Lord of the rings was Use the delete button:) - I probably should

[Anne Kilmer]

Stan Gorodenski wrote:
Mark Walker wrote:

>>Actually, if we're going to label ourselves, can't we be Hobbits?  Trolls,
>>Wargs, Orcs - a bit distasteful, the whole lot of them.  As far as Anne's
>>advice to see the film - well, my son and I are on a quest to reread the
>>books before we head for the theatre.  I'm presently somewhere in the hills
>>of Rohan, having left the Great River in pursuit of enemies and the friends
>>they've captured.
>>
> 
> It's interesting how things come into fashion.  I read the Hobbit and 
> Lord of the Rings 30 years ago and only now is it becoming popular
> (probably because of the special effects in the movie).  As for seeing
> the movie, I would not recommend it.  Why have someone else form images
> of what the characters, mountains, forests, etc. are supposed to be
> like?
> Why not let your own imagination do it for you by reading these books?
> I think a nature lover would fall in love with these books, and it is 
> the extensive 'nature' part of the books (mountains, forests, flowers,
> lakes, etc, and the cool crisp star lit  evenings) that I do not think
> a movie could convey as well as the books.
> 

Lord of the Rings was published in 1954, which is when I read it. I read 
it early and often, and my friends in college (some years later) also 
read it ... we were pre-hippie, and we cut classes and sat on the grass 
(but smoked none, for those were innocent days)
notice the word "reread" in Mark's message. His son is a kid; they are 
both rereading the books before the movie.
Bad move, in my opinion, for the very reasons Stan mentions below.
Stan, it's not a religion.
I mean, it is, sort of, and I bet there are web pages ranting about it.
But I did not reread the book for the 14th time before seeing the movie, 
because I didn't want to spoil it for myself.
I loved it.
I was home, in the village where I grew up. Gandalf is right. The forest 
is right.
I have no problem with the hobbits' height, either. Get real.
But ... now I have to reread the books. And then, who knows. Perhaps I 
will be troubled, as Mark will be, by the lack of fur on their feet.

When we get the DVD, we will be happy beyond our wildest dreams, for 
there we will see all the scenes they cut, and can slow down that moth 
and laugh at its flight, if necessary.
And fast forward through the battle scenes, which can only improve them.


> I have not seen the movie but saw some previews of how it was made.
> It is claimed to follow the books well, but from what I have seen,
> it does deviate from Tolkien.  For one, the 'hobbits', as far as I 
> could determine, are too tall, and there was one deviation that was
> undoubtedly done to make the movie more exciting and to keep the 
> audience on "edge".  This was where Frodo jumps onto a raft (or ferry)
> crossing the Brandywine to get to Hobbiton.  A Ring Wraith is hot on his
> heels and Frodo just barely manages to escape by jumping on the raft.
> This is not at all what is in the book "The Fellowship of the Ring", 
> the first in the series.  If there was this deviation in such a small
> segment of  the movie, I have to wonder how many more there are.
> 
> Stan
> 


were there any butterflies in Harry Potter? On my next viewing, I will 
have to look. Now there's a film that follows the book. Wow.


>  Anne Kilmer
South Florida

Wingardium leviosa ... what a good name for a flightless moth. 



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl