101–110 of 193 posts
* The Two Towers, by Donald Barr (I don't know of an Auden review):
http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/01/02/11/specials/tolkien-t...
* The Return of the King by Auden:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/11/s...
Also, this website claims to have a CS Lewis review of Fellowship of the Ring, but doesn't say where it was published:
https://www.theonering.com/the-gods-return-to-earth-c-s-lewi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the original Lord of the Rings trilogy would really be filmable as a 1:1 book to film adaptation. As a book fan I think Peter Jackson did a pretty good job with it in general; the behind the scenes footage really shows that they did care about the source material. Fellowship particularly I would still say is great, Two Towers and ROTK have some moments that are either downright ridiculous or against the…
As a potential heir to the stewardship, Christopher Tolkien was very much alive at the time the movies were being made and was famously opposed to a lot of the artistic choices being made.
Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time : An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them…
I think a lot of idealistic people today concerned with justice, would prefer a myth by which organizing in pursuit of said justice is bottom-up, starting from the most disadvantaged and intersectional, instead of the Maiars’ top-down.
It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. It was one of the happiest parts of life - to be able to read the books and venture into that world. It's been spoiled for me by the ridiculous movies like The Hobbit (holy god, Peter Jackson turned Dwarves into ridiculous comedy clowns, covered Radagast with birdshit) , the endless licensed garbage and whilst The Lord of The Rings movie was quite good it h…
What was hacked for you in the LotR movies? The only egregious hacking I noticed in the movies was the character assassination of Faramir. I must disagree on Harry Potter. All the moves after Columbus stopped directing them were bad. From angry-American Dumbledore, to Fiennes’s bizzare Voldemort, to Hermione being bolstered at the expense of Ron.
Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time : An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them…
"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites. I think a lot of idealistic…
Hence the standard trope plot of all JRPGs: “Using the power of friendship to kill God”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At one point it was supposed to be a single movie. It could have deviated completely from the books, it could have been super cheaply made. The problem, if you will, with a great but imperfect work of art is that no one else will attempt the same work again. Because it has already been done and it's hard to top a smashing success. If it had been a bad LotR movie, one would be able to hope, probably reasonably, that…
It seems pretty inevitable that there will eventually be a TV series style live action LOTR— in theory that should give the breathing room necessary for the story to unfold over 30-50 hours rather than 8-9.
Great, so it will for LotR the same as what was done in the films for The Hobbit.
If you are doing LotR in more than double the runtime of the LotR extended editions (which are 11h36m), I am…beyond skeptical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first movie adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was quite good, nonetheless they're already working on a 3rd.
Which is interesting because the first one was quite different from the book, the second one tried to stay closer, and both have their points. I think a remake of the LotR will happen some day, but not for quite awhile (a re-animation of the CG may happen first) - mainly because it was already filmed in high-def and on "modern" equipment. If it does get made again, it's likely to be in a TV mini-series format, perhap…
A limited series of 10 1-hour episodes will still be shorter than the extended editions of the film trilogy in total runtime.
Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time : An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them…
"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites. I think a lot of idealistic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a potential heir to the stewardship, Christopher Tolkien was very much alive at the time the movies were being made and was famously opposed to a lot of the artistic choices being made.
Christopher had no say; JRR sold the movie (and some other) rights ~1970.
"Stanley & I have agreed on our policy : Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations."
I don't think it was explicitly stated there, but I think it is clear they went for "cash". Though I recall some of his letters saying that the unexpected success of LotR meant that he wished he'd retired earlier. It was clear that there was a lot of financial struggle in his life, but that's not to say he wrote for the money of course!
Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time : An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them…
"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites. I think a lot of idealistic…