Me referia a curtir mais os filmes do que os livros, e não meramente não gostar dos livros ou achar "overrated". Eu imagino que boa parte desse pessoal aí não deva ser grande fã dos filmes também.
Eu sei do que vc falava... Mas...
Acontece que
, na verdade, MUITOS desses gostam mais dos filmes também.
Isso, pq vc mesmo pode observar, um dos principais motivos mencionados por quem critica o livro é a prolixidade descritiva idiossincrática "subjetiva" do Tolkien ( descrita magistralmente no ensaio do Rateliff na Tolkien Studies e já linkado nos post anteriores).
Onde ele se esbalda pra descrever a topografia sensorial do caminho, toda hora aludindo aos pontos cardeais , à direção de um rio e do vento vis-a-vis com a dos personagens e o que acontece com o sol e a lua, cooptando a imaginação dos leitores a seu favor, mas não especifica, sem ambiguidade, a cor do cabelo do Legolas e/ou sua compleição física "real" ou define por A+B la puerra de las alas de los balrogs.
Para não falar das disparidades, inconsistências e lacunas, deliberadas ou não, que criam coisas como a treta do Tamanho de Morgoth e/ou das Asas da Elwing.
Muita gente sente que a leitura do SdA é algo excessivamente arrastado e prolixo SEM as compensações que vem em forma de um visual luxuriante, com cores, formas, descrições de roupas, costumes e estados de espírito ao molde de uma MZB, Margareth Weiss e Track Hickman, Dan Simmons, George R.R. Martin, Paul Wilson, Clive Barker e de uma Anne Rice. O Bruno Nascimento citado na primeira mensagem é o UBER exemplo dessa categoria de leitor.
Elas ficam com o esforço sem o payoff, sentem só o ônus e não o bônus que outras leituras árduas provém. E que elas fazem sem esforço pq recebem um prêmio emocional correspondente em catarse, que, pra muitas pessoas, requer escatologia, violência, sangue e eroticidade ( mesmo implícita ou poeticamente descrita) de uma maneira que Tolkien não supre.
Pessoas que não têm uma sensibilidade tendendo pro abstrato, pro plano das idéias e das "metáforas" e "alegorias", tanto em sentido amplo quanto em estrito, e não se "tocam" ou comovem com elas mas são focadas muito em visual literal transfundido em cenas "animadas" pela mente, sempre mostradas e não "contadas", NÃO se sentem recompensadas pela leitura do livro....
E, francamente, eu discordo delas em sentir a mesma impressão de vácuo, de isopor, queijo suíço que essa estética-"estática", para elas, árida e seca, gera em certas pessoas, e, mesmo que a sentisse no mesmo grau, discordaria de que isso torna o livro insuportavelmente chato... mas consigo me por no lugar e ter empatia por elas, fácil, fácil. Não "simpatizo" mas "empatizo" com o ponto de vista delas...Pq?
Pq coisas que são, emocionalmente, SUPER gratificantes pra elas me induzem à apatia ou repulsa...Pq minha cabeça é calibrada exatamente do jeito OPOSTO ao delas nesse departamento da abstração-diáfano vs literalidade-materialidade.
*nos dois sentidos...de ser parada e de ser ruído informe no lugar de música e canção melodiosas. Alto, constante, claustrofóbico, opressivo e, pior.... LONGO!
Um bom exemplo são os jogos de God of War, aqueles do Kratos, que Brian Azzarello, tão magistralmente, IMHO, desconstruiu no seu run New 52 da Wonder Woman através de análogos na história, a Diana, o Apolo e o Firstborn (nome que, aliás, Tolkien deu aos seus elfos), o vilão supremo da trama.
Outro é o Akira do Katsuhiro Otomo, tanto o movie quanto o mangá....eu descobri, sendo honesto comigo mesmo, à despeito da hype, que NUNCA me senti à vontade ou, intelectual e emocionalmente, com "tesão" na história e nos personagens ( principalmente os dois protagonistas) e, muito embora tenha chegado a ter a coleção de comic books nacionais da Globo QUASE completa, uma coleção montada à duras penas durante quase vinte anos, Eu DEI de presente pra alguém QUE NÃO MERECIA ( e eu SABIA) uma coleção que valeria fácil um 1200 reais dependendo do comprador e do local da oferta.
E pq?....loooonga história mas eu PRESUMO que alguns dos meus motivos estarão aí...
E isso APESAR da opinião maravilhosamente mostrada (ai,ai
) aííííeeeee, perdão por discordar mas...eu tenho meus motivos...
Mas, caso eu esteja ( quem sabe?) sendo injusto vou colar aqui esses outros pra contraponto dialético...
Outro exemplo? Dragon Ball Z.
vc resumiu tudo: é 1 filme feito p geração dragon ball. oq n é o meu caso. - - - Updated - - - do blog do rubens ewald filho: Atenção: detalhes da trama podem estar sendo revelados na critica e podem estragar a surpresa. Sugiro que neste caso leiam a critica posteriormente. Há muito...
www.valinor.com.br
Bom....voltando a falar do tema sobre o grau da hype do Senhor dos Anéis ser exagerada ou não...
Aí deve estar cheio de motivos de pessoas que leram e conhecem bem o livro mas gostam mais dos filmes>
This essay intelligently explains why Jackson's films are better than the books.
www.theonering.com
PETER JACKSON'S LOTR FILMS ARE BETTER THAN THE BOOKS! -
May 15, 2004
THE LOTR FILMS ARE BETTER THAN THE BOOKS IN A LOT OF WAYS! Allow me to explain, here's a little essay I wrote about an interesting conversation I had with my twin sister, Sheri. We were sitting around the kitchen table discussing various topics about the LOTR films and we came into a few disagreements on certain "films vs. books" issues. Don't get me wrong--we both love and adore the LOTR movies (they're our favorite movies of all time!), but, we butted heads a few times during the discussion. First of all, she thought it was a real shame that Tom Bombadil was not in FOTR, because he and Goldberry were such delightful and whimsical characters. I agreed that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry were really great characters, but then I stated that if Jackson had placed them into the film they actually would have slowed down the flow of the movie. As awesome and endearing as they were, a segment of Tom and Goldberry would have taken up way too much valuable time and would have delayed the quest more than anything. Although Tom and Goldberry were two of the best characters in the books, it's certainly understandable why Jackson had to leave them out of the film--even if the decision was a little disappointing. Besides, Treebeard got to do a "Tom Bombadil" scene with Merry and Pippin in TTT extended edition DVD, and that was better than nothing.
Another subject we butted heads over, was the death of Haldir. My sister said that Haldir's death was unnecessary in TTT, because he never died in the books. She said it was foolish for Jackson to kill Haldir in the movie. I claimed that the situation could easily go either way. It would have been nice if Haldir had lived, yet, it's not that big of a deal that he didn't. Don't misunderstand me--I love Haldir as much as the next person (I thought Craig Parker made a really cool Haldir!), but his untimely death in TTT gave the Battle at Helm's Deep a lot more drama and emotion. I was very shocked and sad when he died (I liked him), but I also have to admit that it was a great moment for the epic battle scene. It not only intensified the traumatic event to the fullest extent, but it also enabled Haldir to go down in a blaze of glory! He got to die with honor and in sacrifice, what more could a brave warrior ask for? It was indeed an honorable death, even if it didn't happen that way in the original books. Sheri also commented that the elves were never at Helm's Deep to begin with, but I shot back by claiming that Jackson's surprise of sending the elves to Rohan's aid was a brilliant concept. I personally think the Battle at Helm's Deep in the movie is so much better than in the books simply because the elves WERE there. Having the elves fight alongside the humans was a lot more exciting, and it made the whole battle more phenomenal.
However, the biggest argument we got into was over Arwen and Aragorn. She agrees with the Tolkien-purists about Arwen's expanded role in the films. She said, "Well, although Liv Tyler did a good job playing Arwen, I think it was stupid for Jackson to give her a bigger part because she was never supposed to have a major role in the story to begin with! Tolkien never meant for Arwen to be a main character in the story, so I don't understand why Jackson felt he had to give her such a major role in the films. Aragorn and Arwen's romance in the book was never a big deal to begin with. Liv Tyler's expanded role was completely unnecessary and it just made no sense. Jackson should have left out all the love scenes with Arwen and Aragorn, and showed more characterization between all the other main characters." I couldn't help but totally disagree with her 100%! I said, "I know a lot of Tolkien-purists hated Arwen's added scenes in the films, but Jackson did the right thing. Expanding her character's role was a logical and practical move on Jackson's part. Making her a main character was not a waste of time at all, it was actually brilliant! Think about it, in Tolkien's original story Arwen only popped up at the end of ROTK when she married Aragorn. She made a banner for him, gave up her immortality, they had a son--and that was it! She was barely in the story any other time, in fact, you don't really find out that Aragorn is in love with her until the very end. That never would have worked in the films, not in a million years! You can't have the audience witnessing Aragorn's long journey throughout all three movies, and then watch him marry some strange, dark-haired elf girl in the end that no one has ever seen before." Everyone in the audience would have been asking, "Wait a minute, what's going on? Who is she? Why is Aragorn marrying some unknown elf girl?" Trust me, it would have been a total disaster if Jackson had done Arwen in the films like Tolkien did in the books. If we're tagging along with Aragorn throughout the movies, then by golly we had better get to see more of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship on the big screen--especially if they're going to get married in the end and spend the rest of their lives together. That makes a lot more sense. Therefore, Jackson's expanded version of Arwen on the big screen was far better and more appropriate than the "little-known" Arwen in the books. Jackson turned a "nothing" character into one of the most popular female characters ever! Besides, Liv Tyler only got a total screen-time of fifteen minutes in each of the films anyway, so what's the big deal? And you've got to admit, Liv Tyler and Viggo Mortensen have great chemistry together, so their relationship was very believable and it worked out perfectly. Well, no matter how hard I tried to convince Sheri that Arwen's expanded role was a smart move and worked the best for the films, she still refused to accept it. But on a good note, there were several things that we did agree on. One of the things we agreed on was the changes in Faramir's character. We both prefer the movie version of Faramir--rather than the goody-goody version in the books. Faramir in the original books was a nice guy and all, but he really wasn't that interesting. Jackson's version of Faramir is much better than Tolkien's. David Wenham is a superb actor who did a wonderful job playing Faramir, plus, we also loved the more intense drama that was added to his character. We agreed that Faramir's desperation to fill Bormir's shoes and save Gondor from total destruction was more captivating and emotional. You could really feel Faramir's pain and struggling in the films, and his hopeless relationship with his bitter father, Denethor, was heart-wrenching. You had to feel sorry for poor Faramir, no matter how hard he tried he just couldn't get a break! Plus, David Wenham's portrayal of Faramir suited the darker mood of the story. His pain and desperation blended much better with the storyline, rather than the Faramir in the book. It was another genius move on Jackson's part! We also liked Jackson's twist of showing Frodo getting possessed by the evil ring in TTT and ROTK. Showing Frodo's mind slowly being controlled and influenced by Sauron's ring made more sense in the story, as opposed to the book. It works much better to see Frodo being possessed by the dark power of the ring, that way it's more understandable as to why he refuses to toss the ring into the fires of Mt. Doom at the very end. We also support Jackson's decision to make Gollum frame Sam so Frodo would send him away, as opposed to Sam simply getting lost in Shelob's Lair. Sam being sent away gave Sean Astin an excellent opportunity to really show off his amazing acting skills, plus, it added even more drama to Sam's suffering character. And thank God Jackson had Frodo finally do something right for a change by fighting Gollum and throwing him over the edge into Mt. Doom! It was refreshing to see him actually take part in the destruction of the ring. I was glad that Jackson made more of a hero out of Frodo--rather than have Gollum be the one to destroy the ring by accidently stumbling backwards off the cliff (like it happened in the book). Frodo fighting Gollum and throwing him over the edge was a lot more exciting, than the original book's ending.
Although me and Sheri might differ in opinion, we both definitely agree that Jackson's LOTR films are much better than the books in certain ways. Perhaps Tolkien-purists will always complain about the small changes, but the changes work out a lot better for the films. Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens did an outstanding job bringing the epic story to the big screen. Even the characterization in the movies are more intriguing and enjoyable than in the books--at least in my opinion. There was nothing remotely likable about Gollum in the books, yet, Jackson and Andy Serkis managed to turn the unlikable creature into one of the most celebrated and favored characters of all time! Arwen was nothing in the books, yet, Liv Tyler made her one of the most notable female characters around. It's the same situation with Galadriel. Even Frodo (who was really boring in the books) was more likable, Elijah Wood gave the bland character Frodo a more favored boost as well. Christopher Lee's version of Saruman is ten-times better in the films than in the books, too. Jackson turned Saruman's character into a much better villian on the big screen. I sincerely mean no disrespect to Tolkien or the Tolkien-purists, but in some ways Jackson's LOTR movies are better than the original LOTR books--and this is a fact that me and my sister can both agree on. The LOTR films are not a travesty to Tolkien's work, they're a masterpiece. And besides, J.R.R. Tolkien himself even bluntly replied once in an interview, that if his LOTR books were ever to be made into movies, he would grant full permission and support to the individual creative vision of the directors and producers. Tolkien clearly stated that he would accept the director's individual creativity and interpretation on however they wanted to bring his imaginary world of Middle-earth to life on the big screen--and that's exactly what's happened with Jackson. Peter Jackson is not only one of the greatest mastermind directors of our time, but he's also the only director who possesses the true vision to bring Middle-earth to life on film and do Tolkien's story proper justice. The slight changes and alterations in the films are minor, and everything still worked out perfectly fine in the end. Jackson never ruined the story, he only brought it to life in an exceptional way! No doubt, Tolkien would be pleased with Jackson's genius work. I think Tolkien-society should give credit where credit is due, after all, it was the brilliance of Peter Jackson who introduced Tolkien's books to a whole new generation. You would be surprised at how many people had never read "The Hobbit" or "The Lord of the Rings" books before, but now (thanks to Jackson) everyone and their grandma is reading them! Even lesser-known, Tolkien-related books (such as "The Simarillion"
who have never received any recognition or fans have become very popular. The LOTR films have even put fantasy films on the map and have allowed fantasy in general to be widely appreciated and taken more seriously. The films have opened new doors and opportunities in the movie industry and for the fantasy realm of literature. After all, they're starting to make all kinds of exciting fantasy film projects coming in the near future--such as, "The Chronicles of Narnia", "The Last Unicorn", and many others. Do you honestly think that Hollywood would be making all these wonderful fantasy-oriented films if it wasn't for the success of the LOTR movies? Face it, Jackson's films have contributed a lot to society, and they've also done great justice to Tolkien's work as well. Regardless of how you look at it, I suppose in the end everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There's no really right or wrong way to see the picture, it all just depends on which side of the line you're standing. But no matter which side you may be on, we're all fans of Middle-earth in one way or another--and in the end, that's all that really counts. Hooray for Tolkien, and hooray for Peter Jackson! I am thrilled as punch at all the tremendous success the LOTR trilogy has achieved, especially ROTK! Let's face it, it's not everyday that a film wins 11 Oscars! Not only was ROTK the BEST picture of the year (and it rightfully deserved to win all 11 categories), but the Academy voters also realized how important it was to reward Jackson the 11 golden Oscars as acknowledegment for the glorious success and spectacular achievements for all 3 LOTR films. You might say, the Academy rewarded all 3 films at one time--in one big triumphant ceremony. And personally speaking, I'm glad that the films finally got the Oscar recognition they deserve
Se vc for fazer a referência cruzada com os locais onde o assunto da overratedness do Tolkien overlaps com a do que é melhor.... romance ou trilogia cinematográfica, a gente sempre topa com as mesmas pessoas....às vezes com Nicks diferentes.... Eu sei do que falo....Tenho hábito de ler tópicos de fóruns estrangeiros na íntegra e nos anos que fiquei sem aparecer por aqui (2002-2008) saquei muito sobre como anda o Zeitgeist lá fora da nossa "bolha" Tolkieniana hardcore aqui.
It took me an entire summer, and half a dozen books as "breaks" to get through the Lord of the RIngs trilogy. How long before I realized Sauramon and Sauron were different characters? Where was the storyteller's voice from The Hobbit? I felt like I was slogging through a textbook of mythology...
www.wired.com
Ugh. It took me an entire summer, and half a dozen books as "breaks" to get through the trilogy. Tolkien's epic prose was foreign to my modern fantasy reader's ears. How long before I realized Sauramon and Sauron were different characters? (That explained a lot...) And speaking of names, holy crap! So many look almost exactly alike. Where was the storyteller's voice from The Hobbit? I felt like I was slogging through a textbook of mythology.
I did get through it; the final book grabbed my attention as characters and plot points came together. Seeing the movie, fresh from the books made me have quite a number of opinions. But the biggest one was this: THANK YOU PETER JACKSON! I was so much more entertained watching the movies than reading the books. And stories are foremost about entertainment.
Eu não sei se vai ficar fácil de achar os tópicos onde isso foi debatido mas pode ter certeza que tem... só olhar com um pouquinho de boa vontade. Essa noção de achar que uma parte tão grande das pessoas que pensam que o livro é inferior aos filmes NÃO LERAM os livros, for the better or worse, vai meio na linha de subestimar, pesadamente, a inteligência de uma boníssima parte do público.
Tolkien, IMO, é ótimo...Mas, mesmo falando só do SdA, não é MESMO pra todos os gostos não ( como ele próprio falou e reconheceu mais de uma vez )....mesmo de uma grande parte daqueles que dão conta de ler os livros mesmo e não mentem a respeito disso....Pq, óbvio, também tem um pessoal que é assim. Tem de tudo.
No tópico mesmo vc pode encontrar algumas msgs desse naipe. Quem procura Asha !
"The Postman." While the film was not a great film, it wasn't a bad film to kill a tub of popcorn with. For the first ten minutes or so, it sticks to the book like white on rice, then takes a sharp left where the book takes a sharp right, never to reunite. The book was better, by far, but I...
www.sffchronicles.com
Despite all the criticism one reads, David Wenham's portayal of Faramir in The Two Towers was the creation of a much better character than in Tolkien's book. If one really thinks about it, perhaps they will realise something. Faramir's situation: His father hates him. His beloved brother is...
www.thetolkienforum.com
Much criticism's been launched at the changes made to the books, much of it justified. But one thing I feel they were absolutely right to change was Aragorn. Yes, in the book he's absolutely kingly from the beginning....but can't you see how's that's terrible, dramatically? I don't like what...
www.thetolkienforum.com
Answer (1 of 43): No, the book is better than the movies. (Lord of the Rings is one novel, not a trilogy.) Of course, any adaptation has to change the story, and, in a story as long as LOTR, leave things out. But the BBC radio series did a better job. The movie of the Fellowship of the Ring vast...
www.quora.com
Last night I was watching one of the "making of" documentaries in my copy of the ROTK EE and Viggo Mortenson made a statement that I found fascinating. He was discussing the "lighting of the beacons" sequence and said something to the effect that the combination of music and imagery in that...
www.thetolkienforum.com
Discussions about the various differences between J.R.R. Tolkien's 'LOTR' and the New Line Cinema screen adaptation.
www.thetolkienforum.com
Movies That Are Better Than the Book
I lived a lonely geeky existence once upon a time. When I heard Lord of the Rings was coming to the theaters, I wanted to go, but had no one to go with. A friend of my sister-in-law said he would go with me, but ONLY if I read all three Lord of the Rings books ahead of time. I love fantasy books. I had been meaning to read them anyway. I enjoyed The Hobbit as a kid, even did a report on it in high school. I was looking forward to it. No problem.
Ugh. It took me an entire summer, and half a dozen books as "breaks" to get through the trilogy. Tolkien's epic prose was foreign to my modern fantasy reader's ears. How long before I realized Sauramon and Sauron were different characters? (That explained a lot...) And speaking of names, holy crap! So many look almost exactly alike. Where was the storyteller's voice from The Hobbit? I felt like I was slogging through a textbook of mythology.
I did get through it; the final book grabbed my attention as characters and plot points came together. Seeing the movie, fresh from the books made me have quite a number of opinions. But the biggest one was this: THANK YOU PETER JACKSON! I was so much more entertained watching the movies than reading the books. And stories are foremost about entertainment.
Whoa, there! Back up a minute before you pounce on me. Before anyone says anything about stories being about learning and transmitting cultural ideas, think back on most of your classroom experience. If the teacher didn't entertain you in some way, you didn't learn anything. All storytellers, no matter what the form, MUST entertain or every bit of learning is for naught. As a storyteller myself I am desperate to share the worlds in my head, but if I can't entertain while I'm doing it, no one will listen. Tolkien failed as an entertainer
for me, regardless of the fact that his world and characters were so rich. Jackson had me enthralled, my imagination sparked after the house lights came on, and I even obsessed about the character of Frodo (or maybe it was just Elijah Wood...)
www.tolkiensociety.org
screenrant.com
