Lord of the Rings: Comments, critiques

Chris Hurd · January 1st, 2003, 01:52 PM

I wish I was still in film school. I'd love to research and write a master's-level thesis about the process of adapting a large literary fictional narrative into a large visual-media fictional narrative. The LOTR trilogy represents an excellent example of the shortcuts and trade-offs that must be made due to the forced economy of film. Despite a total run-time of most likely 12 hours when it's all said and done, the film version of the complete LOTR will have made some significant sacrifices to the book version. I think it would be a fascinating area of film study and hope to see what some sharp graduate student will write someday about this subject.

Rob Lohman · January 2nd, 2003, 04:08 PM

Well, you still could Chris. You might even be able to sell it if it
is any good... But time might be more pressing than anything
else I'm afraid!

Joe Carney · January 2nd, 2003, 06:06 PM

>>And yet these films manage to escape the criticisms of racial stereotyping that plagued early and recent entries in the STAR WARS franchise, for example, the Lord of the Rings films feature characters of only caucasian ethnicity and Gollum is a slave who alternately dotes adoringly on his "master" and deliberates insurrection. Jar Jar Binks should have been so lucky.<<

Tolkeins work is based primarily on Northern European Mythology, with elements from Egyptian and ancient MiddleEastern mythos thrown in for good measure. He was a product of his times, and like most others wrote in in EthnoCentric style. That doesn't make him racist, nor the movie racist. It is doubtful he ever had any meaningful contact with nonwhites, and was as ignorant as others at the time. Changing the movie to make it more PC would have been the true crime.

Thin skinned knee jerk reactionaries sometimes read to much into things. They see racism in every word, in every scene. They are usually wrong.

There was even some psycho marxist lenonist who was claiming the fantastic french film 'Amalie' was an attack on non whites. Really digusting how people will twist things to their own ends.

Rick Spilman · January 2nd, 2003, 07:12 PM

I can't help but get amused at the various criticisms of the movies in particular and Tolkien in general. Tolkien and the LOTRs have been so over analysed, interpretted and spun over the last 50 years that it all gets really silly. The Orcs are metaphors for the Nazis, no they are the Communists. The Hobbits represent the good common folk of England. Now the film, especially the TT suggests that the Orcs are the products of the machine age against the pure pastoral elements of the Hobbits and Elves. Ignore the dwarves who are also machine age but siding with the good guys all the same. The charge of racism is equally silly. In the case of Lucas and old Jar Jar, it may have some merit but not in jackson's Middle Earth where the heros are halflings, elves, and dwarves, unless one gets really hung up on skin pigment.

Ultimately LOTRs is grounded in Finnish folk tales which had their own magic rings and quests. By modern standards the book and movies are all totalitarian. Good kings and bad kings are still all despots, elightened despots or not.

Overall I think Peter Jackson has done one hell of a job bringing the books to life. The weaknesses of the first and second movies are largely the weaknesses of the books.

I saw a video clip of one of the CG managers addressing a Linux convention. Apparently they used a lot of Linux workstations for gang rendering. The stuff they did was fascinating. In the battle scenes they used a program they developed called Massive which used object oriented programing and artificial intelligence to get whole armies of CG elves, orcs and Gondorians to fight on their own. Apparently they had something 100,000 CG critters fighting each other in the TT and will have more in the Return of the King. The also relied heavily on CG "doubles" of the major characters in scenes where the action would have been too dangerous for a human actor or where the camera angles would have been impossible without a 300' crane shot.

Now having seen the first two movies I am enjoying the trilogy much more than I did the first time I read it, some thirty odd years ago. Great fun. but best not thought about too hard.

Rick

Rick Spilman · January 10th, 2003, 02:32 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec27.html

For the stupidest, most ridiculously politically correct analysis of the LOTR you have to check out Chris Mooney's article in the Washington Post.

First he charges the Riders of Rohan with war crimes, draws all sorts of parallels between the LOTR and Al Queda, Sadaam and US foreigh policy and finally ends up with the statement - "And even orcs are living creatures -- just not ones possessing rights under the Geneva Conventions."

Amazing.

Rick

Robert Knecht Schmidt · January 10th, 2003, 03:42 PM

Well Rick, it's all a bit tongue-in-cheek. But you know, for me, at least, his points aren't without resonance. With rhetoric like "axis of evil" somehow back in the mainstream, it's important to recognize and be sensitive to enemies' humanity, even in times of war.

Rick Spilman · January 10th, 2003, 04:05 PM

My problem is Mooney's "orc's are people too" is too much. I want to say "Chris, it was a movie!"

He suggests "But if we're going to use "The Lord of the Rings" as a heuristic device to debate the gravest matters of international politics...."

If we are to use the LOTR as a heuristic device to debate the gravest matters of international politics, we have bigger problems than imaginary orcs. Maybe we should use Harry Potter as a heursitic device to establish domestic policy and Sponge Bob Square Pants ... oh never mind.

Rick

Josh Bass · January 10th, 2003, 04:07 PM

No you've got it all wrong. Harry Potter is the Bible, the Sirius character is Jesus. . .at least that's what they're teaching in some classes (seriously!).

Rick Spilman · January 10th, 2003, 04:13 PM

What? So some evangelicals are burning the books and others are reintepreting them as Biblical.

I don't even want to know how Sponge Bob is being reintepretted.

Rick

Rick Spilman · January 10th, 2003, 04:14 PM

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html

Another look at LOTR.

Rick

Josh Bass · January 11th, 2003, 01:08 AM

I think I read it in Newsweek or something. They have cliffnotes for it now.

Paul Sedillo · January 11th, 2003, 04:44 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : I think I read it in Newsweek or something. They have cliffnotes for it now. -->>>

That is very sad. How can a Cliffnotes version even begin to do this tome any justice.

Michael Wisniewski · January 11th, 2003, 09:58 AM

Here are more theories on Tolkien's books.
* warning, these might be a little deep into Tolkien lore :-)

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/theories.htm

My favorites:
Ten rejected Lord of the Ring plot twists
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/10twists.htm

The Great Balrog Slippers Debate (for those who saw the animated version)
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/10twists.htm

The Truth about Windows 95
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/win95.htm

And the 2nd half of Pulp Tolkien (scroll down a bit)
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/pulptolk.htm

Josh Bass · January 12th, 2003, 12:30 AM

Harry Potter is a tome?

K. Forman · January 12th, 2003, 08:30 AM

Hello all! It's been too long since I last habitated here :)

As far as the movies go, I have only seen the first, but I thought it was beautifully shot. The story wasn't too bad, but like most Book to Movie crossovers, it paled horribly. Of course, someone already pointed out the best sacrifice- the poetry. I can't stand reading poetry and songs in a book, unless it is a book dedicated to prose.

Tom Bombadil was not overly important, but the rescue of the Hobbits from the tomb was a pivotal point. I would have liked to see that sequence of events over some of the other material that was added in.

As far as the special effects and cgi, I liked most of it. There were many scenes with the hobbits next to the tall folks that looked cheesy. It reminded me of the original Star Trek fight scenes with the stunt doubles. Nice thought, but awful when done.

I did thoroghly enjoy the books, and still look forward to seeing the other two movies- just not in the theater. I'll wait for the DVD. It's a trade off between great sound and big screen vs. being able to pee and get munchies without missing an integeral bit of the film. But, I have a nice home theater sound system, and will eventually get a screen that is more worthy.

One last scrawl... I would have rather seen them do the Hobbit this kind of justice first, and then do the LOTR. But, maybe thats just me... again :)
Keith

January 1st, 2003, 01:52 PM	#16
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I wish I was still in film school. I'd love to research and write a master's-level thesis about the process of adapting a large literary fictional narrative into a large visual-media fictional narrative. The LOTR trilogy represents an excellent example of the shortcuts and trade-offs that must be made due to the forced economy of film. Despite a total run-time of most likely 12 hours when it's all said and done, the film version of the complete LOTR will have made some significant sacrifices to the book version. I think it would be a fascinating area of film study and hope to see what some sharp graduate student will write someday about this subject. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 2nd, 2003, 04:08 PM	#17
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Well, you still could Chris. You might even be able to sell it if it is any good... But time might be more pressing than anything else I'm afraid! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 10th, 2003, 03:42 PM	#21
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Well Rick, it's all a bit tongue-in-cheek. But you know, for me, at least, his points aren't without resonance. With rhetoric like "axis of evil" somehow back in the mainstream, it's important to recognize and be sensitive to enemies' humanity, even in times of war. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 10th, 2003, 04:07 PM	#23
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	No you've got it all wrong. Harry Potter is the Bible, the Sirius character is Jesus. . .at least that's what they're teaching in some classes (seriously!). __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

January 11th, 2003, 01:08 AM	#26
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	I think I read it in Newsweek or something. They have cliffnotes for it now. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

January 2nd, 2003, 06:06 PM	#18
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	>>And yet these films manage to escape the criticisms of racial stereotyping that plagued early and recent entries in the STAR WARS franchise, for example, the Lord of the Rings films feature characters of only caucasian ethnicity and Gollum is a slave who alternately dotes adoringly on his "master" and deliberates insurrection. Jar Jar Binks should have been so lucky.<< Tolkeins work is based primarily on Northern European Mythology, with elements from Egyptian and ancient MiddleEastern mythos thrown in for good measure. He was a product of his times, and like most others wrote in in EthnoCentric style. That doesn't make him racist, nor the movie racist. It is doubtful he ever had any meaningful contact with nonwhites, and was as ignorant as others at the time. Changing the movie to make it more PC would have been the true crime. Thin skinned knee jerk reactionaries sometimes read to much into things. They see racism in every word, in every scene. They are usually wrong. There was even some psycho marxist lenonist who was claiming the fantastic french film 'Amalie' was an attack on non whites. Really digusting how people will twist things to their own ends.

January 2nd, 2003, 07:12 PM	#19
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	I can't help but get amused at the various criticisms of the movies in particular and Tolkien in general. Tolkien and the LOTRs have been so over analysed, interpretted and spun over the last 50 years that it all gets really silly. The Orcs are metaphors for the Nazis, no they are the Communists. The Hobbits represent the good common folk of England. Now the film, especially the TT suggests that the Orcs are the products of the machine age against the pure pastoral elements of the Hobbits and Elves. Ignore the dwarves who are also machine age but siding with the good guys all the same. The charge of racism is equally silly. In the case of Lucas and old Jar Jar, it may have some merit but not in jackson's Middle Earth where the heros are halflings, elves, and dwarves, unless one gets really hung up on skin pigment. Ultimately LOTRs is grounded in Finnish folk tales which had their own magic rings and quests. By modern standards the book and movies are all totalitarian. Good kings and bad kings are still all despots, elightened despots or not. Overall I think Peter Jackson has done one hell of a job bringing the books to life. The weaknesses of the first and second movies are largely the weaknesses of the books. I saw a video clip of one of the CG managers addressing a Linux convention. Apparently they used a lot of Linux workstations for gang rendering. The stuff they did was fascinating. In the battle scenes they used a program they developed called Massive which used object oriented programing and artificial intelligence to get whole armies of CG elves, orcs and Gondorians to fight on their own. Apparently they had something 100,000 CG critters fighting each other in the TT and will have more in the Return of the King. The also relied heavily on CG "doubles" of the major characters in scenes where the action would have been too dangerous for a human actor or where the camera angles would have been impossible without a 300' crane shot. Now having seen the first two movies I am enjoying the trilogy much more than I did the first time I read it, some thirty odd years ago. Great fun. but best not thought about too hard. Rick

January 10th, 2003, 02:32 PM	#20
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec27.html For the stupidest, most ridiculously politically correct analysis of the LOTR you have to check out Chris Mooney's article in the Washington Post. First he charges the Riders of Rohan with war crimes, draws all sorts of parallels between the LOTR and Al Queda, Sadaam and US foreigh policy and finally ends up with the statement - "And even orcs are living creatures -- just not ones possessing rights under the Geneva Conventions." Amazing. Rick

January 10th, 2003, 04:05 PM	#22
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	My problem is Mooney's "orc's are people too" is too much. I want to say "Chris, it was a movie!" He suggests "But if we're going to use "The Lord of the Rings" as a heuristic device to debate the gravest matters of international politics...." If we are to use the LOTR as a heuristic device to debate the gravest matters of international politics, we have bigger problems than imaginary orcs. Maybe we should use Harry Potter as a heursitic device to establish domestic policy and Sponge Bob Square Pants ... oh never mind. Rick

January 10th, 2003, 04:13 PM	#24
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	What? So some evangelicals are burning the books and others are reintepreting them as Biblical. I don't even want to know how Sponge Bob is being reintepretted. Rick

January 10th, 2003, 04:14 PM	#25
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html Another look at LOTR. Rick

January 11th, 2003, 04:44 AM	#27
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : I think I read it in Newsweek or something. They have cliffnotes for it now. -->>> That is very sad. How can a Cliffnotes version even begin to do this tome any justice. __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

January 11th, 2003, 09:58 AM	#28
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	Here are more theories on Tolkien's books. * warning, these might be a little deep into Tolkien lore :-) http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/theories.htm My favorites: Ten rejected Lord of the Ring plot twists http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/10twists.htm The Great Balrog Slippers Debate (for those who saw the animated version) http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/10twists.htm The Truth about Windows 95 http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/win95.htm And the 2nd half of Pulp Tolkien (scroll down a bit) http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/pulptolk.htm

January 12th, 2003, 12:30 AM	#29
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Harry Potter is a tome? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

January 12th, 2003, 08:30 AM	#30
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	Hello all! It's been too long since I last habitated here :) As far as the movies go, I have only seen the first, but I thought it was beautifully shot. The story wasn't too bad, but like most Book to Movie crossovers, it paled horribly. Of course, someone already pointed out the best sacrifice- the poetry. I can't stand reading poetry and songs in a book, unless it is a book dedicated to prose. Tom Bombadil was not overly important, but the rescue of the Hobbits from the tomb was a pivotal point. I would have liked to see that sequence of events over some of the other material that was added in. As far as the special effects and cgi, I liked most of it. There were many scenes with the hobbits next to the tall folks that looked cheesy. It reminded me of the original Star Trek fight scenes with the stunt doubles. Nice thought, but awful when done. I did thoroghly enjoy the books, and still look forward to seeing the other two movies- just not in the theater. I'll wait for the DVD. It's a trade off between great sound and big screen vs. being able to pee and get munchies without missing an integeral bit of the film. But, I have a nice home theater sound system, and will eventually get a screen that is more worthy. One last scrawl... I would have rather seen them do the Hobbit this kind of justice first, and then do the LOTR. But, maybe thats just me... again :) Keith