The White Council

Re: HEY

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: : : I would grant out that in the main, there is no comparison between your run-of-the-mill fiction (Gemmel, Silverberg, Lackey, etc.). However, when you come to authors who have built such as world as Tolkien has, then it becomes far trickier to correctly display that vision. So, in this case, I will retort with "come on" back to your court. Tolkien has a world that, for all intents and purposes, is real, with a real history, and real creation. If any other author has aproximated this (and Jordan has ony sorta tried to) then kindly point me toward that world. However, in this case, Tolkien is as difficult to film as any actual historic event. So "come on".

: : -RobRoy

: I think maybe you misunderstand my point. I agree that it has been, and will continue to be, incredibly difficult to translate Tolkien's stories into another medium, such as film. Bakshi and Rankin & Bass pretty much failed completely, and Peter Jackson definitely has his work cut out for him.

I would not say that Bakshi and Rankin Bass failed. Granted, they interpreted the text and provided images to accompany it on screen, also granted that the films were rather poor in some areas, but in the main, and for me, I own both versions, and watch them. They provide a nice addition to what is in my head.

:BUT the books theoretically *can* be adapted *accurately,* that is, according to the books.

: History, by definition, cannot be, since it is not clearly set out in one authoritative book, but is the product of innumerable actors. It would be as if Aragorn or Frodo tried to make a movie of LOTR, or better yet, The Silmarillion. They are not omniscient narrators and do not therefore know all that happens in the story, unlike the reader. Similarly any one human is part of history, and therefore cannot get a clear outsider's view of it. When the events he or she is trying to portray took place before his or her lifetime, it becomes even more difficult. Only God could make an accurate rendition of real history, since only He knows all that has happened, and how it happened. Do you see my point?

Actually, there is no confusion. I have seenyour point the whole time. And my contention remains the same, "Tolkien has a world that, for all intents and purposes, is real, with a real history, and real creation." This board is evidence of how difficult the filming of LOTR would/will be, because each persons reading of LOTR is different, and not just a little.

For example: Tell me, do elves have pointed ears? How long are dwarves beards? How big were the balrogs wings in Moria? Was legolas at the Battle of the Five Armies? What kind of stone was used to build Durin's Bridge? Cross braces were necessary? Does Aragorn speak in a Scottish or an English accent? Which English accent?

While in the main, the plot (Bilbo gives the Ring to Frodo, Frodo carries it Mordor, Gollum falls in), is easy to film, all the rest of the story, all the subtle nuances and even some not-so-subtle, make the filming rather difficult, as difficult as the portrayl of history in film.

Other authors may be far simpler to film, since their worlds are not nearly as in depth and detailed as Tolkien's. But that is not what we are discussing. We only are discussing Tolkien's world, and that is a very rich and well developed world.