Considering that I used myself as an example at first I thought that you acting like I had insulted you was an overreaction. Then I saw where you had posted this:
When I finally stopped laughing, and that took a while, I realized that you had – unintentionally – just explained everything.
As a Heinlein fan (With the exception of his technical material, I have read all of Heinlein’s published works both fiction and non-fiction and that includes out of print short stories written under a pen name.) let me say that the Starship Troopers movie was not a good adaptation.
I have never met a Heinlein fan who thought it was a good adaptation. I suppose there are a few of them. The book was a serious exposition about the place of the citizen in society, the virtues of civic responsibilty, the philosophy of government, the ethics of the use of controlled force and a treatise about how an efficient military should operate. Can’t say the movie captured any of that.
I didn’t realize – please accept my apology for the encouragement I gave you to read Tolkien. Also, I am in every way possible not encouraging you to read Heinlein. First, we tend to dislike the movie Starship Troopers, so your taste and the taste of Heinlein fans already differ. Second, in general people who like Heinlein like Tolkien. I have yet to meet a Heinlein fan who didn’t like Tolkien. Must be our fondness for “kiddie books.”
I am extremely pleased to be on the opposite end of the taste spectrum from someone who liked the Starship Troopers movie and does not like the works of Tolkien. Just as I would think that you are pleased to be on the opposite end of the taste spectrum from someone who likes Tolkien and thinks the Starship Troopers movie was a groteseque warping of a fine book as well as being a bad movie in and of itself.
I appreciate you having the courtesy to repond to my intial post., but I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree on these subject matters.
I’m sure it wasn’t a good adaptation. It just happens to be a good movie that doesn’t feel like a “selection of scenes” from the book.
No, I think the movie was sending up all of that.
My favorite sci-fi writer is the recently deceased Robert Sheckley. Some of his stories were quite serious, but for the most part he was pretty funny in how he wrote (though even his funny stories usually had a sharp point to them). OTOH, I never liked the wanton goofiness (and ultimate self-seriousness) of Douglas Adams. So, I think the main difference between us is that you like this ponderous, overserious stuff: Tolkien and Heinlein, whereas I prefer the more satirical.
I tried to read Stranger in a Strange Land once and, my god! if you can read a page you can read the whole novel, and I don’t mean that in a good way. I will grant, however, that Heinlein has written a short story or two that didn’t totally put me to sleep. Read one recently in a collection, actually. Can’t remember a damn thing about it, but I also don’t recall hating it.
Dear dear Pochacco - Thank you for stating in Post #55 re “Star Wars” what I have not had time to write. And I’m sure you said it in a much more calm way than I could have.
It’s interesting to hear all these reactions to LOTR - as Qadop said, did we all read the same booK? But just to respond to one of the comments - that characters in LOTR and not psychologically complex: Well, there are so many characters, that I am sure that’s true for some. However, not Denethor nor Boromir, as has been noted. And not Frodo, who has been described as a modern, flawed hero, not a medieval one, and an example of a wounded warrior who cannot return home due to a sort of post traumatic stress syndrome. As for oversimplifying evil - no, it doesn’t. That’s why the Scouring of the Shire episode is so important - it says that no place is immune to evil; that even with Sauron destroyed, evil will re-form and come again.
Unlike many fans, I can cope with the films’ take on these matters simply because they are films, and I feel they succeeded so well as films - the “look” of the characters and scenery, the music, the pacing - it all worked for me. I’m still interested in the specific comments of those for whom they didn’t work as movies, though.
and in case no one else answered the question - yes, Radagast was in the book itself. He unwittingly lured Gandalf to Isengard, but also unwittingly helped him by his “conversations” with the animals, specifically Gwaihir the eagle.
Moderator interrupts, just as a reminder (to everyone) that personal insults are not allowed here. Not that I’m suggesting anyone has gone that route, but there have been some lines that could be read that way.
Works of art/entertainment are subject to taste and opinion, and we can agree to disagree. The point of this forum is to express the opinions about the work, to share those with others, and to respect the opinions of others even if they disagree with our own.
Reactions to art/entertainment often depend on the individual’s background, present mind-set, age, life-experiences, etc. That’s what makes these discussions so interesting.
I read LOTR a few years back. Right before the 1st movie came out. So I was around 20ish, I guess (I’m 25 now). I really did like the books, although I almost put the books down before it got started, the beginning of FOTR bored me that much. I can’t ever be as fanatical as those who seemingly read the books when in their mid teens and just fell in love. I consider the books to be a good yarn, but nothing mind blowing. I must say that I enjoyed TTT the most (especially with the ‘two books’) and the concept of creating an entirely new language was amazing.
I never felt the need to read the Similarion or other Tolkien books, aside from “The Hobbit”, which I enjoyed greatly. They were a great story, but didn’t shoot to the top of my list (fantasy wise, I personally prefer the “Song of Ice and Fire” series and the “Harry Potter” series).
When I saw the movies, I was disappointed. FOTR, my least favorite of the books, was by far my favorite of the movies, and the only one I own on DVD (regular edition - I ain’t buying the extended versions, didn’t like them that much). I hated TTT. I realize Helm’s Deep is pretty big and all, but it felt like the whole damned movie was about that. And then ROTK was ok, but nothing special to me. After FOTR it seemed the entire thing devolved into cliche fantasy action flick instead of exploring the wonder of the world (if that makes any sense).
I’m kinda with Wendell Wagner here. I liked FotR a lot, but after that I feel like Peter Jackson veered off into his own vision of what the story was. And unfortunately, his vision and my vision don’t mesh too well. I do like some parts of all the movies (special effects great, visuals overall were pretty gorgeous, etc.), but overall, I was disappointed in how he told the story. YMMV.
The Hobbit is by far my favorite Tolkien book. I like the Trilogy–and like the movies (although the EE versions are much better than the theatrical release ones).
If memory serves, Tolkien didn’t set out to write a story about Good vs Evil–he wanted to create a legendary landscape of mythic characters and fables that were based on English culture, language and history. He succeeded, IMO.
the characters are not modern or even all that layered and subtle (although one could well argue Denethor or Eowyn here) because they are mostly archetypes, really. Read as that, it reads well indeed.
I must say that my subscription to Tolkien is not complete. I have tried to read The Silmarillon several times to no avail. The characters are too distant, the settings too vauge and mystic for my liking. I find I don’t care that Aragorn and Arwen are basically history repeating itself (have even forgotten who they most resemble in terms of their courtship etc)–I am more interested in their relationship (and even more so in Eowyn’s and Faramir’s–Tolkien’s best drawn and most complex couple, IMO.) History deprived of personality is boring to me. I never could get into the Pantheon, either–only the myths that dealt with man’s run ins with the gods.
I do wish that PJ had also made The Hobbit–The Shire was perfect (although I did not like the actor’s rendition of Bilbo at all) and Gandalf was spot on. The dwarves would have been great, I’m sure, and a CG dragon…ah, well.
IMO, the biggest mistake that PJ made was in not including the Shire at the end–to not have the Hobbits take their own destiny into their hands and come of age–that rankled with me.
Anyway, two years on, and I still like the films (just re-watched them again right before Christmas).
I have never read any Heinlein-any suggestions? (sorry for hijack)
I tried reading the trilogy as an adult and couldn’t get through it. I was shocked at how bad it was. I’ve always enjoyed reading fantasy and assumed that I would love them. They had been on my list for a long time.
The first half of the first book contains nothing. Frodo and some others walk for a while, make camp when they get tired, and walk some more. Rinse, repeat. For hundreds of pages nothing happens. Maybe they get better after that, but I just couldn’t do it anymore.
None of the characters have any personality. They are two dimensional and boring. The author doesn’t even seem to try at making any two of them different or interesting or anything. Bland, flavorless, boring.
For the record, I hated the first Harry Potter book also, but loved the Narnia Chronicals when I was a kid.
I got into LOTR as an adult, after seeing the movies. This is one rare instance where I’m glad I saw the movies first-I could never have kept all those characters straight otherwise.
Sadly, I was turned off of Tolkien as a child when that awful Rankin Bass version of The Hobbit was on TV and bored me to tears. Later, after reading LOTR, I took a stab at The Hobbit and quite enjoyed it.
I had the same reaction, but a struggled through Fellowship and I’m glad I did. Not saying that you’ll like it too, but that’s just what happened to me. I was reading FotR and saying WTF! How do people like this stuff! Then it hit its stride and I enjoyed it. Though, like I said, I didn’t fall head over heels for it.
I have to say that I was extremely impressed with the sheer moxie of whoever wrote the score for The Hobbit. Whenever Tolkien had his characters burst into one of their frequent musical interludes, the Rankin-Bass songwriter(s?) stepped up to bat and actually set the lines to music-- and did a fairly good job of it, for the most part, in my opinion. I’m thinking mostly of the heavily atmospheric chorus for “Far Over Misty Mountains Cold,” and also the couple of songs that the goblins sang-- “Fifteen Birds in Five Fir-Trees,” and the Goblin-Town song. Admittedly there was also a sort of twee Paul Williams-esque theme song that I don’t recall much about, except that it was extremely '70s. And I for one am glad that Professor Tolkien was eventually able to expand the horizons of fantasy literature beyond the point where elves sing songs containing “O tra la la lally.”
The animation was also quite impressive for a TV special, I thought. Although it has been some long years since I’ve seen it, so maybe I’m deranged.
This will have to wait until after the GRE, but thanks!
(have to say I am more into fantasy and murder mysteries–I dont’ really get hung up on technical errors when it comes to sci-fi or fantasy-I don’t analyse the physics of space travel etc, so maybe it’s not for me…)
You see from this thread just how unusual you are, although you still appear to have been on the early side of thirty when you finally finished the novel. Maybe you just have arrested development! (Just a joke! No personal slight intended.)
This thread, like virtually all the others here, quickly got hopelessly enmeshed in like/appreciation/caring for the book as well as the movie, rather than a discussion of the movie on its own merits. I personally think that the spectacle of the movie slighted the story, that the characterization gained more from traits of the individual actors in the parts than from the script, that the last movie was hollow within and without.
But even when I try I can’t put the book completely out of mind. Movie adaptations are particularly tricky that way. They usually work better when the source material is put aside for movie virtues but the closer any original work is to viewers, the more distance any liberties drive them from the screen. I’d be willing to back a moratorium on all movie adaptations for a decade or so and force writers to write directly for a screen for the time, just to remind them of what that means. Spectacle and story! Wouldn’t that be great for a change?
Oh, running a galaxy based on medieval Italian politics, complete with evil barons and noble dukes as an excuse for settling everything of import with poisonings and knife-fights. I should start another thread on it, actually, rather than hijack this one further: I re-read it recently for the first time since I was 15 and it’s been bugging me.
Oh, running a galaxy based on medieval Italian politics, complete with evil barons and noble dukes, as an excuse for settling everything of import with poisonings and knife-fights. I should start another thread on it, actually, rather than hijack this one further: I re-read it recently for the first time since I was 15 and it’s been bugging me.
That part wasn’t Tolkein’s story. The ghosts didn’t win the day, and in fact never got near Minas Tirith. They did help kill off the sea pirates, but it was never clear that they actually killed them (terror being an almost physical force in Middle-Earth). The normal humans who had been facing the pirates took the ships and sailed up the river, thus completely encircling the orcs.
Howdy. Also, even more unbelievably, I like Heinlein and the movie Starship Troopers.
I read through the books when I was in my early teens because (basically) my older brother made me. I didn’t really enjoy them, but I didn’t hate them. I tried to re-read them all before the movies came out, and ended up stopping about half-way through Two Towers. I just couldn’t keep up with all the characters, and I found the story to be a bit boring. That’s saying a lot, coming from me, seeing as one of my favorite books is Moby Dick. Yes, I really did just write that.
I loved the movies, for the most part. Jackson did an admirable job in capturing that world, and condensing a huge amount of information into around 10 hours. Like many others, I started getting kind of annoyed by Legolas and his amazing tricks, and I think leaving the scouring of the Shire out of the movie was a big mistake. Aside from that, I think the movies are really well done.
