Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: The Hunt for Gollum

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Lord of the Rings > The Hunt for Gollum   
[quote="Ringdrotten":1j19qdx7]is this really how it happened in the book? Some of the stuff (the three-way love drama for instance) seemed slightly made up, so to speak.[/quote:1j19qdx7] The female Ranger (I think they called her Elgarain) was wholly made-up (the fanfiction term being "Original Character" or "OC"Wink Smilie. The character struck me as something of a Mary Sue - a self insert by the creator of the fanfiction - especially she was played by the director. On the other hand, she wasn't perfect and she didn't get the guy, so maybe my initial reaction was unfair. [quote:1j19qdx7]I also seem to remember that Arathorn went to some mountains/other place with Elledan and Elrohir, not that they were attacked in the camp.[/quote:1j19qdx7] Appendix A, section "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen", tells us only that "Arathorn went riding against the Orcs with the sons of Elrond, and he was slain by an orc-arrow that pierced his eye". The death of Arador (Arathorn's father) was somewhat more faithful since the book says that he was "taken by hill-trolls" and the sentence fragment is vague enough that the film's interpretation is justifiable.
Watched Born of Hope today, and I'm once again impressed! The love drama wasn't much to my taste though, but the rest was great! I would be an ass if I was to start complaining. They seemed more "pro" this time. The amount of dialogue in Elvish (right?) was impressing, one of many things that shows the effort these people have made making these movies. Also, great acting. Especially Arathorn! He really looked very "Arathorn-like" as well. The costumes and weapons were awesome (again), and the locations were once again fantastic. This time they were even better in my opinion, especially the Dunedain camp. The fight scenes looked pro too, the first one was epic <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> One question though, it's been a while since I read the part about Arathorn and Gilraen and the Dunedain, but is this really how it happened in the book? Some of the stuff (the three-way love drama for instance) seemed slightly made up, so to speak. I also seem to remember that Arathorn went to some mountains/other place with Elledan and Elrohir, not that they were attacked in the camp. Not that it bothered me, just curious. After all, this isn't a big change compared to Jackson's changes :P(if it is a change at all)
As far as I can tell the whole thing is based of the appendix to LotR, the tale of years and the tale of Aragorn and Arwen. The relevant bits they seem to have based their film on are; 'Arathorn sought in marriage Gilraen the Fair, daughter of Dirhael, who was himself a descendant of Aranarth. To this marriage Dilhael was opposed; for Gilraen was young and not reached the age at which the Dunedain were accustomed to marry.' (It then goes into the prophecy Gilraen's mother makes- all in the film). 'Arathorn and Gilraen had been married only one year, (when) Arador was taken by hill-trolls in the Coldfells north of Rivendell and was slain; and Arathorn became Chieftain of the Dunedain. The next year Gilraen bore him a son, and he was called Aragorn. But Aragorn was only two years old when Arathorn went riding against the orcs with the sons of Elrond, and he was slain by an orc arrow that pierced his eye.' 'Then Aragorn was taken with his mother to dwell in the house of Elrond....(and) he was called Estel, that is 'Hope'. As you can see they stuck to the main beats pretty well. They've extrapolated and added the sub stories of Arathorn going to investigate the why the orcs are looking for a ring and added the love story between the two rangers. But nothing I personally found either offensive or out of place. And it was good to hear Tolkien's actual dialogue were there was source to use it from and a decent attempt at Tokienesque dialogue where they were making it up (far better than PJ's modernization of the dialogue I'd say).
All jokes aside, Born of Hope is as much an Adaptation as are Jackson's films. Calling either of them "fan-fiction" just because some elements were extrapolated, added, or altered is a misuse of the term. Fan Fictions, are usually entirely unique stories based on Original Stories and Characters, not Adaptations. An Adaptation is the conversion of a story from its original medium, into another form of media, alterations often being a necessary part of the equation. The central story-line in Born of Hope is based on Tolkien's writings about Aragorn's parentage, so I think it counts more as Adaptation, than Fan Fiction. [b:3hk1d694]GB[/b:3hk1d694]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3rf1c4g0]Fan Fictions, are usually entirely unique stories based on Original Stories and Characters, not Adaptations.[/quote:3rf1c4g0] Original stories are unique, but there are still plenty of "fill-in-the-blank" fanfictions that revolve around extrapolating from vague mentions in the canonical texts. Also, I'm not sure where the idea that fanfic usually evolves around original characters comes from. Do you read much fanfiction? It's mostly about fans wanting to write their favourite characters, and has been since the earliest stories about Kirk and Spock in Star Trek magazines (the original fanfiction).
I just used "unique", because it's poor form to say Original Twice :roll: . A Fan Fic is a New Story based on Characters and Settings from an Original Published Author, film, comic, TV series, whatever. Yes, some Fan Fics are extrapolations that "fill in the blanks". But that doesn't necessarily make them Adaptations. And yes, Fan Fics can have whole new characters set in the same Universe of the source material. And yes, Fan Fics can also be in Film form, or Graphic Novel form etc. An Adaptation is the conversion of the original source material from one media to another, and there are often alterations along the way, but it still follows the key plots, characters, and settings. And by the way, Kirk and Spock are original source characters. :? [b:nhblyrsw]GB[/b:nhblyrsw]
I didn't think it was whiny or accusatory, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to elaborate just in case I'd been unclear. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
I think you have erred there Eldo, it is not The Ring Sauron is looking for its the ring of Barahir- he's trying to track down the last of the Dunedain in the North. Something Tolkien implies was always an aim of Sauron without giving any details of it after the Angmar stuff beyond reports of skirmishes with orcs and trolls- so I don't have a problem with that. The big mistake for me is that Arathorn discovers the Necromancer is Sauron before Gandalf does, which means the sons of Elrond would have known and therefore the Wise in general- but they didn't until Gandalf goes into the Necromancer's dungeons- so there is quite a big mistake in BoH but not about the Ring.
My bad, then. :oops: That actually does make sense.
Ah, well, I can see that they pretty much nailed the death of Arathorn then! I stand corrected. But Eldo, isn't this movie also an adaption? <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> It's a fan-made film, but still a film. They used the books for inspiration, Jackson did the same. What's the difference? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
It's a fan-film, which means it's a fanfiction. PJ's LOTR were the official cinematic version of [i:9aahoo32]The Lord of the Rings[/i:9aahoo32] (the story as well as the world) on the big screen. [i:9aahoo32]Born of Hope[/i:9aahoo32] was a bunch of fans making their own story set in the existing world.
I get your point. Though, some of you seem to be of the opinion that Jackson's movies are fanfiction as well :lol:
They have elements that are similar to fanfiction, but at the end of the day they're adaptations. Whether they succeed or fail as such is up for debate though. I'm not always entirely serious when I say stuff like them being fanfiction. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
Hehe :lol: By the way, re-read my comment after posting it, and it was meant as a simple joke, but I can see now how it might be interpreted like some whiny accusation. That was not intended! :oops:
[quote="pettytyrant101":y0iwrvts]They've extrapolated and added the sub stories of Arathorn going to investigate the why [b:y0iwrvts]the orcs are looking for a ring[/b:y0iwrvts] and added the love story between the two rangers. But nothing I personally found either offensive or out of place.[/quote:y0iwrvts] For the most part I was impressed by the film-makers work, but this change was one that really should have been thought through further. Frodo was only able to escape the Shire during in LOTR because Sauron had only recently learned of the Ring and sent his servants in pursuit of it. Had he been aware of the Ring decades in advance he would have acquired it before Frodo had it. Also, going by both book and movie timelines (they're slightly different because they cut the 17-year gap in FOTR but left Aragorn's age at 87, effectively moving his year of birth back by 17 years) the events of [i:y0iwrvts]Born of Hope[/i:y0iwrvts] occurred before those of [i:y0iwrvts]The Hobbit[/i:y0iwrvts], when the only person with current knowledge of the Ring was Gollum, who was then living in isolation in his cave. Sauron had no reason to suspect the Ring was anywhere but the Gladden Fields or somewhere further down the Anduin, and certainly hundreds of miles northwest in Eriador. I tend to be forgiving of changes in fanfiction - far more so than changes in adaptations - but this change irks me because it struck me as an oversight of common sense rather than a deliberate addition of "fanon".
[quote="pettytyrant101":27wlm5s0]So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?[/quote:27wlm5s0] The story of The Lord of the Rings is about the Fellowship, the Ring, the War, and a few other things. Much as we criticize PJ (and I know I've done my fair share of that), at a basic level he's still telling the same story, regardless of all his changes and additions. Born of Hope is not telling the story of The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, or any other book that Tolkien wrote. It's taking a few brief sentences and constructing its own story around that. Thus it is a fanfiction, not an adaptation, because it is not telling the same story as the original. Incidentally, this is a very similar situation to what will necessarily happen when we see the White Council on screen, which is why I have long maintained that that will be fanfiction as well, because it is not part of the story of The Hobbit. [quote:27wlm5s0]I don't see how BoH doesn't meet all these criteria save its source was not an entire book.[/quote:27wlm5s0] LOTR is about trying to destroy the Ring and stop Sauron from taking over Middle-earth. BOH is about the plight of the Northern Dunedain. LOTR stars the Fellowship of the Ring, BOH stars Arathorn, Gilraen, Elgarain, and a few others. LOTR is set in a wide variety of settings around Middle-earth, but with the exception of Imladris it shares none of them with BOH. They're two separate and distinct stories.
[quote="Ringdrotten":3ac66bd4]I still think that what's written in the appendices (re-read some of it) is enough material for it to be called an adaptation. I understand that it might be seen as fanfiction also though, they do add some new stuff in there and base the film on little text.[/quote:3ac66bd4] I think "they do add some new stuff" is a big exaggeration. Almost the entire story except for the kernel of it and a bit of backstory are the inventions of the director of the film. That doesn't make it bad, but it makes it a new and distinct work. [quote:3ac66bd4]But I've always thought of fanfiction as something that is 100% made up by the creator, but that it is set in an existing world/based on an existing character (made up by another author).[/quote:3ac66bd4] By nature of being set in an existing world and - often - starring existing characters, fanfiction has never been 100% made up by the fanfic author. I'm really curious as to whether any of you guys read fanfiction on a regular basis, because fill-in-the-blank stories and phrases like "OC" are not exactly obscure.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":manbdk3h]Yes, some Fan Fics are extrapolations that "fill in the blanks". But that doesn't necessarily make them Adaptations.[/quote:manbdk3h] Um, yes. That's exactly what I said. [i:manbdk3h]Born of Hope[/i:manbdk3h] is a "fill in the blanks" fanfiction, but it's not an adaptation. You were the one who said that it was "as much an Adaptation as are Jackson's films" and not fanfiction. [quote:manbdk3h]And yes, Fan Fics can have whole new characters set in the same Universe of the source material. And yes, Fan Fics can also be in Film form, or Graphic Novel form etc.[/quote:manbdk3h] Again, agreed. [i:manbdk3h]The Hunt for Gollum[/i:manbdk3h] and [i:manbdk3h]Born of Hope[/i:manbdk3h] were fanfictions made in the medium of film. This is what I was saying before. [quote:manbdk3h]An Adaptation is the conversion of the original source material from one media to another, and there are often alterations along the way, but it still follows the key plots, characters, and settings.[/quote:manbdk3h] Which is why [i:manbdk3h]Born of Hope[/i:manbdk3h] is not an adaptation. I'm really confused now. First you said that it is an adaptation, but you're now listing all the reasons why it isn't. :? [quote:manbdk3h]And by the way, Kirk and Spock are original source characters. :? [/quote:manbdk3h] I know that. My point was that fanfiction does not have to be based on original characters, which you implied it did. EDIT: I think I might understand the reason for the confusion now. When I say "original character" I mean a character that was invented by the author [i:manbdk3h]of the fanfiction[/i:manbdk3h]. (The fanfic community generally uses the abbreviation "OC" for this.) When you say "original character", do you mean characters from the original work?
[quote="Eldorion":16ampgcu]I didn't think it was whiny or accusatory, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to elaborate just in case I'd been unclear. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />[/quote:16ampgcu] Better safe than sorry <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Also, reading the comments here I learned something new today! It's [i:16ampgcu]adaptation[/i:16ampgcu], not adaption. Where did I get that from? :?
[quote="Eldorion":24pm6fv0] [quote:24pm6fv0]An Adaptation is the conversion of the original source material from one media to another, and there are often alterations along the way, but it still follows the key plots, characters, and settings.[/quote:24pm6fv0] Which is why [i:24pm6fv0]Born of Hope[/i:24pm6fv0] is not an adaptation. I'm really confused now. First you said that it is an adaptation, but you're now listing all the reasons why it isn't. :? [/quote:24pm6fv0] Actually, to me this looks like the reason why it [i:24pm6fv0]is[/i:24pm6fv0] an adaptation (see, I'm using the right word :lol: ), not why it is not. It's a conversion of original material (RotK appendices) from book to film. Doesn't that make it an adaptation?
[quote="Ringdrotten":1on1i9wr]Actually, to me this looks like the reason why it [i:1on1i9wr]is[/i:1on1i9wr] an adaptation (see, I'm using the right word :lol: ), not why it is not. It's a conversion of original material (RotK appendices) from book to film. Doesn't that make it an adaptation?[/quote:1on1i9wr] I think adaptations - to borrow a few words from GB - follow "key plots, characters, and settings." In other words, an adaptation of a book is still telling the same basic story of the book. A fanfiction is telling a new story either created by the fanfic author or extrapolated from a brief mention in the original source work, not just re-telling the original story.
"I think adaptations - to borrow a few words from GB - follow "key plots, characters, and settings." In other words, an adaptation of a book is still telling the same basic story of the book."- Eldo (and handily saves me having to quote GB too!) I don't see how BoH doesn't meet all these criteria save its source was not an entire book. I listed above the bits in RotK appendix they have drawn on and all the 'key plots, characters, and settings' have been taken from the source and adapted into a film, surely? The love story and the characters it involves in BoH could be said to be fan fiction, in that they do not exist in the source material at all as far as I can see. However PJ created whole new bits of story that weren't in the books not to mention changing some characters beyond recognition (Gothmog for example beyond the name is a completely made up character). So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?
Well, I guess we can argue whether this is an adaptation or fanfic forever <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> I still think that what's written in the appendices (re-read some of it) is enough material for it to be called an adaptation. I understand that it might be seen as fanfiction also though, they do add some new stuff in there and base the film on little text. But I've always thought of fanfiction as something that is 100% made up by the creator, but that it is set in an existing world/based on an existing character (made up by another author).
"But does for example making an entire 40 or so minutes of story up, without any basis in the source material what so ever (as they did in TT) fit this criteria? " Nope, it doesn't :P "Yes it would and it would also completely fail the definition of adaptation. His failure to spot this does not surprise me" I guess that's just a way of saying that all the different events in the book would be hard to fit in. "Based on LotR I can live with, an adaptation of LotR it is not." I agree a bit, but I also disagree a bit! I do think they're less adaptations, more "inspired by the book", but they do include many good parts of the books too, so they are arguably adaptations as well. Whether one thinks that they are good or bad adaptations is another matter.
Mmm...I can't remember any hyenas in the book --- nor any attack by goblin hyena riders on the way to Helms Deep... That's one extra bit that has no place in an adaptation one would think. Bloody rude, really. Not respectable at all.
[quote="Eldorion":3k5xfttv] I think "they do add some new stuff" is a big exaggeration. Almost the entire story except for the kernel of it and a bit of backstory are the inventions of the director of the film. That doesn't make it bad, but it makes it a new and distinct work. [/quote:3k5xfttv] Ok, won't argue with you there, I'll agree that it was an exaggeration. By "some new stuff" I was referring to the love story though, not the script itself, which of course is hugely made up. [quote:3k5xfttv] By nature of being set in an existing world and - often - starring existing characters, fanfiction has never been 100% made up by the fanfic author. I'm really curious as to whether any of you guys read fanfiction on a regular basis, because fill-in-the-blank stories and phrases like "OC" are not exactly obscure.[/quote:3k5xfttv] I think you misunderstood me a bit, Eldo. I meant that (and I didn't write it, so misunderstanding is likely) the [i:3k5xfttv]events[/i:3k5xfttv] that include these characters or worlds were 100% made up. And the events in Born of Hope aren't 100% made up, so that's why I'm not considering it fanfiction. That being said, I don't read fanfiction, but I'm familiar with some fanfiction stuff (Star Wars comics for example). But I don't really know much about it, so I'm in danger of saying things I don't have a clue about. I do know something about adaptations though, and that's what I base my "BoH = Adaptation" statements on <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Possibly a long answer incoming to Petty's question : "So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?" in a while, didn't finish writing my answer earlier, have to do some research first :mrgreen:
[quote="Ringdrotten":17gx58r7]I think you misunderstood me a bit, Eldo. I meant that (and I didn't write it, so misunderstanding is likely) the [i:17gx58r7]events[/i:17gx58r7] that include these characters or worlds were 100% made up. And the events in Born of Hope aren't 100% made up, so that's why I'm not considering it fanfiction.[/quote:17gx58r7] Fair enough, though while some fanfiction is like that, it's definitely not all. A quick glance through a major site such as FanFiction.net reveals that a lot of fanfiction centers around extrapolation from backstory or behind-the-scenes events. I don't see any reason to redefine fanfiction to exclude extrapolation-based fics. [quote:17gx58r7]That being said, I don't read fanfiction, but I'm familiar with some fanfiction stuff (Star Wars comics for example).[/quote:17gx58r7] Star Wars comics are similar to fanfiction, but they're made by the official creators of the Star Wars universe or their licensees. The comics are more prequels/sequels (depending on the specific comic) to the films than fanfiction because of their official status.
[quote="pettytyrant101":g68ctflj] So why is PJ's work still counted (by everyone except me) as an adaptation when BoH isn't, even when BoH arguably is closer to the source material than PJ's?[/quote:g68ctflj] First of all, I agree that Born of Hope is closer to Tolkien's material than Jackson's films. Considering the huge difference in the material these films (BoH and LotR) are based on though, I don't mind this. The story of the War of the Ring is huge, the story that BoH is based on isn't, so this is no wonder. But as an adaptation, I think Born of Hope is closer than Jackson's trilogy. Now, the following wall of text is not an answer to your question, but it is related to it in a way <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> I never counted Jackson's trilogy as adaptations, but (third time I say this now? :? ) rather movies that are [i:g68ctflj]based [/i:g68ctflj] on the books. They say this in the EE documentaries too. They themselves call it an adaptation though, so one may of course rightfully criticize their faithfulness and accuracy. They clearly stated that they were not making a film for the readers of the book, but a film for everyone, and that it was impossible to include everything in three movies. They had to change some parts so that certain scenes in the films wouldn't be understandable unless you had read the books and knew the background story. This often happens with adaptations (Harry Potter anyone? :lol: ), and this would have happened to LotR too if they had decided to make a full adaptation. Something would've had to be taken away, and left the non-readers confused. Here is an excerpt from a letter from the script writers to Miramax (I think) that came with the first treatment of the LotR books. It is quoted from disc 1 of the FotR appendices: "Dear reader This is not a film script, but merely a treatment ... a first pass at distilling Mr. Tolkien's vast narrative down into a form suitable by the movies. Our focus has been in making whatever modifications or deletions we feel are required to tell this complex and epic story in the clearest possible way. We have tried to make it work for an audience who have not - and never will - read the books, but at the same time, we have tried to write something that will be satisfying for those fans of the books who cannot wait to see the movie." This is basically what I was talking about. And I thought they did great. Thousands of people who have never read the books love the films, and thousands of people who read the books enjoyed the films too. There are also thousands of people who read the books, but dislike the movies, but that is inevitable with adaptations (Obviously, I don't have the numbers, but I think thousands is a fair assumption for any of the three "categories" I mentioned). Another quote from Jackson: "The book is a great book, the story is a great story, the characters are great, but it's unfilmable, and [i:g68ctflj]it is [/i:g68ctflj]unfilmable. If we were to just shoot the book page by page, scene by scene, it would just be a mess" The same as I wrote, just quoting for proof <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> I can also say that I agree with Jackson, the book in its entirety is not filmable, it's just too huge. Only as a television series could it have been done complete justice. However, I do agree with the Purists around here that they could have kept and included more of the book than they did, and still made it work. But this was how Jackson & Co saw it, and they were the ones who made the movies, so there's nothing we can do about that. Here is a quote from Christopher Lee: "There are lots of things in these films, which are not in the books. And I think in most cases, they are improvements. Cause they are scenes that do have to be seen." Coming from a man who personally knew Tolkien, this is saying a lot (or, at least, I think it says a lot). And Lee is also quite a Purist I'd say. Now, this reply got a bit out of hand I guess, but as we were discussing adaptations I thought it would be fitting here. And it also briefly sums up my thoughts on "The Lord of the Rings - book to movie" discussion. By the way, if there are any weird words or sentences, please let me know and I'll try to explain better what I mean. I tend to mess up when writing longer texts in English :P
[quote="Eldorion":sb05nofi] Star Wars comics are similar to fanfiction, but they're made by the official creators of the Star Wars universe or their licensees. The comics are more prequels/sequels (depending on the specific comic) to the films than fanfiction because of their official status.[/quote:sb05nofi] I've only read a few, so I don't know much about them. One I remember though, Boba Fett was apparently alive and kicking, after The Return of the Jedi. That one I did not like :lol:
“I never counted Jackson's trilogy as adaptations, but rather movies that are based on the books.” On this we seem to agree. “ it was impossible to include everything in three movies. They had to change some parts so that certain scenes in the films wouldn't be understandable unless you had read the books “ I agree they would have to be very long films to accommodate everything. And changes would be necessary, that is the task of an adapter. But does for example making an entire 40 or so minutes of story up, without any basis in the source material what so ever (as they did in TT) fit this criteria? “If we were to just shoot the book page by page, scene by scene, it would just be a mess” Yes it would and it would also completely fail the definition of adaptation. His failure to spot this does not surprise me. "There are lots of things in these films, which are not in the books. And I think in most cases, they are improvements. Cause they are scenes that do have to be seen." I suspect he was thinking mainly about his own role and scenes such as the ents storming Isengard. And yes as an adaptation you can get away with that. But personally I believe that if you ditch large chunks of what the the author wrote in favour of large chunks of stuff you've made up then you fail as adaptation. Based on LotR I can live with, an adaptation of LotR it is not.
BOH is a fan film in the sense that it was funded and directed by someone who loved LOTR and PJs films. (Kate Madison). She is on a few other websites, and I know that she put everything behind what essentially started as a home made movie. Personally I have the feeling, that when she started this, it started as a fan film. But it gained so much momentum and support, it turned into a long and ambitious film. The quality is staggering- it would be hard to call it a fan film now. I wouldn't call it an adaptation, but I think that's already been agreed! (I watched the film yesterday, it's is pretty amazing considering PJ had £200 million, and Kate had £25,000, including £8000 of her own money!)
"I wouldn't call it an adaptation, but I think that's already been agreed!" Not by me!!! I wouldn't call PJ's efforts an adaptation and I think BoH comes closer.
[quote="pettytyrant101":1dt9vsgj]"I wouldn't call it an adaptation, but I think that's already been agreed!" Not by me!!! I wouldn't call PJ's efforts an adaptation and I think BoH comes closer.[/quote:1dt9vsgj] I think I will leave this thread alone, until I read the appendices of The Lord of the Rings. Being a bit of a Tolkien novice, I meant that I wouldn't call it an adaptation because it wasn't mentioned in the main text. Of course, I will have to some research now, and see what I think then. I think it's a great film- hopefully we can agree on that!
[quote="Ally":1o27alrw]I think it's a great film- hopefully we can agree on that![/quote:1o27alrw] Definitely <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Anyway, as an adaptation it really is much better than Jackson's films, can't argue about that. Or, we can argue whether it is an adaptation or not, but the fact that it stays much closer to the book than the trilogy is something we can agree on I think.
Couldn't find a thread for this movie, and in my opinion it deserves one! Here's a link to it, for those who haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H09xnhl ... re=channel What do you guys think about it? Apart from some (very) cheesy lines, and some almost copied from Jackson's movies, I quite like it! Very nice locations and settings, the acting is good (again, some cheesy stuff, but mostly good). The actors takes some getting used to though, after seeing Jackson's movies, but I don't think that is a problem. I quite like the Gandalf in this one <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Overall, I think it's great, better than most fan-made stuff out there! Keep in mind that this film had a budget of 5000$ though, so take that into consideration. Any thoughts?
There's a thread for this in other fantasy stories Ringdrotten, not surprised you missed it though its slipped down to page 2 or 3. Feel free to revive it.
It is brilliant. Seriously for the budget, the acting is excellent and some of the locations are stunning. It is very similar to PJs, but that's only because it was meant to be! (The film is a prequel to PJ). That's all I have to say, anything more I will contribute to the other thread.
[quote="pettytyrant101":1m2hh64q]There's a thread for this in other fantasy stories Ringdrotten, not surprised you missed it though its slipped down to page 2 or 3. Feel free to revive it.[/quote:1m2hh64q] I'll read through it and see if there's anything new to add <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
I liked TH4G better than it's sister-project [i:21za6pn7]Born of Hope[/i:21za6pn7]. Most people seem to think the opposite but I didn't really see what the hype was about. TH4G wasn't perfect but it was a great fan-film. 8-)
It's the director's conception of the backstory to Aragorn's birth: the marriage of Arathorn and Gilraen and the plight of the Northern Dunedain in general. It also features the director herself in a rather prominent acting role.
Hmm, Born of Hope? Haven't seen that one! I'll put some time aside tomorrow and see it, what's the plot in that one? (no spoilers though :lol: )
Hmm, should be interesting. Definitely worth a watch!
I liked it. More than I did PJ's films although it owes them a lot for direction style and looks, which like H4G is a deliberate choice. There's a thread for BoH here somewhere, I'd guess its in the 'other fantasy stories' bit too but I haven't looked to check.
[quote="Ringdrotten":uaov8345]I've only read a few, so I don't know much about them. One I remember though, Boba Fett was apparently alive and kicking, after The Return of the Jedi. That one I did not like :lol:[/quote:uaov8345] A good deal of the Star Wars "Expanded Universe", as it's known, is pretty dumb. :lol: It's one reason I'm quite glad that the Tolkien Estate keeps a close eye on the rights to Tolkien's creation. All the spin-offs have served to cheapen the Star Wars Universe, even though there are some good books.
I know the Star Wars books are supposed to tie-in with film canon, but other than Splinter of the Mind's Eye, I've pretty much ignored them. [b:1y6k0k3k]GB[/b:1y6k0k3k]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":1ezxz77h]I know the Star Wars books are supposed to tie-in with film canon, but other than Splinter of the Mind's Eye, I've pretty much ignored them.[/quote:1ezxz77h] The only one I can remember reading (aside from one or two of the novelizations, which I didn't really like) was [i:1ezxz77h]Death Star[/i:1ezxz77h]. It was pretty impressed by it, except for the scenes when they tried to use dialogue from the films and then intercut with characters' thoughts, which were pretty painful to read.