The trilogy - remembered for what? By whom?

[Anduril]

Originally written on theonering.com; wanted to share:

Peter S. Beagle: "For in the end it is Middle-earth and its dwellers that we love, not Tolkien's considerable gifts in showing it to us."

Call me cynical, but I guess the general public remembers the New Line films more for the general spectacle, the kewl battles and the merchandise than anything else. To paraphrase Beagle: in the end, it's not Tolkien that they love, but Jackson's considerable panache in showing him to them.

[Primula Baggins]

The general public who would never have read Tolkien in any case, perhaps. He isn't everyone's cup of tea, or an easy and accessible read by many people's standards.

But consider the people who were drawn to read the books because of the films, many of whom found much more than they expected. I know people, some of whom post here, who have a deep knowledge and love of Tolkien but who had never read his work until they saw Fellowship on film.

Even people who found the films badly flawed might still find something there that would lead them to seek out the source. The simple question "What about this book made it worth all this effort to film?" might be enough.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for sharing that here, Anduril, and for starting this discussion.

For myself, I will continue to remember much of the imagery of the films with fondness, as well as the opportunity to see a few classic scenes and lines portrayed in the screeen.

I agree with Prim that the films have succeeded in bringing a lot of people into Tolkien's world. But I have also found a lot of evidence of the films muddying the waters for a lot of people, who seem to have difficulty in separating the world of the book from that of the films. That, I think, is a shame.

[sauronsfinger]

There are many people who came to the books through the films. If the films had never been made they probably would never have read them.

I remember years ago when the Disney company wanted to build a historical themed amusement park in Virginia and announced rides and lands structured around events in US history. Many professional historians screamed 'foul' saying that the Disney version would be ersatz history and should be avoided. My thinking was that if somebody goes there, has a good experience and it encourages them to read a bit more or learn a bit more, thats a good thing. And if there positive experience with history goes no further than that day at the amusement park, thats a good thing in and of itself.

Over thirty years ago, I used to ride in a car packed with comic book fans or science fiction fans going out of state to conventions. Along the way we would often brainstorm about a LOTR film and who should make it and what it would be like. I never thought they would be as excellent as they were.

Voronwë has a point that - for some people - the waters have been muddied by the films. But that comes back to the difference between mediums. We have not solved that issue in the past seven years and will not solve it here at this time.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I remember one person (I think it was David Bratman, but it might have been our own solicitr in another incarnation), making the point that at this point most people think that the film The Wizard of Oz accurately depicts the world of Oz created by Frank Baum. Not so, apparently. Will the same be true of LOTR in fifty years? Only time will tell.

[Primula Baggins]

The muddying of the waters is a shame. But if someone is ever going to love Tolkien, don't you think they would persist past that? And if they don't, maybe it wasn't meant to be—maybe they only read the book in an attempt to replicate the experience of the films, and would never otherwise have picked it up?

As dearly as I love LotR the book (which I first read decades before the films were even talked of), I know that not everyone who tries to read it will finish; those who finish may not come away liking it much; and those who like it may not ever choose to re-read it or read other works. People fall away at every step. But the films put many, many more people on the first step than would otherwise have gotten there.

[sauronsfinger]

V - and I wonder how many teens and twenty-somethings now see WICKED as their version of OZ?

They say every generation thinks they invented sex... maybe each new generation gets to reinvent things like OZ also.

[Frelga]

Well, my son went from musical to movies to books. I haven't been able to entice him into giving even The Hobbit a try, and now he is looking forward to being old enough for Sil.

And the music. The music was nice.

[vison]

Once in all the years I loved LOTR I met a guy who was happy to talk to me about the book, and who should be in the movie and what should be done and not done. Once!!! In 40 years!!!

Y'all know how much I didn't like the movies, but y'all also know how much I DID like the movies and not just because it opened up a world I would never have entered otherwise.

I don't care how Tolkien is remembered or not remembered by people I don't know. I long, long ago gave up trying to "convert" people. If the book is remembered and read in 200 years, that's a nice thought. But I won't be here to yak about it.

[Lalaith]

I came to the books through the movie (FotR). And then I met all of you guys.

Just sayin'.


Lali

[Primula Baggins]

For that alone, I'll always be grateful for PJ's FotR.

[Pearly Di]

So will I, Prim.

See, this doesn't bother me. In the slightest. The fact that more people know the films than the books.

I don't care if half the world never reads Tolkien. Because I've read Tolkien, and I likes him. And clearly the other half has read Tolkien too ... so that is a lot of people who've read Tolkien.

It would bother me if we'd got the horrible travesty of LotR being shoehorned into ONE film. Bleeuurrggggh. *shudder*

But then I can't imagine that film being a success.

The recent horrible adaptation of Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising did not succeed at the box office, neither did it deserve to. I was sad for the Cooper fans (I've never read the books so I was unaffected myself) but it made me jolly grateful that we Tolkienistas got PJ, I can tell ya.

But, no, I don't care if thousands saw the LotR films and have never read the books, any more than I care about people liking the Harry Potter films without bothering to read Rowling's books. (I happen to like both, myself).

Of course I believe they're missing out. LotR is a wonderful book. But it doesn't bother me.

Because here is what Peter Jackson gave me.

Nine years ago I was the only Tolkien fan I knew. I had nobody to share my deep passion for LotR with. Nobody with whom I could squee over the BBC radio adaptation. Nobody to whom I could show Alan Lee's drawings and go, "look at that, he's captured Middle-earth!"

Then I learned about the films, and discovered the film fandom and WHOAH ... suddenly I was in the company of hundreds of other people from all over the world, all of whom were just as dotty, batty and obsessed with LotR as me.

O brave new world that hath such creatures in it!

It is indisputable, as Prim says, that Jackson's films did bring new fans to the books. And in that I totally rejoice.

[Anduril]

Alright, disclosure: as I think I've said in the past on TORc, I have PJ to thank for spurring me to get past the first few chapters of Fellowship. Right now I'm not so hot about them, but the debt is there. That the films brought forth new readers - and that can only be good - is a given. Voronwë just said what I was trying to say better! The "muddying of the waters" between source and adaptation is a shame, but as you've said, exposure is always good.

I guess this thread was partly meant to vent a little pent-up steam, and to show off my paraphrase. I thought it got buried in the TORc thread... Thanks for the replies and apologies if this all seems old hat or rehashed stuff.

[solicitr]

Well, Beagle is wrong. Middle-earth and its residents are, precisely, what Tolkien shewed us, and nothing else. They have no independent existence. There isn't even 'one' Middle-earth, since Tolkien himself was undecided, ambiguous, or contradictory: and there is no underlying reality which is 'correct.' The whole legendarium is inextricably bound with the astonishingly supple and idiosyncratic mind of its creator.

[Primula Baggins]

Very true, solicitr. And there is more ambiguity than just what Tolkien introduces; everyone reading LotR "sees" a different Middle-earth, and values different aspects of it. I remember the battles on TORC, many of which came down to "PJ didn't make my LotR!" The interpretation of Aragorn wrecked the films for many, for example; but not for many others whose love for LotR is based elsewhere—in the hobbits, for example.

Anduril, speaking as an admin here: we welcome any and all discussion that people want to begin. It doesn't matter that the topic was discussed elsewhere; many of us weren't there to read it, and those who were might be quite ready to bring new ideas to the conversation.

In short, post away.

[Lalaith]

Definitely. And thank you Prim and Di.

Seriously, it's hard to use strong enough words to describe how one movie affected me so deeply in many, many ways. It led to so many other things--the books, the other movies, messageboards, so many people and relationships, and just, gaah. I can't really define it all; I'm afraid it would bore people to tears, though I know you all are probably the only ones who would actually get what I'm talking about.


Lali

[Holbytla]

My truth is the one truth. The rest is bunk.
My waters can only be muddied by me and when that happens they are the perfect blend of mud and water.
Middle-earth resides in me and nowhere else. Not in print or on celluloid. Certainly not on lunch boxes or calendars.
What do I care if some people believe Aragorn really did lop of the Mouth of Sauron's head or that Frodo sent Sam away?
Middle-earth is what I say it is. That is the ultimate truth.
That is the only truth.

[Primula Baggins]

So hath it been written; so shall it be.

[Pearly Di]

Well, Beagle is wrong. Middle-earth and its residents are, precisely, what Tolkien shewed us, and nothing else. They have no independent existence. There isn't even 'one' Middle-earth, since Tolkien himself was undecided, ambiguous, or contradictory: and there is no underlying reality which is 'correct.' The whole legendarium is inextricably bound with the astonishingly supple and idiosyncratic mind of its creator.

You're right, of course. It's not like Middle-earth actually exists.

More's the pity.

But, nope, it is but a fictional construct which germinated within the Professor's imagination. But what a construct!

Seriously, it's hard to use strong enough words to describe how one movie affected me so deeply in many, many ways. It led to so many other things--the books, the other movies, messageboards, so many people and relationships, and just, gaah. I can't really define it all; I'm afraid it would bore people to tears, though I know you all are probably the only ones who would actually get what I'm talking about.

Oh, we get it all right.

Because we all love Tolkien, and are therefore awesome.

[N.E. Brigand]

I remember one person (I think it was David Bratman, but it might have been our own solicitr in another incarnation), making the point that at this point most people think that the film The Wizard of Oz accurately depicts the world of Oz created by Frank Baum.

That was Bratman. It appears in his Aquinas-inspired essay in Tolkien on Film. Possibly he made the same point on the Mythopoeic Society list. He notes that people who only know the 1939 film think that Oz is a dream world, which is not what Baum wrote.