logo Sign In

Here's my stance — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
I'm not sure about the title for ROTK, but I know the title of TTT is ambiguous. Even Tolkien didn't really know which two towers the title referred to. Was it Minus Tirith and Minus Morgul or was it Saruman and Sauron's towers (the proper names are escaping me at the moment)? To some it's the former, to others the latter.


He was pretty sure it referred to Orthanc and Minas Morgul in the end. They are the two towers that actually figure prominently to the characters in the book.

Anyways, about Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote it to be a published novel from the beginning. That doesn't mean that making money was more important to him than the world he created or the aesthetics of his stories though.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
There needs to be some clarification here too.....LOTR didn't have action figures, games, rubbers and coffins marketed with LOTR on it. Star Wars is marketed through nearly every means possible.

Perhaps it was the lack of all that marketing that contributed to LOTR being viewed as reverently as it was. Now, I know SW has always been about marketing products, but all that was background noise during the OT. It ENHANCED the whole experience. When the PT came along, the marketing was really out of sight. I remember it quite well. I do think it was a bit overkill and I think that combined with the PT not being as good as the OT kinda killed SW in the eyes of the general populace.

Author
Time
Post link
Other movies had started the over-marketing trend first though. Like Batman and Batman Returns for instance. I just tried to ignore it. The important part was whether the PT movies were good or not, and they weren't. If George can sucker idiots into buying crap then he deserves his money.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I agree, there is the art side to it, and the marketing side to it. Just like with Star Wars.


What you're failing to understand Gomer is that Star Wars was not created with marketing in mind. It was created as a modern myth. It wasn't until after the first movie was hugely successful that suddenly everyone wanted the toys that started to show up. That's how it was until the PT came along. Then it was toys and all sorts of other crap before the movie even opened. I remember it very well because I was practically a Taco Bell addict during the months leading up to the movie, but then I didn't eat anymore Taco Bell for nearly a year afterwords (I was sick of the food). I also remember not being able to walk into any store that carried toys (Walmart, Target, K-Mart, TRU, etc, etc) and not find pegs filled with Jar Jar. It was nothing but Jar Jar down the whole stinking aisle. At least with the OT, there were always several different figures that could be bought (I remember it vaguely, but I remember it).
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
I agree, but when it's all said and done, I say fuck the marketing and all the other hype bullshit.

SW is first and foremost a story...Tolkien made LOTR a great story above all before any kind of marketing happened.

Lucas did the first one and then the marketing set in. I think the two are comparable in what to do and what not to do with creative fiction.

Tolkien wrote the entire LOTR trilogy between 1937 and 1949 and it was published between 1954 and 1955. So the story was completely finished when it was finally published and any kind of marketing afterwards didn't affect the way the story was written. SW was an ongoing thing and I do believe marketing played a role....especially in the prequels.
Author
Time
Post link
Out of the mish-mash of my intent, I still wonder the intent of the creator. Tolkien, I believe wrote LOTR formost for himself and then proceeded to have it published to share with the world whereas Lucas wrote for a medium that is strongly based on money. He wanted to created a modern myth with the classic architypal heroes journey story, but he also had in the back of his mind that if the story was accepted and sold well to audiences, he wanted to protect his creation. From an atistic level, I would also do the same to protect the rights to what I created, but when you become washed over with demand to create products based on one's creation, that's when you fall to the standards of what turns the globe. I don't know if that makes sense.
Author
Time
Post link
Eh....we've gotten into the marketing aspect of it all. I don't really have a problem with it. I'm not buying any of the shit, so whatever.

I think excessive marketing can hurt the original source though.....but whatever...not interested in this discussion anymore.
Author
Time
Post link
If I remember LotR history correctly, Tolkien had a basic idea for the King of Gondor returning and the fall of Sauron, but he didn't work it into a story until the publishers, who wanted a sequel to the hobbit to make money with, liked his ideas along those lines. Then, through the writing out of the story, Tolkien invented many of its beloved subjects and events.

As for Star Wars, again if I'm not mistaken, it was originally pitched to 20th Century Fox by Lucas in a way where the toy sales would help to increase profits so the marketing existed in the franchise before the first movie was released. Plus, all movies are items meant to be marketed. Though I would guess that marketing was less important to Lucas than art in those days. Maybe.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
If I remember LotR history correctly, Tolkien had a basic idea for the King of Gondor returning and the fall of Sauron, but he didn't work it into a story until the publishers, who wanted a sequel to the hobbit to make money with, liked his ideas along those lines. Then, through the writing out of the story, Tolkien invented many of its beloved subjects and events.

As for Star Wars, again if I'm not mistaken, it was originally pitched to 20th Century Fox by Lucas in a way where the toy sales would help to increase profits so the marketing existed in the franchise before the first movie was released. Plus, all movies are items meant to be marketed. Though I would guess that marketing was less important to Lucas than art in those days. Maybe.


I believe that Tolkien also had his son reading the book as he wrote it. That helped to catch any discrepencies that might have existed. Each time his son found something wrong, he'd go back and rewrite the story. Once it was published though, it was a done story. Tolkien never released a special edition to change the story

I'm willing to bet that was something Lucas threw in there just to get them to fund it. Remember, they let him keep the rights to everything (except maybe distribution). Sequels, merchandise, and whatever else there is was all left to Lucas. Let's face it, in those days, toys based on a movie weren't that successful. Sequels were practically unheard of at the time. Fox figured they had nothing to lose by letting a young Lucas keep the rights to everything. Something like that will likely never happen again either. In fact, look at Firefly. Fox won't give up the movie rights to that, so they had to title the movie Serenity. As much as Fox doesn't plan on doing anything with it, they want any money that might be made from it.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
There were a few revisions to the text, but nothing that affected the story. He just went back in the revisions and reclarified things by altering dialouge or discription a little bit.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
As someone pointed out on this forum a while back. Tolkien did alter the Hobbit's riddle scene with Gollum. Initially the ring was an openly revealed prize, but in light of the LotR books, Tolkien knew that Gollum would not riddle for something with that much control over him.

Though, Tolkien never erased that previous version of the Hobbit and even worked the old version into his newer version as a story element. It became a lie that Bilbo told to ease his conscience, which was an awesome way to make a change like this.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Yes, I think Mr Lucas has finally managed to open my eyes to the fact that, actually, ALL the star wars movies are kind of crap. Some of them have good fun moments, and their tech was sometimes innovative, but basically they were crappy movies, and I just sucked them up because I was young and impressionable.

Thanks for the tip, George!
Darth Lucas: I am altering the trilogy. Pray I don't alter it further.
Author
Time
Post link
They aren't crap. It's just they all have issues. To me the whole package makes up for any individual technical issue.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
As someone pointed out on this forum a while back. Tolkien did alter the Hobbit's riddle scene with Gollum. Initially the ring was an openly revealed prize, but in light of the LotR books, Tolkien knew that Gollum would not riddle for something with that much control over him.

Though, Tolkien never erased that previous version of the Hobbit and even worked the old version into his newer version as a story element. It became a lie that Bilbo told to ease his conscience, which was an awesome way to make a change like this.


I agree. But it would have worked a lot better if it had just been kept that way. The Hobbit told the lie, and the lie was revealed in LOTR. It makes less sense when he went back to The Hobbit and changed it so that Gollum doesn't openly bargain the ring. Now we have Bilbo's story telling the truth, yet he admits the non-existant lie in LOTR.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Heh, great post, ronlaw. There are times when I almost feel like saying that as well. But, I know the original trilogy, and certainly the original Star Wars were far better movies on their own than PT. I'm willing to argue for that fact.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape

I agree. But it would have worked a lot better if it had just been kept that way. The Hobbit told the lie, and the lie was revealed in LOTR. It makes less sense when he went back to The Hobbit and changed it so that Gollum doesn't openly bargain the ring. Now we have Bilbo's story telling the truth, yet he admits the non-existant lie in LOTR.


Hmm, yeah, though I do believe the original form of the book is still available if you look for it. I'm not sure about this though.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
As someone pointed out on this forum a while back. Tolkien did alter the Hobbit's riddle scene with Gollum. Initially the ring was an openly revealed prize, but in light of the LotR books, Tolkien knew that Gollum would not riddle for something with that much control over him.

Though, Tolkien never erased that previous version of the Hobbit and even worked the old version into his newer version as a story element. It became a lie that Bilbo told to ease his conscience, which was an awesome way to make a change like this.


Huh. He really did that? That's got to be a pretty hard to find copy, cause I know I've never seen it. It does seem like a good change to fit with LOTR though, but if you take Hobbit as its own book, that part is better left untouched because then it doesn't feel like its setting up something big. Still, I think that was a perfectly reasonable and very good change.

And how off topic has this thread gotten?
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup

Hmm, yeah, though I do believe the original form of the book is still available if you look for it. I'm not sure about this though.


As others (i.e. me) have said in other threads addressing this topic, the first edition text of The Hobbit is available in The Annotated Hobbit. A great deal of Tolkien's unpublished and published-yet-hard-to-find work has been (re-)published by his literary executor, Christopher Tolkien, who recognizes the great value in his father's words.

Since all the Middle-earth books are, in their fictional universe, ancient documents translated by Professor Tolkien, there is room for multiple editions to comfortably co-exist. Just as there are multiple translations and multiple texts of other ancient texts, like the Bible, there exists multiple texts and translations of the Red Book of Westmarch and Bilbo's collection of Elven lore. In this fictional universe, there can even be action-adventure movies based on the Red Book, and no one complains about "canon" or authorial intent because historical fiction frequently deviates from historical records, which themselves frequently deviate from historical truth.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Scruffy
In this fictional universe, there can even be action-adventure movies based on the Red Book, and no one complains about "canon" or authorial intent because historical fiction frequently deviates from historical records, which themselves frequently deviate from historical truth.


Hmm, would that be an approach to Jackson's movies? If so, that sounds like a fun way to look at things. Still, I bet there can be better movies made someday even considering the fictional universe.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup

Hmm, would that be an approach to Jackson's movies? If so, that sounds like a fun way to look at things. Still, I bet there can be better movies made someday even considering the fictional universe.

Actually, I think Jackson's take on the LotR trilogy is fairly good, though the movies didn't have quite the kind of magic and epic feel to them which is necessary to make a lasting impression on me beyond simply remembering them. The art of capturing emotions and impressions like these in the finished product in a way the audience can easily relate to has to be the most difficult art of cinema, and there just isn't a single director out there who's ever been able to do it consistently and at will. So even though I don't think the movies quite fulfill their true potential, I don't blame Jackson for it. I think his attempt was honest and commendable and even though it fell a little short of the mark, it's still quite good. Actually, I'm hard-pressed to think of any other medieval fantasy type of films out there even worth watching.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup

Hmm, would that be an approach to Jackson's movies? If so, that sounds like a fun way to look at things. Still, I bet there can be better movies made someday even considering the fictional universe.


Jackson's movies, Bakshi's movie, the Rankin/Bass movies ... if we accept the conceit of LotR, that it's a translation of one historical document about ancient events, then all of these coexist with Tolkien's translation. Tolkien's translation of the Red Book may be the most interesting and artistically valuable of the lot, but that should not stop other artists from using telling historical fiction about the Third Age. In fact, it seems the main obstacle to that is the Tolkien Estate. And I don't blame them. As fun as it may be to speculate about "new insights" into the Third Age, most of it would probably be dire. Jackson's movies work because he drew on established Tolkien artists and other luminaries, while consciously staying close to the text.

This same technique can be applied to Star Wars. The "Long Time Ago" phrase hints that the film may not be objective cinema verite, showing real events from the POV of an omniscient narrator. (And a predisposition to translating Galactic Basic into the native language of his audience.) It's a story, and there's a storyteller with limited knowledge and his own biases. In several EU books, the editor is given a name: Voren Na'al or Arhul Hextraphon, New Republic historians (or propagandists) focusing on closed sectors of Imperial society.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lord3vil
The art of capturing emotions and impressions like these in the finished product in a way the audience can easily relate to has to be the most difficult art of cinema, and there just isn't a single director out there who's ever been able to do it consistently and at will. So even though I don't think the movies quite fulfill their true potential, I don't blame Jackson for it. I think his attempt was honest and commendable and even though it fell a little short of the mark, it's still quite good.

I agree. In fact I thought the movies were fantastic. My problem, is that as a fan of Tolkien, I cannot accept a number of certain, absolutely needless changes to his story for Jackson's films. It cannot be argued that the nature of cinema required them in any way. But, that's not a debate for this thread.


Originally posted by: Scruffy

Jackson's movies, Bakshi's movie, the Rankin/Bass movies ... if we accept the conceit of LotR, that it's a translation of one historical document about ancient events, then all of these coexist with Tolkien's translation. Tolkien's translation of the Red Book may be the most interesting and artistically valuable of the lot, but that should not stop other artists from using telling historical fiction about the Third Age. In fact, it seems the main obstacle to that is the Tolkien Estate.


Heh, I suppose. The problem for me though, is that Jackson named the films as “J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings” and so, even from the standpoint of the fantasy, I can propose that better translations are possible.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Interesting, though, that people seem willing to give J.R.R. a pass on revising The Hobbit to fit with the later-composed The Lord of the Rings .... yet Lucas gets no such pass for sticking Hayden in Return of the Jedi, or deleting Yub Nub.

I don't think it's valid to say the practice is alright if you happen to like the change, but the practice is immoral revisionism if you view the particulary change unfavorably.


I don't like the practice at all, and object to it on principal rather than on individual merit of case-by-caseness. I don't give Tolkien a pass ... and considering his rather clever solution of making the original version a "lie" told by Bilbo, it was completely unnecessary to change The Hobbit at all.



Still, the Tolkien precedent ... (and there are surely others) seems to give George a little bit of artistic cover for his revisionism.


Grrrrr.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Interesting, though, that people seem willing to give J.R.R. a pass on revising The Hobbit to fit with the later-composed The Lord of the Rings .... yet Lucas gets no such pass for sticking Hayden in Return of the Jedi, or deleting Yub Nub.


I hate the Hayden change because it sucks. Otherwise, I was never fond of the Yub Nub song and deemed that change superior.

The only principled objection I make to the special editions beyond obviously bad changes is the way George is trying to erase the originals with them and pretend they were his original vision; Tolkien never tried doing that as an author. All of the amazing art and historical success that went into the orginal versions of Star Wars films deserves immense respect. That ethic is beyond George Lucas' ownership rights in my opinion. Releasing quality home versions that try to capture the nature of the original versions as best as possible fit into this criticism for me as well. George Lucas has the legal right to destroy historical artwork, but not the moral right.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Once again, I totally agree with Obi Jeewhyen. I also think it makes our stance look a little less legitimate if we're complaining about how we think it's stupid for Lucas to change his movies but whole-heartedly agree with Tolkien changing his books. It makes us seem more like the whiny hatemongers that Go-Mer accuses us of being. I'm against the whole practice on principle. I don't have it in for George specifically. And there have been changes in the OT that I actually like, like the replacement of Yub-Nub. I've admitted that. But I'd still prefer Yub-Nub over the new song simply because it's the original song and belongs in the movie more so than the new one. So it has nothing to do with my preference, just my opinion that once art is released to the public, it should not be altered in any way.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Interesting, though, that people seem willing to give J.R.R. a pass on revising The Hobbit to fit with the later-composed The Lord of the Rings .... yet Lucas gets no such pass for sticking Hayden in Return of the Jedi, or deleting Yub Nub.

I don't think it's valid to say the practice is alright if you happen to like the change, but the practice is immoral revisionism if you view the particulary change unfavorably.


I don't like the practice at all, and object to it on principal rather than on individual merit of case-by-caseness. I don't give Tolkien a pass ... and considering his rather clever solution of making the original version a "lie" told by Bilbo, it was completely unnecessary to change The Hobbit at all.



Still, the Tolkien precedent ... (and there are surely others) seems to give George a little bit of artistic cover for his revisionism.


Grrrrr.


Or my psychology textbook. It's changed to a new edition every year... Grrrr.

I tend to view book changes differently than films since well not only are books different from films but now in the digital age old editions of text are probably easy to find online. Usually the original film is presented in the same quality format as the revised one, giving us a choice with little consequence. I have ET the special edition disc and convieniently can pop in the original if I want to see it again. Both are on equal ground as far as dvd treatment goes as far as I know. And I don't know why GL didn't do the same for the original star wars and the rest. We probably have the original theatrical cut of Willow on anamorphic quality dvd but not star wars, a classic part of cinema history. Something just seems wrong about that.

He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/