...

 

Pippin:

"It did not help the films to cast Frodo so young either.  "


I must, respectfully, disagree.  True, Frodo was in his early fifties
chronologically by the time of the main action of the story, but remember, he
got the ring at 33, which is much younger for a hobbit than it is for a human. 
It is one of the properties of the Great Rings that they will halt the
aging/maturation process of a mortal bearer.  Bilbo was 111, and looked/acted
only 50.  The book says that Frodo continued to 'look and act like a young
hobbit just out of his tweens'.  Hence, casting the college-age Elijah Wood was
appropriate, as developmentally he was at the same stage at which Frodo was
frozen.

Bruce Alan Wilson

>
> Is there a happy medium here or which way does everyone swing!!!
>
> Just interested.
>
> Fea.
>

It seems to me that a kind of a happy medium is usually remnant
around here, in a very civilized manner.

There are those that came here because of the movie, willing to
learn from and read the books, and there's usually discussion on
relevant aspects of the relationship between the movie and the
writings that use to be fruitful.

Due value is given to both parts.

From my thoughts, I like the movies, but very conscious that it is a
(first) reading and interpretation of the written work.

As often as I can, I try to bring to ears and attention that there
are other ways of reading the same work, so as to say, David Wenzel
(art) + Charles Dixon adaptarion to comic book of 'The Hobbit' and,
thus, of Middle-Earth. (Once Peter J.'s production is much of Alan
Lee's + John Howe's (both artists) conception of Ronald Tolkien's
world.)

The movies do have their value, not only in script (spirit of the re-
writing) as well as (motion) picture... I will mention the Balrog of
Khazad-dum, as this last part.

As for script, it is inspiring: I wrote a story based on the battle
of Helmsdeep, entirely based on the movie (including the cliff
stray, that someone mentioned, once... :^)

(Bits of David Wenzel's visual work of 'The Hobbit' is in cover
picture of homepage of mailing-lists I run about this work of
literature, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ruins_of_eregion &
age_s_end; my story based on Helmsdeep is in this mailing-list's
files section.)

[CONTINUES, I hope...]

So, what is the story in relation to the films?  Most groups I have come across are either swooning (as we have previously mentioned) about the movie cast forgetting about the actual story of the movie or they are so against the films that mentioning it will get you barred from the group.

 

Is there a happy medium here or which way does everyone swing!!! 

 

Just interested.

 

Fea.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Gustavo"
<g.olivieri@...> wrote:

>
> Is there a happy medium here or which way does everyone swing!!!
>
> Fea.
>

The movies do have their value, not only in script (spirit of the re-
writing) as well as (motion) picture... I will mention the Balrog of
Khazad-dum, as this last part.

As for script, it is inspiring: I wrote a story based on the battle
of Helmsdeep, entirely based on the movie (including the cliff
stray, that someone mentioned, once... :^)
--- End forwarded message ---

So, Peter J.'s work is mainly visually based on Alan Lee + John
Howe's works, among maybe one more & another...

AND it is ONLY ONE (first) READING, one first serious reading, that
got into the theaters. I hope there will be others, based on
different readings (in art interpretation).

People who read the book, and who use to read and re-read it often
complain, sometimes, about the differences in the script.

I only noticed many of them because of this mailing-list. On another
hand, it was because of the movies that came up so many things in
the internet, that I came to run a role-playing -- I like to call
it "theatretto" --, and, in need of reading, I saw story-lines that
obliged to make me talk with the group whether we should follow th
book plot or the movie plot, once they have some important lines
different. (For example, in the book, Aragorn takes Narsil with him
from Rivendell; in the movie, Elrond takes her to him after
Helmsdeep battle... It makes difference in the play of Elrond,
according to the purpose of a theatretto like "Last Battle of the
Elves".) I always vote for following the book plot, because it's the
original literary work, but I don't consider this to make the movie
plot to be considered completely without value: not quite!, I can
say that it is very efficient in keeping the spirit of what I had
read, years before, so as to make me recognize it. And take me back
to it, with will of reading it again, for this or that purpose. (One
thing I always liked was the sequences that R. T. had very well
built in his way of composing a story. I mean dates, and timings.)

If you take details in consideration, there is a lot of things very
different. Well, Peter J.'s version is ONE (first) efficient
reading. Not the ultimate.

_

Before I got into this list (you can notice it by the polls and
database tables), people used to make lots of exercise in thinking
how to make these movies, in terms of casting... I even came to
think of my own choices. Well, it's good to be among people who like
(at least one of) the same things I like.

--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Fea" <Fea@...> wrote:
>
> Is there a happy medium here or which way does everyone swing!!!
>
> Just interested.
>
> Fea.
>

Of course, as one sees some of the most recent commentaries, they
sound a bit like a bunch of old hobbits that never went an inch out of
the Shire, and are taking the moment to complain a bit... :^))

But if you take a look in the messages back, you will see lots of
interesting stuff! :^)

& they will appear again, in time... And from time to time.

--- In TolkienDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, "Fea" <Fea@...> wrote:
>
> Is there a happy medium here or which way does everyone swing!!!
>
> Just interested.
>
> Fea.
>

I dearly agree with 4kf-Pippin, about elves. If I could change at
least one thing, I'd change elves' haircuts. They're a shame...

I am among the ones who miss Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel, and that
think that Arwen should have stayed at home, and who miss the proper
end of the book.

(I remember someone in this mailing-list also mentioning the surfing
and bodyjumping practice of Legolas to kill an oliphaunt, in the
battle of IIIrd part as a ridicule oddity... I agree: they could
have spared us from that.)

_

There's probably many more bad parts. I remember these, and I will
not keep looking for more. On the contrary: I will try to make my
mind to remember what is good in them. But I don't deceive myself:
the movies don't have the height of the books.

In a way, it is impossible, I believe. I don't know, but I think so.
And this is why I get quite happy about these productions we've got.

So, there are at least something concerning which I believe EVERYONE
AGREES: it's good.

Am I wrong? :^

_

I think Peter Jackson deserves some merit for his portfolium. I
quite liked "King Kong"; and "Lord of the Rings" I & II are truly
great job! (and I forgive him for III, because everything at one
time, wow!, what a breath...)

One thing I like in "King Kong" is to have been placed in the 1920s.
It is brilliant, to me. It goes beyond contemporary cinema, and
begins, conscious or unconsciously, into "modurn(itas)", a modurn
time, a different time: XXth century is past, already. 1920s is past
already, and it can be put in cinema.

In my opinion, this new James Bond movie would simply drag me into
the theater _IF_ it was placed in the 1960s. Once it's a story
placed today, it's only another "James Bond", no matter how
different they may have tried to make, I will not to the cinema to
watch it: I will watch it in the tv; it doesn't worth my pennies.

(Different from "Flyboys", for example, that is a movie that calls
to the cinema, because one will not have the same effect in the tv.
(At least not in MY tv...))

_

One other movie that dragged me into the cinema was "Reign of Fire".
I remember taking a look at a poster in the streets, in a bus-stop,
which brought an image of dragons and helicopters flying over London
on fire. It was so awesome to me that I was _dragged_ into the
theater, thinking "I NEED to see it!!".

:^)

>The book says that Frodo continued to 'look and act like a young hobbit
just out of his tweens'.  Hence, casting the college-age Elijah Wood was
appropriate, as developmentally he was at the same stage at which Frodo was
frozen.
>
> Bruce Alan Wilson

So all of Frodo's Hobbit companions, who were younger, were cast too old?
In the book it took Frodo until age 50 to leave the Shire, while in the
movie he left...however long it took Gandalf to get back from his library
research trip, so the age thing probably always will be a confusion for me.
And what about Gollum? Wasn't Smeagol a Hobbit?  The Ring didn't keep
Smeagol young and pretty, but I guess being frozen in age for 5 centuries
would be too much to ask.

In any case, even without the effects of physical age, I would have
expected more maturity and strength than Elijah Wood could bring to the
role.  To me, he came across as early- or mid-tweens and quite wimpy, which
could be at least partly his director's work.  We can disagree.  :-)

Pippin

Hello Gustavo and Fea,

I thought that the two of you might find this link interesting:

http://www.gaeliccollege.edu/index.php

If you are ever in my neck of the world, check it out. The Gaelic College is in
a beautiful (almost Tolkienesque) location. If you are a hiker, as I am, hiking
in the forests and highlands of Cape Breton Island is what I imagine it would be
like to be walking in Tol Eressëa.

Matt West

NP: Dil Mai Durad - TJ Rehmi (Mera Therapy)


Quoting Fea <Fea@...>:

> Thanks for the offer but I'm sorry to inform you that the Irish language is
> mostly a romantic notion by people who don't speak it.  Living here is a
> different matter.  As children it is practically forced on us in the most
> boring way you could imagine.  We are drilled in verbs for years from the age
> of 4 before we can put a couple of words together by which time we hate the
> language with a passion.
>
> Which of course is really sad because as a result, the language is dying and
> now there are small areas around Ireland who are grasping at straws to
> develop communities who are only Irish speaking.  The majority of Irish
> people, can't speak a word of it which is a major pain in the rear end when
> you have kids coming home with Irish homework and all it does is bring back
> horrific memories of nuns and brothers beating it into the older generations.
>  A terrible result but there you have it.  Have I dashed your hopes?  I
> apologise if I have but its better that you know the truth of it.
>
> If this is way off topic, I apologise to the group and will get the
> conversation back on track.  Gustavo, if you want to continue this thread of
> chat with me, please feel free to ask whatever you want.  I also thank you
> for your offer on the Silmarillion and I just might take you up on that....
>
> Fea.





-------------------------------------------
Get your free email at ourbrisbane.com now

The Silmarillion was my door to Tolkien's world. I had tried reading LotR and
The Hobbit in my 20's, but just couldn't get into them. I started and stopped
them many times before giving up.

When I heard that PJ was going to make a movie of LotR, I knew I had to read the
books before seeing the movie, or the movie would forever colour my view of the
books. I did some research on Tolkien and discovered that The Silmarillion is
the foundation of all the other writings of Middle Earth. I decided to start
with this book.

For me, it was the perfect place to begin. It took me almost a year to read as I
made notes throughout and kept jumping to the appendix to keep all the people
and places straight in my mind. This was a most satisfying task!! I absolutely
fell in love with this book as I slowly made my way through it.

The Hobbit, LotR, and Book of Lost Tales (parts 1&2) were easy and quick reads
after spending all that time grasping The Silmarillion!!

I think the secret with The Silmarillion is not to read it, but to STUDY it!
Then you will find the genius and the excitement in this work.

I am now back to The Silmarillion again, studying it once more!

Matt West



Quoting Gustavo <g.olivieri@...>:

> It's odd that so many people have problems in reading 'Silm.' Maybe it
> came easy with me because I was young, and had no previous religion.
> (I see people comparing 'Silm.' with religious texts; it's certainly
> mythologic...)
>
> One thing that I always liked in mythology and mythic structures and
> myth itself (as "logos", word, narrative) was the ways I had to put
> the components of it in trees and schemes.
>
> We have a group of gods in the first chapters. It was only a few days
> ago that I wrote their names in the relation they have with each
> other, for some reason I don't remember very well, right now.
>
> (I use evish myth because I write stories for role-playing... Not only
> in R. Tolkien's countrysides :^)
>
> (But in Middle-Earth too.)
>
> There's lots of trees of hobbits, of men, of elves and even of
> dwarves, but one thing that may make people to be a bit confused about
> the "gods" of Middle-Earth possibly comes to be related to the fact
> that the valar-characters aren't one family, not at least as much
> complex as some brothers and sisters, and some husbands and wives.
>
> (In this way, it's easier than Greek myth(s) of gods, for example.)
>
>





-------------------------------------------
Get your free email at ourbrisbane.com now

I was going to reply to Fea's question, but you just said all that I would have
said and more. In a nutshell, the movies are the movies. They are Jackson's
translation of the story to film. The movies are far less rich and interesting
than the books.

I'm not as opposed to the casting of some of the Elves as you are. I like Hugo
Weaving and Orlando Bloom in particular. Both are fairly close to my imaginings
of Elrond and Legolas. (I also thought that Viggo Mortensen, Andy Serkis, and
Ian McKellen were perfectly cast in their respective roles). In general, the
portrayal of the Elves and Elvish locations seemed all wrong--with the exception
of Elrond, Legolas, and Rivendell.

I'm glad you mentioned the music. It just didn't work for me at all. I found it
annoying at times.

Ultimately, for me, the films, good as they are, are not Tolkien. They are
inspired by Tolkien and his characters, but they are a pale shadow of the real
thing.

Matt West



Quoting Pippin <1kf.lists@...>:

> My extremely brief review is that Mr. Jackson had a very good start with
> Fellowship of the Ring, but the 2nd and 3rd installments declined as story
> lines took a back seat to seeing how many special effects tricks could be
> worked in.
>
> I also was disappointed in just about every aspect of the portrayal of the
> Elves.  The casting was mostly wrong (though I was surprised to find Liv much
> more tolerable than Cate, thinking it would be the other way around), Howard
> Shore's music was wrong for this culture, Caras Galadhon was way overblown
> (it was a fort, not an upstairs disco)--and "wrong" of course just means it
> was far removed from my expectations from my own imagination.  Craig Parker
> and Marton Csokas were closer to Elves than the rest, notwithstanding wigs
> and costumes.
>
> It did not help the films to cast Frodo so young either.  Fortunately the
> other Fellowship Hobbits, especially Sean Astin and Billy Boyd, made the
> ensemble work.  And was Ian McKellan having dental work done throughout the
> films or was he eating throughout ADR?  So much of his dialogue was
> incomprehensible.
>
> The only alterations to the plot that bothered me were the radical change in
> Faramir's meeting with Frodo and Samwise, and the very odd scene with Frodo,
> Ring, and Ringwraith in Osgiliath, which pretty much trashed the key plot
> point that Frodo's possession of the Ring was kept secret from Sauron.
>
> I enjoyed the films, especially the first, but they don't reach the classic
> heights of Tolkien's vision.
>
> Pippin





-------------------------------------------
Get your free email at ourbrisbane.com now

<<I think the secret with The Silmarillion is not to read it, but to STUDY
it!
Then you will find the genius and the excitement in this work.>>

I agree completely. Tolkien really took care of most every kind of reader
with his works. The Hobbit can be read by children. The LOTR can be read by
the literary scholar and non-scholar alike (and bright kids, too!). The
other works have a great appeal to those readers who like scholarly pursuits
(something evident in the HoME series, a series many Tolkien fans simply
look on as useless or explotative, but which are really my favorites these
days).

Thing is, there really is enough material out there that The Silmarillion
could have been published in a much fuller form than we currently have. CT
has talked about maybe someday re-editing the Silmarillion work. I'd like to
see it, personally.

Rob

My problem is sometimes people get so ardent in their love for a work of art
in one form, they forget that it can't be translated exactly as it already
is into another form. If you could translate something exactly, it would
simply be the same thing, A = A, so to speak. (It would be as unuseful as
that remake they did of Hitchcock's "Psycho" where the director literally
made every frame and shot the exact same as the original. My question at the
time was simply "What is the point of this? I've already seen Hitchcock's
"Psycho" and if I want to watch the exact same movie I'll just watch the
original.")

Let's use this analogy: the song "A Few of My Favorite Things" is one work
of art, complete in itself. However, there exist many versions of it. Julie
Andrews sang it, of course. John Coltrane did a jazz version. I'm sure many
singers and musicians have covered the song in their own style, choosing the
pacing of the song, which words to emphasize, which to sing high note on,
which low, etc. Each one is different, yet they are the same song. For how
different it can be, one needs only listen to the Andrews and Coltrane
versions!

So while I respect peoples' right to dislike when certain liberties are
taken with a well-loved book like LotR, I also sincerely wonder at how much
thought they've given to the fact that a movie and a book are two different
art forms. I can't sing a steak dinner any more than I could eat a book or
see a song, but I'm not going to be angry that my chef only made my dinner
for me to eat rather than hear as a song or that an author didn't take into
account how his paperback tastes.

Movies and books are closely related enough that people often confuse the
two and look to each for the same things they can get out of the other. We
"see" a book in our mind's eye when reading it (at least I do, I assume
everyone else does also). And a movie has characters and plot, just like a
book. But a book doesn't have any music accompanying it, even if you "hear"
it playing in your, um, mind's ear. A writer can weave a spell of words that
lead you to the illusion of song, or sight, or taste, etc. But those things
aren't really there. YOU are the one supplying them and what you "hear" and
what I "hear" when reading may be completely different things. But when we
watch a movie, we are seeing and hearing the exact same things and the
director of the movie must try to encompass the sights and sounds millions
of different readers "saw" or "heard" in their mind when reading.

An author has thousands of words and many, many hours to take you along on
whatever journey he is writing about (if you are able to read the LOTR in
the same amount of time it takes to watch the LOTR - even the extended
versions - then you're a faster reader than I). A movie director has about
two hours and far fewer words. That is why an author can have things a
director can not and can have many more characters. A director must pick and
choose.

I sincerely can not imagine a better translation of the LotR onto the big
screen. Am I upset that Tom Bombadil is not in the movie? No, not really. As
a literary device Tom works great in a book. However, in the movie, the same
thematic point Tom plays is already made a number of other ways. Would I
have liked to seen Glorfindel? Sure, but frankly, in the book he just shows
up, then disappears. Why bother having a major scene (the rescue of the
hobbits) played by a character you've never seen before and won't see again
ever in the whole tilogy of films? It makes no sense to do that from a
movie's standpoint and the ins and outs of that artform.

So while I respect other peoples' right to not like Jackson's LOTR, I do
have to say I find it kind of silly if their reasons for disliking it are
that it is not an exact duplication of the novel. IMO it captures the
spirit, themes, looks, and sounds that I experience when I read the novels
and is true to Tolkien's world with a minimum of acquiesence to the
necessities of what a movie is as opposed to a book.


Rob