Viewing Thread:
"One Ring and One Scar"

The hype surrounding those two massive releases - Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings - is beginning to get to me, and not because of all the loot J K Rowling and Christopher Tolkein will have rolling in. It's because the quality of the books is getting lost in all this. People are going to go and watch Lord of The Rings and see a different story than Tolkein wrote. They've changed it, and the biggest difference is that Arwen will not be mooning about Rivendell, worrying about Aragorn like she should be. No, those film producers have gone all feminist and made Arwen a warrior-princess, running amok with a band of elven archers. Yep, sounds good to me, guys, but have you forgotten, you are basing this on a BOOK? This means your script is already there for you. OK, so some padding may have to be cut, but you can't significantly change it. It just isn't the story!

Sigh, these won't matter to the little kids. They'll trot into the cinema and gasp at pretty elfs and dwarfs. They'll hiss at orcs, boo at the Dark Riders and cheer Frodo. But they won't have the slightest what it all means. If Frodo or Bilbo refer to Smaug, or Dale, none of the little kids holding their Lord of The Rings popcorn will understand. But that won't matter, there's a shiny ring to look at! Oooo...

The same, gladly, isn't true of Harry Potter. Most of the kids have read the books, and this is why the Harry Potter phenomona is so widely regarded - it has got kids reading again. My parents are avid readers, and they got me reading at an early age. I read Lord of the Rings for the first time aged 9, and I'm grateful to my parents for that. But these kids aren't expanding their reading reportorie. I actually saw a kid ask for the latest Harry Potter book at Waterstones the other day when I was queuing with Terry Pratchett's latest offering in my hands. The assistant said no, and kindly refered to some remarkably similiar titles, with similiar appeal. Brian Jacques, for example. His Redwall sagas were one of my favourites from 10-12. This kids looked about old enough for that. But the kid looked angry at the assistant and walked from the shop. No doubt McDonalds was tempting him from round the corner. I was going to say something, but then I remembered I'm 16 and therefore shouldn't be seen in a bookshop, so I dutifully ducked my head and paid for my book, then stashed it in a O'Neill bag and ran from the store ;-)

Ok, so at least kids are reading. I love Harry Potter too, which isn't child-like. It's a great series, and deserves the sucess it has. Good for light-reading, so to speak, when I'm tired and my Terry Goodkind novel looks a bit too long-winded. This has made it possible for a movie to be made, and, thankfully, JK Rowling has had her hands tightly on the reins from the word go. Speilburg wanted to direct this movie, and I've heard rumours he wanted Haley Joel Osment as Harry Potter. That oh-so American kid from Sixth Sense and A.I? No thanks! JK has seen to it that the cast is British - John Cleese, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith and so on. Well done, her. The movie won't have been changed at all! I wonder what would have happened had JRR Tolkein still been alive now? No corruption of Arwen's character, I bet!

So, my point is : The literature is going to be lost. A stream of marketing has been unleased. I went babysitting the other day, and they had the TV turned off. What? Then I noticed "Mystery at Hogwarts" boardgame on the floor. Ah, I thought, and got my book out. Then they said I could be the green hat, and have Filch's card. Well, thats an offer no one can refuse ;-). Actually, it was quite fun. Quasi-Cleudo, sort of. I've seen Harry Potter everything, including perscription Harry Potter glasses. Oh, please. Kids no longer swop Pokemon cards, they swop Harry for Hermione, and hope not to get Snape in the next packet. Lord of the Rings hysteria hasn't really hit yet, but I bet it will.

If only they movie clerks could ask " Are you 12" AND "Have you read the book?", then entry for Lord of the Rings would be great. I'd be surrounded by people grumbling about how Arwen isn't moping. Super.

So, what do you fellow movie fans think? Dicuss, please.Maybe I'm not old before my time? Doubt it.

Cheers, Stryke.

Didn't know it was called Pillars of Creation, and I don't unfortunately. Goodkind is nice and slow at releasing his books, isn't he?

Do you have MSN, in case I need to grumble at you about LotR more frequently? ;-)

This is true. It's all down to how people percieve what they read.

But what I do find is that if I see a picture of a character, I normally go with that, over what I think myself. Which is why I'm glad there are no pictures in Goodkinds books, nor are the characters on the front particularly clear - leaving it all to my imagination.

Also, do you know when Pillars of Creation (Goodkinds 7th book) is released over here?

Even with pictures, I find my imagination doesn't link up with them. In Terry Pratchett's latest book, The Last Hero, there's detailed illustrations all over the place, but the fact remains that they are how the artist sees the characters, not how the reader does.

I haven't read Wheel of Time.

But your image of Chase is so different from mine. Mine even goes against the description, but it's how I imagine him from how he acts and speaks.

Gandlaf is pretty standard wizard stuff. Tall, skinny, grey hair long beard. Bit of a stereotype really.

Capt. Carrot I reckon has a permanent smile on his face, like he's not quite 16oz to the pound, so to speak. But with him, there's been pictures of him on the covers of the books, so that can point your image of him down a particular road.

BAH. Damn, for the damn dirty Goat monkey, Christopher Tolkein is JRR's son and has written some awful Middle-Earth novels, he gets all the money ;-)

OK, heres some for you. See what your images are:

Chase: Viking warrior, long golden hair, always with a helmet, for some reason.

Captain Carrot: Brown hair, not ginger, like it is described.

Gandalf: Tall, grey sweeping beard, black robes ( dunno why )

Rand (if you read Wheel of Time) : Tall, muscular, long brown hair, nothing like Jordan's description of him.

Stryke wrote:
> The hype surrounding those two massive releases - Harry Potter and Lord of The
> Rings - is beginning to get to me, and not because of all the loot J K Rowling
> and Christopher Tolkein will have rolling in.

Christopher Tolkein?
The books I have are by J R R Tolkein.

Are you sure YOU'VE read it?

(Sorry, I couldnt resist)

Exactly.

Going to what you were saying about the image thing, and what characters look like, in Goodkinds WFR, I imagine Chase to be a big black bloke, even though he's described as a white bloke with blonde hair.

I don't know why, but I do.

It's the same with Pratchett's work. He hardly describes the characters at all, so it's open house on how people imagine them. Most people porbably get roughly the same image, but the little details will be different for everyone.

Yes, and I bet we both have completely different images of what Gandalf looks like, even though he is described in detail by Tolkein. The same has already happened for me in Harry Potter. The kid playing Harry Potter is completely different than I had imagined. But no matter, I'll still go and see the film, partly because I'm interested, and partly because my mum has already bought the family some advance preview tickets and I'd be crucified if I didn't go. ;-)

As for me, I play computer games and read books, but find books infinitly more interesting and rewarding, because they require thought and imagination. Now, I'm not saying computer games don't require thought, because point and clicks are challenging, but your images are already therte for you, so there's none of the fun in imagining who you are reading about. Everyone knows what Solid Snake looks like, for example, but no-one KNOWS what Gandalf looks like apart from JRR Tolkein, and he's dead unfortunately.

I also got into reading at a young age, and read LotR when I was about 13. It's a fantastic book, and there's simply no way the films can do it justice.

Why?

Becuase the books are so damn long there's no way you can squash it all into 3 2hr films. Maybe if each film was about 4 or 5 hours, you might be able to do the books a little bit of justice.

That's why films of books hardly ever work. The book is always more vivid than the films as you have to use your own imagination. The story is unique to you. I have also read Goodkind, and I bet me and you have different stories in our heads simply becuase we will percieve bits of the book diferently.

With a film you are relying on the the director to perceive the book correctly, or in a way you find acceptable at least.

I haven't read any Harry Potter books, but I do know that they have got children back into reading - which is a good thing in my view.

I'm not going to go off on a "Computer games are bad for you" rant, but everything should be done in moderation, play some games, and read some books. There's room in life for both, and I think it's important, moreso for children, that they do read and they do use their imagination, because everything else in life dishes it up on a plate.

Films and games give you everything you need. No input is needed from the player/viewer. Whereas with books the reader has to put the effort in - and that's why books are infinitely more rewarding than films.

In my view anyway....