![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More Hobbit/LotR thoughts
Jan. 12th, 2013 07:41 pmSome thoughts that I've had after rewatching LotR in the wake of the first part of The Hobbit.
( spoilers for The Hobbit & LotR (including book spoilers) )
I also had some more thoughts on Thorin as the anti-Aragorn: ( again, spoilers, but mostly just for the movies this time )
( spoilers for The Hobbit & LotR (including book spoilers) )
I also had some more thoughts on Thorin as the anti-Aragorn: ( again, spoilers, but mostly just for the movies this time )
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Jan. 6th, 2013 09:09 amI've seen it twice now, so I feel up to offering thoughts. I watched it first the regular way and then the second time in 3D. My personal opinion re: the 3D is that it works fine either way. There's some scenes where the 3D adds to the experience but I was fully engrossed both times.
I was afraid before the second showing that I might feel the movie drag but, actually, when it started getting close to the end I was disappointed there were only a few scenes left.
( spoilers (contains book spoilers) )
I was afraid before the second showing that I might feel the movie drag but, actually, when it started getting close to the end I was disappointed there were only a few scenes left.
( spoilers (contains book spoilers) )
This section's actually a lot shorter than the prologue, so, why not?
Appears here on my website.
( Spoilers up to Return of the King )
Appears here on my website.
( Spoilers up to Return of the King )
Some background: I've decided to write a play by play reaction piece to the films (God help me). Just to let you know how insane I am, I'll give you some figures. Not quite eight minutes are in the prologue. It took me nearly two hours to write this while watching (obviously, a lot of pausing was going on). It covers five and a half pages longhand.
So, here it is, my reaction to the prologue. And it's here on my website.
( Contains spoilers up to Return of the King )
And now, I am so many kinds of tired. And that was just from seven-eight minutes! Dense film. Tomorrow, I'm going to try to do Concerning Hobbits.
So, here it is, my reaction to the prologue. And it's here on my website.
( Contains spoilers up to Return of the King )
And now, I am so many kinds of tired. And that was just from seven-eight minutes! Dense film. Tomorrow, I'm going to try to do Concerning Hobbits.
The Lord of the Rings - Commentaries
Jan. 8th, 2004 05:16 pmI'm currently listening to the Production team's commentary on the extended Two Towers. Last night, I listened to theirs on Fellowship of the Rings.
Have there ever been such great sets of dvds? There's so much information on them, so much to hear and see and know. And all the passion and the love that just radiates from everyone involved... it takes the breath away.
I just have so much love for Peter Jackson for bringing all this together. Because it's a beautiful story and one well worth retelling. And I'm glad that I can watch it - that I can get all the great things that pour out of the pages without feeling crippled by actually reading the prose (and perhaps, someday, I will be able to pick up the books, and with fresh mind and eye, will truly enjoy the words of the telling - but if that day does come, it will be in great part due to the movies and the love I bear them).
And now, back I go to continue listening.
Have there ever been such great sets of dvds? There's so much information on them, so much to hear and see and know. And all the passion and the love that just radiates from everyone involved... it takes the breath away.
I just have so much love for Peter Jackson for bringing all this together. Because it's a beautiful story and one well worth retelling. And I'm glad that I can watch it - that I can get all the great things that pour out of the pages without feeling crippled by actually reading the prose (and perhaps, someday, I will be able to pick up the books, and with fresh mind and eye, will truly enjoy the words of the telling - but if that day does come, it will be in great part due to the movies and the love I bear them).
And now, back I go to continue listening.
Fellowship of the Ring - Minor Detail
Jan. 7th, 2004 07:02 pmSomething I noticed this time around was Frodo's look when Merry and Pippin start to distract the Orcs. He mouths "no" - and you can see him telling Merry not to with his eyes. He just has this horrified and sick expression when he gets what Merry plans to do.
Then, after they've run off, when we see him again, he's miserable - he hates that he's leaving them to face the Orcs alone, but understands that they've made this sacrifice for him. And so he runs as well, but only after a couple of agonized glances in their direction.
No wonder he's crying by the side of the lake - he has to be certain that he just let his baby cousins go off to die... for him and his quest.
( spoilers for Return of the King )
Also, on reflection, I think that May It Be is Aragorn's song to Frodo. It scans, including having a touch of Elvish in it. And he's the one who sent Frodo off with his blessing.
Then, after they've run off, when we see him again, he's miserable - he hates that he's leaving them to face the Orcs alone, but understands that they've made this sacrifice for him. And so he runs as well, but only after a couple of agonized glances in their direction.
No wonder he's crying by the side of the lake - he has to be certain that he just let his baby cousins go off to die... for him and his quest.
( spoilers for Return of the King )
Also, on reflection, I think that May It Be is Aragorn's song to Frodo. It scans, including having a touch of Elvish in it. And he's the one who sent Frodo off with his blessing.
Minor thought on Gandalf:
Jan. 7th, 2004 04:15 pmI've been rewatching Fellowship (Extended) and thinking about Gandalf.
( spoilers up to Return of the King )
( Things that have nothing to do with Gandalf - spoilers for Return of the King )
And wow, Sam looks so different. I hadn't realized just how much the hobbits change, appearance-wise. All of them look so young in the beginning. They look so young.
( spoilers up to Return of the King )
( Things that have nothing to do with Gandalf - spoilers for Return of the King )
And wow, Sam looks so different. I hadn't realized just how much the hobbits change, appearance-wise. All of them look so young in the beginning. They look so young.
Authorial Intent:
Jan. 6th, 2004 09:11 pmI've said that I love the story of The Lord of the Rings but don't like the books. Tolkien's style in the book just doesn't suit me at all. Oh, but the world and the characters that he created are glorious. And he can write and write quite well. There are so many lines from the book that I do adore. And I love The Hobbit (have I mentioned that before? I'm not sure that I have. It's quite an engaging tale.).
If the roads are clear enough and the library is open, tomorrow I'm going to see if it has The Silmarillion. I haven't yet tried to read that and I might like its style better.
Tolkien's an interesting guy - he disliked allegory, but both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are steeped in who Tolkien was and comparisions are nearly impossible for me to ignore. And just because he didn't want allegory in his stories doesn't mean that it can't easily be found in them.
Because there's always more to a story than what the author puts in it. Every single reader brings their own perspective to the piece - making the work richer and more vibrant by the act of interpretation.
When we reread a story, it's because something in that story calls to us. There's so much in The Lord of the Rings that's worth thinking about. So many ideas and ideals and idealogies at work in the story. I'm bringing up The Princess Bride again because that's the story that made me into the reader that I am - that story is all about choosing your own story inside the text.
What's The Lord of the Rings about? That's something that's unique to each reader.
To me, it's about friendship and love triumphing over corruption and fear. It's about compassion and courage. It's about unlikely heroes and unlikely friends. It's about nature and power - the fight between what is natural and what is artificial. It's about sacrifice and war and the consequences of growing up. It's about doing the job that needs to be done, regardless of the personal cost. It's about understanding who you are and that anyone is capable of being more than what they seem. It's about knowing what's right and standing behind that, come what may.
It's a million and one ideas, all fascinating. All worth delving into and exploring. And the characters. Words cannot express how much I adore the main hobbits.
I definitely understand why the books sold so well and have become what they are today. The story and the characters, yes, but also the sheer reality of the world that Tolkien created. It's a breath-taking accomplishment.
It's a world well worth many a visit.
If the roads are clear enough and the library is open, tomorrow I'm going to see if it has The Silmarillion. I haven't yet tried to read that and I might like its style better.
Tolkien's an interesting guy - he disliked allegory, but both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are steeped in who Tolkien was and comparisions are nearly impossible for me to ignore. And just because he didn't want allegory in his stories doesn't mean that it can't easily be found in them.
Because there's always more to a story than what the author puts in it. Every single reader brings their own perspective to the piece - making the work richer and more vibrant by the act of interpretation.
When we reread a story, it's because something in that story calls to us. There's so much in The Lord of the Rings that's worth thinking about. So many ideas and ideals and idealogies at work in the story. I'm bringing up The Princess Bride again because that's the story that made me into the reader that I am - that story is all about choosing your own story inside the text.
What's The Lord of the Rings about? That's something that's unique to each reader.
To me, it's about friendship and love triumphing over corruption and fear. It's about compassion and courage. It's about unlikely heroes and unlikely friends. It's about nature and power - the fight between what is natural and what is artificial. It's about sacrifice and war and the consequences of growing up. It's about doing the job that needs to be done, regardless of the personal cost. It's about understanding who you are and that anyone is capable of being more than what they seem. It's about knowing what's right and standing behind that, come what may.
It's a million and one ideas, all fascinating. All worth delving into and exploring. And the characters. Words cannot express how much I adore the main hobbits.
I definitely understand why the books sold so well and have become what they are today. The story and the characters, yes, but also the sheer reality of the world that Tolkien created. It's a breath-taking accomplishment.
It's a world well worth many a visit.
Books and Movies
Jan. 6th, 2004 05:44 pmProbably no one here actually needs to read this, but hey, I'm compiling that 'pet peeves' list.
Whenever I think of a book turning into a movie, The Princess Bride comes to mind. Now, the movie and the book are both excellent, but they're also quite different in parts.
The big thing? The book and the screenplay were written by the same person (S. Morgenstern being a work of fiction). The writer who knew the story most intimately and knew what needed to be kept and what didn't. Looking at the difference in treatment when the writer is the same should let anyone know how much more things will change when the screenwriter/director is different than the author.
Different eyes see different things.
The movie of The Lord of the Rings is, and can only ever be, an adaption of Tolkien's work. This is LotR as seen through Peter Jackman's (and the countless others who created the movie) eyes. It is not Tolkien's LotR. But no one is ever reading Tolkien's LotR - they're reading their LotR as seen through the eyes of Tolkien.
The only way to satisfy every purist (for they all get upset about different things) would be to film every shot exactly as Tolkien described it. Long speeches. Poems. Songs. Tom. And it would be a really long, really sucky movie. Movies aren't books. When you make an adaption and stay too close to the letter, you run the chance of missing the spirit (Harry Potter thus far comes to mind).
Shot-by-shot misses the point (which the color adaption of Psycho showed). Every medium works differently. And treatments vary depending on the culture of the time and place.
Changes will be, have to be, made. And the mere fact of a change is not an evil. Are some things in PJ's LotR not done as well as they are in Tolkien's? Probably. But some things in the movie version are better - Boromir comes to mind. And things have to be condensed - for example, it's silly to spend a long time on a bit character when you can be using that moment to introduce a major one. You don't have internal monologues, so some characters seem more emotional than they do in the books - their feelings need to show on their face, whereas in the book, they would just be implied.
It's different because books and movies are different. They're both art, both creation, but they're different forms. You don't draw anime the same way you sketch a landscape.
Whenever I think of a book turning into a movie, The Princess Bride comes to mind. Now, the movie and the book are both excellent, but they're also quite different in parts.
The big thing? The book and the screenplay were written by the same person (S. Morgenstern being a work of fiction). The writer who knew the story most intimately and knew what needed to be kept and what didn't. Looking at the difference in treatment when the writer is the same should let anyone know how much more things will change when the screenwriter/director is different than the author.
Different eyes see different things.
The movie of The Lord of the Rings is, and can only ever be, an adaption of Tolkien's work. This is LotR as seen through Peter Jackman's (and the countless others who created the movie) eyes. It is not Tolkien's LotR. But no one is ever reading Tolkien's LotR - they're reading their LotR as seen through the eyes of Tolkien.
The only way to satisfy every purist (for they all get upset about different things) would be to film every shot exactly as Tolkien described it. Long speeches. Poems. Songs. Tom. And it would be a really long, really sucky movie. Movies aren't books. When you make an adaption and stay too close to the letter, you run the chance of missing the spirit (Harry Potter thus far comes to mind).
Shot-by-shot misses the point (which the color adaption of Psycho showed). Every medium works differently. And treatments vary depending on the culture of the time and place.
Changes will be, have to be, made. And the mere fact of a change is not an evil. Are some things in PJ's LotR not done as well as they are in Tolkien's? Probably. But some things in the movie version are better - Boromir comes to mind. And things have to be condensed - for example, it's silly to spend a long time on a bit character when you can be using that moment to introduce a major one. You don't have internal monologues, so some characters seem more emotional than they do in the books - their feelings need to show on their face, whereas in the book, they would just be implied.
It's different because books and movies are different. They're both art, both creation, but they're different forms. You don't draw anime the same way you sketch a landscape.
Dead Things and Not-Dead Dead Things
Jan. 6th, 2004 11:35 am( minor spoilers for Return of the King and Pirates of the Caribbean. )
I really should just start a 'pet peeves' list.
I really should just start a 'pet peeves' list.
Lord of the Rings
Dec. 28th, 2003 09:32 pmIt's been hard to me to go indepth on LotR - I feel like Pippin, realizing just how big the world is. I want to go meta, wax lyrical on the glorious connections and truth that resonate throughout the story, but when I go to write, I find myself at a loss for how to put something this wonderful into plain, simple words.
I want to speak of how amazing the soundtrack is ( spoiler for Return of the King ) I want to talk about the women of the movie and why I like all four of them. Liv says in the TT commentary that she likes that they didn't keep Arwen at Helm's Deep because not all strength is about using a sword, that Arwen can be strong without being a fighter, which is something I very much agree with. I love how Rosie, Eowyn, Galadriel, and Arwen are all so different from each other, and each so strong in their way.
I want to talk about how much I loved ( spoilers for Return of the King ).
I love this film - Lord of the Rings. This long, three-part movie. I love that there are no 'previouslies'. I love the extended editions. I love the friendship and the love.
I love that, apart from Sauron himself (and I have doubts about him), nothing starts out 'evil'. Gollum was once Smeagol. Orcs were once Elves. The wraiths were once men. Saruman was once wise. ( spoilers for Return of the King ) They turned because of their assocation with Sauron, who is our Big Evil, and yet, I do not think he was always thus. He's a symbol of power and corruption, which says to me that there was once a Sauron who hadn't yet been corrupted. A Lucifer stand-in, perhaps? No one could claim that Sauron lacked in pride.
Edit: And I'd just like everyone to know that I had to go back to skip=860. See? I was right to be terrified at the thought.
I want to speak of how amazing the soundtrack is ( spoiler for Return of the King ) I want to talk about the women of the movie and why I like all four of them. Liv says in the TT commentary that she likes that they didn't keep Arwen at Helm's Deep because not all strength is about using a sword, that Arwen can be strong without being a fighter, which is something I very much agree with. I love how Rosie, Eowyn, Galadriel, and Arwen are all so different from each other, and each so strong in their way.
I want to talk about how much I loved ( spoilers for Return of the King ).
I love this film - Lord of the Rings. This long, three-part movie. I love that there are no 'previouslies'. I love the extended editions. I love the friendship and the love.
I love that, apart from Sauron himself (and I have doubts about him), nothing starts out 'evil'. Gollum was once Smeagol. Orcs were once Elves. The wraiths were once men. Saruman was once wise. ( spoilers for Return of the King ) They turned because of their assocation with Sauron, who is our Big Evil, and yet, I do not think he was always thus. He's a symbol of power and corruption, which says to me that there was once a Sauron who hadn't yet been corrupted. A Lucifer stand-in, perhaps? No one could claim that Sauron lacked in pride.
Edit: And I'd just like everyone to know that I had to go back to skip=860. See? I was right to be terrified at the thought.
Slashy moments in Return of the King
Dec. 28th, 2003 07:52 pmBecause, hey, why not?
( contains spoilers for RotK )
Anyway, I'm sure that I missed some - these are just the moments that called out to me - so I'd love to hear about what y'all think the slashy moments were.
( contains spoilers for RotK )
Anyway, I'm sure that I missed some - these are just the moments that called out to me - so I'd love to hear about what y'all think the slashy moments were.
So, tonight, I'm finally going to tackle my comments and then... my flist. It's been a while, so it's kinda scary.
But before that, I've had yet more thoughts on Lord of the Rings, which I'm more and more thinking of as one long-ass movie. All cut-tags will contain spoilers for Return of the King (and as a general note: I don't consider it necessesary to cut-tag something from a book that's been out forever - however, I do think that it's polite to help those who want to see the film vision pure, and therefore, I cut out of respect and caring.)
( The Virtues of Middle-Earth )
( Sam's Frodo - the name of the thing )
( Frodo's tears and reversals )
But before that, I've had yet more thoughts on Lord of the Rings, which I'm more and more thinking of as one long-ass movie. All cut-tags will contain spoilers for Return of the King (and as a general note: I don't consider it necessesary to cut-tag something from a book that's been out forever - however, I do think that it's polite to help those who want to see the film vision pure, and therefore, I cut out of respect and caring.)
( The Virtues of Middle-Earth )
( Sam's Frodo - the name of the thing )
( Frodo's tears and reversals )
Still Alive
Dec. 27th, 2003 06:37 pmI have quite a few comments to respond to - and I will, though probably not tonight, as I'm heading out in a few minutes - last dinner before my cousin leaves to go back to New York.
Saw RotK again last night.
( short musing on the ending music - spoilers for Return )
Saw RotK again last night.
( short musing on the ending music - spoilers for Return )
Spoilers through Return of the King in the cut-tags.
( Arwen's Grace )
Billy Boyd has the most beautiful voice.
( Sam and the Ring )
( Arwen's Grace )
Billy Boyd has the most beautiful voice.
( Sam and the Ring )
