[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 257 KB, 750x735, 1608728528451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19591025 No.19591025 [Reply] [Original]

>He feels strongly that the Ring should not be filmed: “You can’t cramp narrative into dramatic form. It would be easier to film The Odyssey. Much less happens in it. Only a few storms.”

>> No.19591030
File: 64 KB, 640x659, sneeda.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19591030

>>19591025
I wouldn't have gotten into LOTR or Hobbit without the films honestly desu senapi. I think the animated one was way better, even if it ended on a cliffhanger.

>> No.19591044
File: 39 KB, 406x245, UlyssesPress.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19591044

>>19591025
But they did film the Odyssey... And I can't imagine it was easier than drawing the whole thing on a computer except for a few actors prancing in front of a green screen. They probably even had to go outsides for Ulysses.

>> No.19591057

>>19591025
The man was a prophet

>> No.19591065

>>19591025
And be was wrong. The end.

>op is seething and autistic

>> No.19591140

>>19591025
>>19591044
They probably weren't aware of how advanced cinema would be now.

>> No.19591152

>>19591140
this

>> No.19591157

>>19591140
Yes, it's this and only this.
Cinema in the time of Tolkien was only an up-and-coming art form, like video games are today

>> No.19591173

>>19591025
>Tolkien died in 1973
Reminder that Tolkien didn't even live to see Steven Spielberg/George Lucas era special effects let alone the technology Peter Jackson had access to. He didn't even see Rankin/Bass Hobbit or Baskhi LOTR.

>> No.19591175

>>19591173
>He didn't get to see the (((HOLLYWOOD))) special effects!!!

>> No.19591249

>>19591140
>>19591152
>>19591157
>>19591173
lol can you retards not read? he's talking about what the change of GENRE ("narrative into dramatic form") will do to the story, not about the lack of "special effects technology." i guess soulless bugmen that reduce the problem of adaptation to minor technical issues like "how to make gollum look cool" WOULD find those terrible jackson movies adequate since your incapacity for wonder prevents you from appreciating the novels anyway.

>> No.19591259

>>19591249
based and agreed

>> No.19591263

>>19591025
He lived in a time when it seemed to be hard to film the odyssey, today its trivial and was possible at least by the 50s already.

>> No.19591267

>>19591025
He was wrong and apparently also had a massively puffed up ego.

>> No.19591421

>>19591025
>You can’t cramp narrative
Imagine Tolkien's shock when mankind started putting multiple movies in a series; part 1, 2 and 3

>> No.19591440

>>19591025
What a moron

>> No.19591456

>>19591025
Reddit author JRR Tolkien

>> No.19591471

>>19591025
Tolkien grew up with black and white silent films in a 4:3 aspect ration (nearly square) where acting imitated stage acting, and the intertitles proclaimed Act I, Act II, etc. in imitation of stage plays. The camera barely moved. When he says "dramatic" he means it literally as theatre-like, and cramped in the way a stage is cramped.

>> No.19591490

>>19591140
No, he just wasn't aware how simple his books are without all the bloat.

>> No.19591496

>>19591025
>But nobody would sit through at least 6 hours of Tom Bombadil slam poetry, thus my books are unfilmable

>> No.19591517

>>19591496
heh

>> No.19591770

>>19591249
Ah yes, because changes in how the medium (not genre, you dumb fuck) is actually created definitely have no effect on the medium itself

>> No.19591921

>>19591249
Turbo based post.

>> No.19592171

>>19591770
he's not talking about "the medium of film," he's talking about drama as a genre of writing, that is writing meant for performance as opposed to a narrative meant to be privately read. the changes he correctly feared would strangle the wonder in his writing have to do with representing the fantastical AT ALL, no matter how good the execution, so all your salivating over green-screens and jar jar binks 2.0 is irrelevant to his perspective. it's not about HOW to get images in front of people, it's about WHAT can be conveyed through images at all.

from "on fairy stories":
>But Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy (...) Fantastic forms are not to be counterfeited.
>To be dissolved, or to be degraded, is the likely fate of Fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare.
>I once saw a so-called “children's pantomime,” the straight story of Puss-in-Boots, with even the metamorphosis of the ogre into a mouse. Had this been mechanically successful it would either have terrified the spectators or else have been just a turn of high-class conjuring.
>A reason, more important, I think, than the inadequacy of stage-effects, is this: Drama has, of its very nature, already attempted a kind of bogus, or shall I say at least substitute, magic: the visible and audible presentation of imaginary men in a story. That is in itself an attempt to counterfeit the magician's wand. To introduce, even with mechanical success, into this quasimagical secondary world a further fantasy or magic is to demand, as it were, an inner or tertiary world. It is a world too much.
>[if you think in terms of drama] you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making, and to constrain it to the limitations of stage-plays. You are, for instance, likely to prefer characters, even the basest and dullest, to things. Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play.

so there you have it: whether on stage or screen, the best you can hope for in a tolkien adaptation is a "mechanically successful" "turn of conjuring" that still constitutes a "degradation" since "very little about trees as trees can be got into" your cgi shitfest. he had a better grasp than you of film in the 21st century without having seen a second of it and the source of the disagreement is not so much his failure to have predicted the dubious "wonders" of cgi than in you not having enough insight into true fantasy to even perceive what has been lost in translation.

>> No.19592222

>>19591044
Watched this after you posted about it and it was really unfaithful and cringe. No wonder adaptations get a bad rap.

>> No.19592250

>>19591249
Graphics fags eternally btfo once again

>> No.19592253

>>19591030
>I think the animated one was way better
Same. Wish there had been a sequel.