I appreciate your always insightful comments, Stu. No matter how many adaptions are made of Tolkien’s works, I would like to think they will never affect the appreciation I have of the beauty of the originals.

Stu wrote:

northman wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

northman wrote:

i care about the art ...i dont worship artists no matter how much i like them.

I apologise for using the term 'militant' Northman. Too strong a word to use in this context.

no worries really.... and if we had had this debate over a pint we'd had a good laugh.

I consider all of this stuff to be "pub chat" and nothing more. I think (or at least I hope) no-one's nose gets too out of joint about these kind of things.

Exactly. On a forum reading back it sounded harsh. With a pint and a good natter it would be watwer off the duck.

northman. Spot on. The lack of intonation in a forum environment doesn't help with passionate opinions. The pub sounds so much better haha

I just don't accept the thesis that adaptations of this magnitude don't have any influence on the interpretation of the original material. Or, frankly, the other frequently cited up-side of adaptation, good or bad, that it'll bring people to Tolkien's books. At a personal level, sure, you can make that comment. And some people will watch the films & take up reading the books. But many won't, it's that simple.

For me, recent adaptations have adding nothing to anyone's understanding of Tolkien's work. They are, to my mind, worthless.

Khamûl wrote:

I just don't accept the thesis that adaptations of this magnitude don't have any influence on the interpretation of the original material. Or, frankly, the other frequently cited up-side of adaptation, good or bad, that it'll bring people to Tolkien's books. At a personal level, sure, you can make that comment. And some people will watch the films & take up reading the books. But many won't, it's that simple.

For me, recent adaptations have adding nothing to anyone's understanding of Tolkien's work. They are, to my mind, worthless.

My suspicion is that Peter Jackson has caused a dumbing down in how Tolkien is viewed.

Lots of great thoughts, and I always enjoy reading the various threads on TCG.

I’m personally excited for the new series because I love fantasy even without the Tolkien connection.

For me, as long as the series contains the elements of good storytelling—well developed characters, good dialogue, compelling plot(s), etc.—I’m all game. I’m optimistic that it will be good (or at least entertaining).

I actually enjoyed the Jackson LotR trilogy. I had never read Tolkien before seeing The Fellowship of the Ring film, though, so I might have a different perspective than some. That isn’t to say I like everything that Jackson did in the films. He understands evil well, but his depictions of good are not always on point in my opinion. I didn’t care for the scene of Galadriel’s temptation of the ring, for example.

The Hobbit films, however, were not to my liking because they were excessively bloated. I did enjoy particular scenes, though. The Riddles in the Dark scene was well done—I love Andy Serkis’ Gollum.

I do know that there is one or more versions of The Hobbit trilogy edited down to a single film. I would actually really like to watch this—it is probably pretty good once all the excess fat is trimmed away (or at least better than what we were given). Less is more definitely applies here.

If nothing else, The Rings of Power will encourage many viewers to read or reread Tolkien, which I think we all would agree is a good thing. I foresee LotR topping book sales once again as a result of the show.

Khamûl wrote:

I just don't accept the thesis that adaptations of this magnitude don't have any influence on the interpretation of the original material. Or, frankly, the other frequently cited up-side of adaptation, good or bad, that it'll bring people to Tolkien's books. At a personal level, sure, you can make that comment. And some people will watch the films & take up reading the books. But many won't, it's that simple.

Sure, but does it matter? And just because an adaptation exists doesn't mean that everyone will watch it. Our interpretation of any art will continually shift just due to the world we live in. I'd argue strongly that it just doesn't matter. The art has no right to exist under an unshifting lens.

Khamûl wrote:

For me, recent adaptations have adding nothing to anyone's understanding of Tolkien's work. They are, to my mind, worthless.

They aren't aimed at you (or me). They are products to make money, just like almost all media content (and most professionally produced art -- throughout history). They are worthless to us, but that doesn't mean people won't sit down and enjoy them++. Look at Doctor Who as an extreme example -- horrible nonsensical poorly written garbage -- but I can't deny that a lot of people enjoy it, so it would be churlish for me to want to prevent its existence just because it taints my recollection of Doctor Who when it wasn't rubbish.

++Apparently there were people that even enjoyed PJs Hobbit...

Jlong wrote:

I do know that there is one or more versions of The Hobbit trilogy edited down to a single film. I would actually really like to watch this—it is probably pretty good once all the excess fat is trimmed away (or at least better than what we were given). Less is more definitely applies here.

I've seen a couple of the Fan Edits that take it down to 2 - 3hrs. They do make it watchable, but there isn't quite the material available to make it work as a faithful adaptation. For me they took it from genuinely unwatchable (I couldn't finish Five Armies) to passable as a sloppy effort. 90% of the last movie is generally removed from these kind of edits.

Khamûl wrote:

I just don't accept the thesis that adaptations of this magnitude don't have any influence on the interpretation of the original material. Or, frankly, the other frequently cited up-side of adaptation, good or bad, that it'll bring people to Tolkien's books. At a personal level, sure, you can make that comment. And some people will watch the films & take up reading the books. But many won't, it's that simple.

For me, recent adaptations have adding nothing to anyone's understanding of Tolkien's work. They are, to my mind, worthless.

I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to assume that people wouldn’t pick up Tolkien because a cinematic adaptation sucked (and I’m not just referring to the Amazon show here - but adaptations of written works in general).

Imo such people would probably never pick up Tolkien to begin with.

Eorl the Young wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

I just don't accept the thesis that adaptations of this magnitude don't have any influence on the interpretation of the original material. Or, frankly, the other frequently cited up-side of adaptation, good or bad, that it'll bring people to Tolkien's books. At a personal level, sure, you can make that comment. And some people will watch the films & take up reading the books. But many won't, it's that simple.

For me, recent adaptations have adding nothing to anyone's understanding of Tolkien's work. They are, to my mind, worthless.

I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to assume that people wouldn’t pick up Tolkien because a cinematic adaptation sucked (and I’m not just referring to the Amazon show here - but adaptations of written works in general).

Imo such people would probably never pick up Tolkien to begin with.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. Anyone likely to read any of the books is likely to have had the books recommended, anyway. I don't think the books are suddenly going to stop being popular because of adaptations.

They may become unpopular due to changes in fashion or the general march of time, but that happens to (almost) all books.

Didn't The Hobbit fall out of the top 100 books (or some such list) read by children for a time after Battle of the Five Armies was released?