Lord of the Rings Racist!!!

SOmeone said something about the Book being published in the 50's. I know from reading other works of his, that the actual LotR series was started pre-WW I. He just didn't finish it and get it published till whenever.

As for the "Tolkien Estate being distanced....that particular family has been a bunch of S**Theads ever since J.R.R. Died witht he possible exception of Christopher.

[ 01-07-2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: The men of Carn Dum, were descended from Numenor. At some point the Northern Kingdom was divided in to three smaller Kingdoms. Carn Dum was one of them. Also I must point out that the men of Westerness were descended from the Men of the First Age that aided the Elves in their fight with Morgoth. The First Ruler of Numenor was in fact Elrond's brother. Not quite sure where you got that they were of a Mediterrean origin, because I'd tend to think they were more of a Northern European origin. Especially, since Tolkien was attempting to write a fictional ancient history for Britian.

The descriptions are from the book (I have it right in front of me). It's not me making up this stuff: it was Tolkien. If they are darker skinned (Tolkien's words) than the men of the North (and of Bree) p.165, lighter than the men of Harad who are described as swarthy p687 - then they must be something inbetween. The colour of a mediterranean race then, is a more adequate description than simple 'white' for the line of Kings.

Not sure where you get the idea that Tolkien was attemtping to write a fictional ancient history of Britain, since he himself denied any allegory in the foreword of later editions:
But I cordially disklike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Skunk, I think P.J. did a better job remaining true to a text than about any movie I have ever personnally seen -- quite hard considering the epic nature of the undertaking. I think your rant is silly considering how wonderful these movies are. I think you create standards you yourself could not live up to, nor could anyone. It's real easy to hate everything, ain't it?

I have never tried to take a Van Gogh painting and retouched it in an attempt to 'improve' it - I have yet to hear of anyone else doing the same and receiving critical acclaim for his 'achievements'.

Some things are beyond improvement and can not be translated into other media without loss. I have read Jean-Nicholas-Arthur Rimbaud poems in their original french and have yet to read an english translation that can do them any justice at all.

I have read all of Shakespeare's works in english and have never seen a french translation that did them justice. I have seen many performances of the same Shakespearean play - some good and many, many bad. I have never seen a modern adaptation of any worth (and believe me, I have have seen a fair number).

Certainly I create standards that I can not live up to. I am not an artist, I could never paint a rembrandt, and it would be foolish to try. Jackson is not a literary genius and it was foolish of him to re-interpret the work of one.

We live in a time when printed works are fast becoming a dirty word and a second citizen to digital imagry. In this way, people are learning to live in the imaginations of others, without learning to gain one for themselves. It's the easier path - but not neccessarily the better one.

Jackson's movies are the TV dinner's of the literary world. No-one with developed taste buds would go near one.


[ 01-07-2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

As I said, it's easy to hate everything.

They may be the TV dinners of the literary world, but they are the caviar of hollywood. That's the point -- they are good MOVIES.

Now, I for one LIKE to see the awesome graphics. The fact that we have digital capabilities to translate the immense battle at Minas Tirith onto the screen is truly impressive. I assure your, I never cheered reading the book like I did when Legolas single-handedly took out an Oiliphant and its haldir. Let me be candid here: while I wish some things from the book had been better portrayed in the film, I nevertheless will choose to watch the movie as opposed to read the book 9 times out of 10 because it is immensely more interesting. [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img]

And, why not put literary classics up on the Silver Screen if you're going to put up anything at all?

As for Van Gogh, that's different. It's the same work. No one is trying to write a new LOTR novel (well, seriously, anyway). I mean, look, we can put the printed book page-by-page up on the screen in a movie theatre, but I don't think it will be very popular.

Besides, we have GOT to find a way to get good literary works to the masses. Hundreds of thousands of people who would have never read the books in a million years LOVE the movies. It's some the best PR geekdom has ever known. All of the sudden, it's kinda cool to be one of "those people" who are into fantasy. And, it's not like I'm giving the wide world a "pass" on reading. I am just now finishing RotK, and it is in no small part due to the fact that I have to read upwards of 1000 pages a day for work on top of the several newspapers, magazines, etc. (incl. this forum) I read. The amount of time I have for fiction is precious indeed, and many days often relegated to only occurring in the bathroom or on the treadmill.

Look, in all seriousness, I'm going to suggest you visit your local hash bar or pub, imbibe large amounts of mind-altering chemicals of one form or another, and lighten up for at least a few hours.

[ 01-07-2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by sultan: i dont agree with the sentiments of the author of the article. rather, i'm pointing out a glaring blind spot: black and swarthy is used to represent evil and white to represent good. and the 30's is within a generation of the slave age. whatever cultural or personal context it was written in, it's being presented in TODAY's context. you're all so blinded by your passion for jackson's two-bit hack work as a director for a second-rate bunch of long-winded books that you'll bury your heads in the sand instead of trying to understand the author's concerns. i'll say it again: if it wasnt LOTR, none of you would be jumping to the defence - most of you wouldnt comment at all.

sultan - I can assure that I - for one - will always speak out against PC taken to a ridiculous extreme regardless of the story being presented or the media used. I dislike the very concept of Political Correctness just on general principle. It is a completely unnecessary tool created to keep certain groups from being "offended", when all that is really needed to accomplish the same goal is good manners. However, by creating the stigma of "offensive labels", the efforts of the PC-crowd automatically ensure that some groups or people will be offended by the misuse of terms or phrases, regardless of whether or not these remarks were made in error or innocence.

As for the points the author is trying to make, I strongly disagree. He is not trying to accomplish anything other than create more division and tension between people....but he provides a perfect example of what I mean by PC-efforts producing "offended groups" rather than eliminating them..because I'm sure there will be some people who read his words and say "Hey, he's right...I should be offended by this" when the fact is they probably wouldn't have even thought about it without his article.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Skunk - NO "movie adaptation" can ever be true to the book upon which it is based. Hollywood will always change certain parts or elements to fit into thier patented "formulas". And while that may be aggravating, it is done for a reason - to make money!!! Hollywood is in the business of producing movies that people will spend money to go see, and sometimes go see over and over. They have developed these "formulas" over the years because they generally work (in getting people into the theaters).

Having said that, I have to agree with Timber that Peter Jackson has done an excellent job of defying the standard Hollywood formula. Look at ANY other fantasy movie or series....NONE of them have come close to the LOTR series. Therefore - by Hollywood standards - fantasy movies are "bad business" because they generally only appeal to a small, select audience.

But LOTR surpasses anything that has been done in recent history from Hollywood. The most recent series that is even close would be the original Star Wars saga. Before that, you have to go back to Cecil B. Demille to find movies made on the scale and granduer of the LOTR series.

And - at the same time - Peter Jackson managed to be very true to the books..well, as much as possible anyway. He had to create a movie that would not only appeal to the masses, but would also be satisfactory to the legions of Tolkien fans that have loved the books for years and years. It is the same dilemma faced with the producers of the comic-book movies. NONE Of those were really very good (with the possible exception of the original Batman). They were all done in a very "campy" and comic-book style. That trend continued until 2000, when X-Men finally "broke the mold" and was the FIRST "comic book movie" that was also made to look like a "real movie" (thanks in no small part to Stan Lee who refused to allow Hollywood to short change the fans of the comics).

You're right that the movies aren't an authentic representation of the books, but one thing you're overlooking is the fact that the movie will actually inspire many of the viewers to go read the books - perhaps for the very first time. That is one positive effect Hollywood DOES have with it's "movie adaptations". Since the audience already knows the movie has changed some things from the book, they will often go out and read the book for themselves to see what the "real" story was supposed to be.

[John D Harris]

Sir T,
I want to thank you for one of the best laughs I've had in a long time. I find it utterly amazing that anyone would be so bothered by a work of fiction, as in NOT REAL. I honestly feel sorry for the author of the artical, he's let a Movie, a fictional movie control so much of his life that he has to comment on things that are not real.

Beam me up Scotty!

[Skunk]

Originally posted by XXXXX: As I said, it's easy to hate everything.

And even easier to love everything.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Now, I for one LIKE to see the awesome graphics. The fact that we have digital capabilities to translate the immense battle at Minas Tirith onto the screen is truly impressive. I assure your, I never cheered reading the book like I did when Legolas single-handedly took out an Oiliphant and its haldir.

That's because it never happened in the book:
"Duilin of Morthond and his brother were trampled to death when they assailed the mumakil, leading their bowmen to shoot out the eyes of the monsters..p882
Tolkien's mastery was to lead the events of the battle away from the search for glory of the individual charactors and focus on the individual moments of importance. ie the the death of Nazgul Chieften etc.. If anything, he makes the acts inglorious (probably because of his experiences in WWI trenches?)

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: And, why not put literary classics up on the Silver Screen if you're going to put up anything at all?

Shouldn't the question be, why put up literary classics at all if you inacapable of reproducing them faithfully?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As for Van Gogh, that's different. It's the same work. No one is trying to write a new LOTR novel (well, seriously, anyway). I mean, look, we can put the printed book page-by-page up on the screen in a movie theatre, but I don't think it will be very popular.

But that's what Jackson did. It's one thing to cut out parts of the novel - it's a completely different thing to do as he did, signicantly altering the plot and the charactors and then pretending that the movie was the Lord of the Rings. Why not be honest and give it a new title?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Besides, we have GOT to find a way to get good literary works to the masses. Hundreds of thousands of people who would have never read the books in a million years LOVE the movies.

But if the movie does not reflect the book, you are not getting good literary works tot eh masses. Hundreds of thousands of people who have never read the book will now have a false impression of it - Lloyd Hart being one of them.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Look, in all seriousness, I'm going to suggest you visit your local hash bar or pub, imbibe large amounts of mind-altering chemicals of one form or another, and lighten up for at least a few hours.

Sorry, but I don't like MacDonalds either...

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: You're right that the movies aren't an authentic representation of the books, but one thing you're overlooking is the fact that the movie will actually inspire many of the viewers to go read the books - perhaps for the very first time. That is one positive effect Hollywood DOES have with it's "movie adaptations". Since the audience already knows the movie has changed some things from the book, they will often go out and read the book for themselves to see what the "real" story was supposed to be.

I wish that was true but unfortunately Timber Loftis's opinion:
I nevertheless will choose to watch the movie as opposed to read the book 9 times out of 10 because it is immensely more interesting.
tends to be the more popular one these days.

Few movie viewers actually go out and buy the book to read - why should they when I've seen the movie (and/or) didn't like it....

Originally posted by Skunk: The descriptions are from the book (I have it right in front of me). It's not me making up this stuff: it was Tolkien. If they are darker skinned (Tolkien's words) than the men of the North (and of Bree) p.165, lighter than the men of Harad who are described as swarthy p687 - then they must be something inbetween. The colour of a mediterranean race then, is a more adequate description than simple 'white' for the line of Kings. Not sure where you get the idea that Tolkien was attemtping to write a fictional ancient history of Britain, since he himself denied any allegory in the foreword of later editions: But I cordially disklike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. Umm page numbers are quite useless unless we all have the exact same book. There are so many printings that the page numbers are not even close to consistent. I also have read that partial quote you posted that was made by Tolkien...by taking it out of the context of the rest of the comment he made, If left in context, you would have shown that THAT particular quote was in reference to someone who had asked about LotR being representative of WW II Europe. ie. Sauron = Hitler, Gondor = Britain and the West being You Know Who. In other writinge he does in deed admit that he was attempting first a linguistic achievement and secondly a Mythology for Britain. I have never tried to take a Van Gogh painting and retouched it in an attempt to 'improve' it - I have yet to hear of anyone else doing the same and receiving critical acclaim for his 'achievements'. Apples and Oranges paintings cannot be compared to novels and movies. Paintings portrey an image. Novels and Cinema relate stories and so are more apt to be translated back and forth. Some things are beyond improvement and can not be translated into other media without loss. I have read Jean-Nicholas-Arthur Rimbaud poems in their original french and have yet to read an english translation that can do them any justice at all. I have read all of Shakespeare's works in english and have never seen a french translation that did them justice. I have seen many performances of the same Shakespearean play - some good and many, many bad. I have never seen a modern adaptation of any worth (and believe me, I have have seen a fair number). Certainly I create standards that I can not live up to. I am not an artist, I could never paint a rembrandt, and it would be foolish to try. Jackson is not a literary genius and it was foolish of him to re-interpret the work of one. We live in a time when printed works are fast becoming a dirty word and a second citizen to digital imagry. In this way, people are learning to live in the imaginations of others, without learning to gain one for themselves. It's the easier path - but not neccessarily the better one. Jackson's movies are the TV dinner's of the literary world. No-one with developed taste buds would go near one. To quote you.."No one with developed sense of taste will go near one" so you speak for all people of refined taste do you? I think you may be ...overstating the value of your opinion with those last few paragraphs....

[Timber Loftis]

Ah, but I did note I'm reading the books once. And, I probably wouldn't have finished them had the movie not inspired me to start reading them again, so I could understand things that had to be left out or altered due to time or other considerations.

This is as absolutely close as ANY movie could come to portraying these books. I reiterate he took a few digressions from the hollywood norm, and I cheer him for those, including making a movie longer than most anyone likes to sit through, and topping it by actually remaining fairly faithful to Tolkein's "obligatory six endings to every tale" style. And, despite the fact that I wish things from the books had of been more faithfully translated into the movie, I nevertheless like the movie better than the book.

I don't know, it seems like you're being mad and ignoble just to be mad and ignoble. I do NOT believe you DID NOT like the movies. I believe you may have preferred the books, but I will not believe you did not think these were good movies.

[ 01-07-2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by sultan: just because tolkein wrote it 100 years ago doesnt mean he wasnt being racist in his representations. in fact, he lived in a time a lot closer to the Slavery Age than you or i, and could very well have harboured racist views that he, subtly or not, put into his books, and which jackson blithely repeated in the films. the point being we could not possibly know his (tolkein's) intention (or lack thereof) when it comes to the light/dark skinned imagery.

I understand your statement AND this could be right OR wrong ONLY because IMO racism did exist like it did in his lifetime. BUT I am willing to set aside any research to know what really went thru his mind and why he wrote this grand epic. Why? Because I know to truly stamp out racism, each of us must be aware racism can exist yet act not to further it. We can be aware, but we don't have to latch onto it and act it out. People can evolve. First individually, then as a group.