So then books beat out dramas and movies. For fantasy, at least. In a visual world such as ours, that's a strong stance to maintain.
Do you agree? Do you disagree? (It's totally fair to disagree. Tolkien was a genius in many ways. That doesn't mean he was right about everything.)
Tell us why you think Tolkien is right or wrong about fantasy in written form versus fantasy in visual form. Provide a concrete example. Don't fall back on "I just like movies better" or "books are the best." Such statements say nothing at all of substance. (We've had enough of that in this election year, don't you think?)
Your example need not be of a fantasy that exists in both written and visual form. Many fantasy books haven't been adapted for the screen, and many cinematic fantasies did not start as written stories. Whatever your example - movie, book, or both - give us some specific reasons for how it influences and supports your opinion of Tolkien's thesis.
Comments are due by MIDNIGHT, THIS FRIDAY 16 November
Movies are the perfect thing for a rainy day when you have nothing to do, but a book can be even better. I believe that Tolkien is right about fantasy in written form is better than fantasy in visual form. While movies are wonderful to watch with many people, books are the thing that truly opens the mind up to its true potential. Movies create one image for the characters and the setting in which the story takes place. Movies can only go so far with how things look because at some point they will look unrealistic, while books are completely opposite. If the book is not detailed and specific, the story can be considered incomplete. The setting may not be described well enough to envision how it truly looks, but if there is enough detail, it is amazing.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading a book with a lot of detail, the reader can create the characters and setting in their mind and create an entirely new world. However, and this is the most amazing thing about reading, one reader can picture and experience an entirely different story than another reader. While some may argue that they can happen in a movie, the characters remain the same and look the same as does the world that it is created within. We have experienced this within our class, when one person is content with the ending while another person does not feel that there was closure. A book can describe things to where it seems real, but in a movie we know exactly what is real and what is not real. For example, when reading the book Witches, the reader feels as though witches truly exist and the appearance of the witch is quite frightening (no toes, wide nostrils, claws as fingernails, etc…) while in a movie it would be played by a woman of whom we know has toes and cannot be considered truly believable. In “On Fairy Stories,” Tolkien says that what is presented in a fantasy needs to be presented as though it is true; I believe that this can only be done in a book and not in a movie. Our mind can only extend so far once we have seen one version, but if we have not seen and we are only left to imagine our mind can extend and imagine infinitely far.
I agree with Tolkien completely when he said that in fantasy written form is better than visual form. I’m not saying I don’t enjoy a good fantasy movie, but being able to read something and think up your own visuals from the text allows so much more creativity and imagination. One book that really brings this to life is the Twilight Series; in my opinion these movies are a horrible adaptation of the books. Before the movies came out the characters looked totally different and I was able to imagine everything just as I wanted, but after the movie came out I had no option while re reading the books but to see everything as portrayed in the movies, and this in some ways ruined the experience for me. When making movies based off of such books, the special effects needed to make the details come to life can cause mockery on the movie because they come off as fake and unrealistic. When you watch a movie you are seeing someone else’s interpretation of the book, and with everyone being so different this causes many differences. Everyone imagines things in books different and not exactly like others so being able to see things in your head is a much better way than just seeing someone else’s interpretation of the story being told. Another aspect that makes books better than movies is the fact that in books the author is capable as making the book as long as possible to add all the details and information wanted and needed to make the story wonderful, where as if watching a movie, this is not able to be done. I know after about two hours I can’t sit any longer watching a movie, but I can read a good book for hours on end. If the movie is based off a book then more than likely details you find important and are looking forward to see portrayed on screen are bound to be left out. There are many times I’ve been excited to go see a movie but just get disappointed because all of the details left out, or a completely different ending is put into place. In my opinion reading a book is much better than watching a movie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tolkien that fantasy should be left to the imagination. I mean even the producers and creators of movies and dramas have to imagine what the sub-created world would be like. I do know that we cannot just make up stuff we have never seen before; we always have to have something to compare it too. But that does not mean when imagining a different world, everyone’s is going to be the same. I know for me I never read the Harry Potter books and just saw all of the movies. I loved the movies and enjoyed them very much, but I have had a lot of people say to me that it was not anything what they thought of when reading the books, or that is not how they would have portrayed some of the characters to be. Now if I were to read the books, I would only see what I saw in the movie; I would not be able to think on my own how it should look or create a new image of the scenes. This seems to happen in most cases when people love the movie so they decide to read the book. Well when they read the book they cannot create their own sub-created world to escape into; they can only imagine what was already created for them on the big screen. When I was reading Tombs of Atuan, I enjoyed thinking of how Arha was going in the tunnels every night and how the “place” looked with just women around all the time. I’m sure if a movie was made, it would not look anything like what I had thought of. I agree with Tolkien that the fantasy should be left to the mind because that is my way of escaping reality. I think of the book/place I want to be in at that time and that is what I imagine while I read.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTolkien was correct concerning the fact that fantasy is better experienced through text and our own imaginations. However, according to Appendix E in On Fairy Stories, Tolkien said he was not referring to the “cinematograph.” I don’t believe that Tolkien was against fantasy movies being produced altogether or else he wouldn’t have sold the rights to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings in 1968 to United Artists (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tolkien-sold-film-rights-for-10000-6335205.html).
ReplyDeleteTolkien opposes Faerie stories presented as drama because of the technical limitations which compromises the Secondary World. The stage cannot prove to be a successful sub-creator with so many limitations (page 16,17, On Fairy Stories) unless real magic could be involved making the Secondary World the Primary World (page 12, 17, On Faerie Stories). Tolkien may have seen the potential to overcome this limitation in film.
With this background in mind, I think that fantasy can be enjoyed both visually and imaginary. In my personal opinion, the fantasy movie that has achieved the greatest level of sub-creation would be none other than the adaptation of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. I believe fantasy is still underdeveloped in cinema. Many of the current fantasy movies has fallen prey to either camp or have simply become unconvincing due to poor production values, technical limitations as Tolkien warned, or simply age. I believe that is part of the reason why Peter Jackson is raising the ante on The Hobbit adaptation by providing six different formats and doubling the frame rate from the standard 24 frames per second to 48 frames per second (http://www.movies.com/movie-news/the-hobbit-countdown-new-technology-japanese-trailer-soundtrack-streaming/10287). Visual fantasy does not age well with current technology while fantasy that is read can be enjoyed for countless generations.
In conclusion, Tolkien was aware of the problems in visual fantasy in On Fairy Stories. Despite the risk of failure, he still allowed an adaptation of his work to be created, although whether the final product overcomes his expectations will never be known. I, like Tolkien, believe fantasy is better when left to the reader but that does not mean we should stop trying.
I disagree with Tolkien and his argument that fantasy is best in text than in movies. I feel that even though books often give much more descriptions that can be “sensed” in a way that movies cannot provide, the movies are still able to provide detail and description in a visual sense to help the audience understand the environment. Recently, I was making a lesson plan for teaching “Sensory Language” to 4th graders and one of the main ideas is how sensory language in books are able to touch all the five senses: hear, sight, feel, smell, taste. I feel like most movies are very strong in the visual sense and auditory sense, but that’s about it. However, the visual sense that movies provides are just as enriching as reading descriptive writing/text in a book. An example is the “Chronicle’s of Narnia” series. All of C.S Lewis’s books for the “Chronicles” were all very good. I have watched all the movies too, and in my opinion, I think the movies, were just as great as the books. This is because the world that was created was very believable in the movie. I thought in the movie, it was more believable because I could actually see it and not just read the description about the surroundings. The secondary world that Lewis created was even better when viewed because I was able to actually see the surroundings that were described. Also, in movies, audiences are able to actually see the descriptions when it comes to characters, objects, or surroundings. I think that is what makes fantasy interesting when it is displayed visually. Even though sometimes books might be better suited with fantasy because it allows readers to imagine their own created world, I still believe that it is not entirely impossible or horrible to have it viewed.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Tolkien’s stance that a fantasy subcreation should only be read and not viewed. You can fully experience a subcreated world in both ways it really just depends on how the reader or viewer is wired. Some people can use their imagination to visualize the created world that is described in a book. Even those that lack the same amount of imagination can get to this point due to a writer’s talent of describing a scene. There could be a problem here as well though if a reader gets bored easily when there are pages after pages of descriptions. These people are probably more visual learners and can better understand things if they see them. For them, the movies would be the only enjoyable and useful way for them to take in the fantasy. I myself can see both sides because sometimes I have a very good imagination and can visualize the words I am reading, while other times I am the one that drudges through the pages of description reluctantly. Because the level of imagination someone has varies from person to person, I believe fantasy belongs both in the pages of books and on screen. This will help more people be able to enjoy these subcreated worlds.
ReplyDeleteOne example of how a fantasy has successfully appealed to readers, with high imaginations, and moviegoers, with less strong imaginations, both, besides The Lord of the Rings, is The Chronicles of Narnia series. These books were written primarily for children and young adults, who are notorious for having good imaginations and being able to visualize things much easier than adults. Three of the books have now been turned into movies and, in my opinion, the fantasy element was not lost. The movies still worked hard to create this subcreated world on screen. Yes, the end result isn’t what everyone who read the book imagined while reading, but no two people imagine the same thing. This could be an argument for Tolkien’s point on why movies shouldn’t be made about fantasy novels, but there is also something to say for bringing a fantasy to life on screen so that it really feels real. You also have to again think about the people who don’t have high imaginative spirits and couldn’t visualize the world while reading. For them, the movie is the perfect substitute.
Whether it is through written words or visual scenes, fantasy is a powerful and captivating genre that should be open to people of all degrees of imagination. This will allow more people to experience this subcreated form and this increased exposure is why I disagree with Tolkien’s opinion that fantasy should stay only in books. The Chronicles of Narnia successfully created a world outside our own through books and movies and I believe, if possible, more fantasies should follow suit.
I agree with Tolkien. I have never seen a movie that sufficiently depicts a book’s Secondary World. I think the reason it is so hard is because the movies have to please such a large audience. If thousands of people are reading a book and they are all imagining it in their own way in their head, then there is no way that a movie will be able to cater to all of their wishes. One person might be really happy with the way a movie does a certain book scene because it is how they pictured it, while someone else might have thought it should look completely different. The greatest thing about reading, and especially about reading fantasy, is that everyone can picture things their own way – it’s all up to interpretation of the individual reader. A movie definitely takes that freedom away and has the media choose how you should interpret it.
ReplyDeleteFor me it is the discrepancy of the characters that bothers me the most. When I read a book, I have such set pictures of how I think the characters should look and act, and I get attached to them being that way. My favorite books are The Books of Pellinor. I do not think that I would even want to see them made into movies. Even when they released the new covers for the books, I was really upset to see how they showed the main male character. He is one of my favorite characters ever to exist in literature, and he looked nothing like how I had imagined him. I took the cover off and pretended like I had never seen it. Even if that what the author intended him to look like, that wasn’t what my imagination wanted him to look like. If this was made into a movie, I do not think they would display the characters to my standards of what I think they should be, and the whole thing would be ruined. There are also a lot of magic and mystical places/creatures in these books, and seeing what movies have done to some of these things in other movies, I am agreeing with Tolkien in saying that I would prefer them left untouched.
I believe Tolkien was correct in saying that a Secondary World should be experienced as a text, however, I am not completely against fantasy movies. I believe that books offer the reader to imagine what they read however they would like, while movies put a definitive look on something. The problem with movies is that after a person sees them there is no way to imagine a certain person or place the way they did originally. Many people don’t like fantasy movies made after books because they don’t follow through with how something was described in the book or it’s different than what people expected. Also, many times books leave out many important details or scenes that occur in books simply because of the time limit. Though I absolutely love the Harry Potter books and movies, the movies did leave out quite a lot of information which was disappointing. Personally, when I’m watching a movie I tend to forget about what exactly happened in the book and enjoy it as a separate entity. Nevertheless, most people can’t or don’t do this though and will end up being disappointed. I think individuals should read any fantasy before it comes out as a movie but as I said, I’m not against the idea. I respect Tolkien’s view though because I understand where he is coming from. Imagination is a very important thing to have, and I believe movies tend to steal that from the story and the readers.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Tolkien’s ideas of why fantasy should be read, not viewed. One particular example would be if I were to see a movie of Out of the Silent Planet. The story written by C.S Lewis had me visualizing the world of Malacandra and the creatures that inhabit it. My image of the Sorns, Hross, and Pfifltriggi would be ruined if I were to see it up on screen. Since I am not making the movie, someone else’s opinion of how the details are described in the book will be put up on screen. The amazing thing about fantasy in books is how there is an infinite amount of different ways stories can be visualized, but a movie is produced by one person and it is hard to visualize that movie in another way after it is viewed with our own eyes.
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree with Tolkien’s ideas, it doesn’t mean I enjoy reading fantasy more than watching the same fantasy as a movie. Sometimes I just want to see fantasy with my eyes instead of having to imagine with my mind what it would look like while reading. Since I’m not one to read much unless it is required I would much rather watch something like the Harry Potters series instead of reading them. I don’t really care about all the details that are missed because a movie cannot be as long as a book. Since an accurate version of characters and descriptions are seen in the movies, I don’t have to spend extra hours reading the story if most of it is created as a visual world in a movie. Even though I may enjoy reading the Harry Potter series, I am too lazy to read and enjoy relaxing on a couch watching the fantasy with friends without having to imagine my own world.
I agree with Tolkien's theory that the secondary world is best experienced as text. In today's world most highly acclaimed novels end up on the big screen. I feel this takes away from the text itself and from the author. The author has created this incredible secondary world and by portraying it to the big screen it looses some of the magic the author had created. A specific example is the book The Time Traveler's Wife which was adapted to film. The pure magic of his condition on the big screen seems silly. Although the produced did not mean for it to look this way. It is just hard to show someone disappearing and "time traveling" to a different place visually without it looking comical. However in the book the secondary world felt like it could be possible. Besides the "time traveling" scenes there are other key elements in created in the book that are not created or shown the same in a movie. In the book we read Clair's point, we get to experience everything with her and also through his perspective. Whereas in the movie you just see their reactions which fall short of what is actually going on. I am not saying that all movies that are based off of books are unworthy. I even enjoy watching The TIme Traveler's Wife as long as I stop comparing it to the book. Because they are two different things, although one may be based off the other, they are not the same. A book is created by an author and experienced and pictured by you, along with some guidance. Whereas a movie is created for you and you just get to experience it through watching only.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'd rather read than watch movies or TV. A movie can only entertain me for a few hours, where a book can keep me interested in it for several days, or even weeks if it's a part of a series. More often than not, I feel like the movies aren't well done and butcher the stories they're made to represent. One such example is the Eragon movie. This is a 500 page book they tried to cram into an hour and a half movie and cut out or changed some of the most important scenes and details. Places completely changed. Farthen Dur, which is a dwarven stronghold inside the center of a gigantic mountain centered around a gigantic crystal, is changed to a shabby village in a valley with no dwarves even mentioned by name there. This is one of the movie/book pairings that share only a basic concept and a name. A similar pairing is the Stormbreaker movie, based off the first Alex Rider adventure.
ReplyDeleteWith the visual technology we have today, we can have some amazing views on screen, but in my mind they're nothing compared to going into a story world through words and experiencing things how you interpret them. There's nothing better than seeing a whole new world inside of your head whenever you want than seeing how somebody else thought it should look.
I disagree with Tolkien. For fantasy, books are not a superior medium compared to movies. I think that they are just simply different, and one of not better than the other. When you watch a movie, you experience both the auditory and visual effects to tell a story. Through a book, you experience everything through the mind. For example, if I were to read too you the scene where the boat crashes into the glacier in Titanic, I would explain both what it looked like, and what it felt like, which could include the sounds it makes. It entirely up to the writer. However, if it were to be shown in a movie, you could experience not only the glacier, but also the sounds vibrating your chair. I think that the difference between first-hand experience and imaged experience makes the two simply to different to make a judgment between which is better. Sure, you could prefer one to another, but fantasy can both be read and viewed.
ReplyDeleteAnother point I would like to make is that sometimes in books, especially in some subgenres of fantasy, worlds can become a little too complex. For example, some people find The Lord of the Rings to have a little too much detail, to be too big of scope. So would this not mean that, for these people, a movie would be a better medium for such a story? Surely if the visuals and sounds are already presented to you, it would be easier to comprehend the story? I think that is a valid point - but I also think the opposite is true; that if you enjoy a long world like The Lord of the Rings, then by all means, do so! Not everyone can though, and that means that movies can be a viable option when experiencing fantasy.
I believe that Tolkien would be rolling in his grave if he knew that his beloved book “the Hobbit” was being made into a major motion picture. But is this so bad? It’s my feeling that so much has changed with the filming/creating of fantasy films. I can see where Tolkien was coming from because movies in his day would absolutely slaughter any magical mental creation that the reader is able to imagine. In today’s world with the aid of computer graphics and technology we are able to much better create these fantasy worlds that Tolkien was able to craft out of his writing. That being said I still find myself caught in the middle of this argument because even with our better graphics Tolkien’s still has a point about movies taking away from the magical world that the reader is able to create in their own minds.
ReplyDeleteWhile growing up one of my favorite fantasy books was the Inheritance series which begins with the book Eragon. This book was later made into a major motion picture which completely slaughters many of the great things that make Eragon a great book. It was not really the cheesy props and bad actors that made me so upset but how the presented the landscape and how the characters look. In my mind I had created for myself a awesome world where many things were possible but in the film it just came across cheep and phony. So in the end I feel that not all movies made from books are bad but if film makers really want to go this route then need to make sure that they do every perfectly and not mess up an already great thing
I have read enough books in the past to understand what Tolkien is trying to suggest in his theory but I disagree with Tolkien on the terms that he spoke solely from one perspective that he generalized for all people. I say what Tolkien considers as good only by written fantasy is only a view seen by one group of people. I on the other hand would consider myself part of another group.
ReplyDeleteThough I have rather creative imagination and can dream up many things based off my wandering thoughts I tend to have difficulties in fully imagining a Faerie landscape based on written form. Let’s consider The Hobbit for instance. I have been able to follow the plot pretty decently so far and know general locations of these places that the mini adventures occur. Mountainous slopes, caverns and caves, open fields, lakes, rivers and forests are among the most general of landscapes in The Hobbit of the secondary world. I view all these things in a different world from our primary world but that’s about the extent of the imagination because all the trees and other materials are landscape elements from our primary world. So in a way I use very little imagination to drive my ideas of the landscape in which the characters are in.
At times of descriptions in books as well I tend to lose interest of the landscape and only pick up on the overall idea that they’re in a forest or a dark cave and the little details tend to get overlooked as I will put more emphasis on remembering details of the characters and their actions than an over description of a river. This too relates to my learning capabilities as well. I consider myself a highly visual learner and can retain much more information by use of images and film as it may be. There is hardly any good way to explain to you how I have many of my favorite movies memorized by heart but could remember very little from books I have read from anything more than the plot line. I actually relate my life more often to that of movies than anything else. Even in reading The Hobbit as soon as Tolkien mentioned the home inside the mountain of the dwarves I immediately thought back to The Lord of the Rings movies and how that had been so elegantly displayed on the screen and how much I would like to actually see that. I don’t think that without that initial knowledge from the movie that I would even had imagined the true potential and possibility behind how grand the home of the dwarves could be. As everything in The Hobbit was describe I could only see flickers of what they looked like in my head but when Tolkien began describing the dwarf homes in the mountains my mind thought intently on the visuals from The Lord of the Rings film.
This gets me to the point that perhaps that both forms of media are actually to give two different forms of pleasure. Written fantasy I can see as possibly giving the reader a chance to be more involved with the characters and get to know them more on a personal level and to experience the adventure with them. For a visual form of fantasy though I think the sole purpose is to highlight the visual interests behind the book to perhaps display to people like me what the landscape really looked like. Because when I read I tend to sacrifice the description of some of the fantasies to be more drawn into the character struggle along the journey.
So Tolkien’s theory wasn’t completely wrong for everyone but it is for some others. I agree that getting to know the characters and really feeling and understanding what they are going through is most certainly better achieved in the written form. But for the few of us out there we must rely on some visual fantasy to fully achieve enjoyment of that fantasy. I would have to say that visual and written fantasy must go hand in hand for me to enjoy every aspect of a story. Without one of these concepts then the part of the enjoyment of the adventure would be missing.
I tend to side with Tolkien in thinking that a secondary world is probably best experienced as text. My stance in this matter is based on my personal experiences in reading and watching the same story. For example, I greatly enjoyed reading the Harry Potter books and experiencing the magical secondary world it described without the use of video. I cannot say the same regarding the movies as the books were much more detailed and left nothing out. The same can be said with my experience with the book and movie Timeline. I believe that books are a better medium for enjoying a secondary world for this reason. More detail and more inside information about a secondary world can be found on the pages of a book that cannot be found on a screen. Furthermore, more time is devoted by the reader to really and truly get to know the new world as well which is limited to, at most, three or four hours in a movie. While some movies are great ways to escape and experience a new world, books are an entirely different animal through which one can more genuinely experience a secondary world and subsequent adventure.
ReplyDeleteTolkien argues that fantasy subcreations are best experienced as a text. I ride the fence on this topic. Movie’s and books have their own individual sets of pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteBooks have several pros and one major con that I can think of. Books allow for more detail and plot development. Additionally, the reader can read these details and imagine their own story. For example, a reader can imagine a fearsome dragon in the most horrible way they can possibly think of. Or they can imagine a man described as ‘handsome’ according to their own opinion of attractiveness. Because of this, readers can get very attached and personally invested in the text. The only major con of fantasy stories in textual format is that they can take a very long time to read. Reading a book can be a large time commitment.
Movies have pros and cons unique to books. Movies attract those who may not have the time/determination to read a whole book. They allow a viewer to experience the incredible story in 2.5 hours or less! Because of the shortened time, movies often leave out details that can be found in the textual version of a book. Movies immerse you in the story in a visual and verbal manner, versus in a simply imaginary way.
An example of a story that was excellent in text and movie forms are the Harry Potter Movies. I read the books and loved them, and watched the movies and loved them in a different way. The books were full of detail about the fantastic wizzarding world. The movies were thrilling and full of intense action, though they did not contain every plot detail from the book. Both movie and book were fully engaging.
I both agree and disagree with Tolkein. Literary form is definitely the best form of any story. Even if the movie is an impeccable recreation of the story line, the book is always better and richer than what ends up on screen. This is because in literature, you are not an outsider looking in. Instead you are in the mind of a character, experiencing their thoughts, fears, and emotions as if you were there. In this case, you build a relationship with the main character and a connection to the secondary world. So much of what makes a person who they are is internal and movies lack the ability to communicate those inner emotions and leave you without that special connection.
ReplyDeleteThe choice of words by an author also has a tremendous impact on the story. In class, (I cannot remember if you said Tolkein or Lewis said this) we talked about how, when writing, you must say what you mean, nothing more and nothing less. This adds an additional layer of substance to a story that cannot be achieved on screen. So selective are the choices of words in a book that they are able to create themes, symbolism, and deeper meanings to many aspects of a book. These “hidden messages” so to speak are what brings the story full circle. This is something that can only happen in a novel because the screen lacks the ability to convert the literary connection to a form that can be viewed.
However, I think that in some cases, beholding a secondary world can fill in the gaps that your imagination might miss. I feel that beholding a fantasy world is rewarding in ways than beholding a normal novel with no secondary world. For example, in the Hobbit, there are a copious number of dwarves. Since there are so many, and the descriptions of them are brief, I end up with a blur of an image that is about the same for each dwarf depending on how much they have been described. Beholding a secondary world would allow me to view each dwarf as their own person with their own personalities. It helps me build connections and experience part of the story that extends beyond the main character.
I believe that both forms of media have their advantages. Tolkien makes a very strong case that fantasy has a certain magic to it when the reader is allowed to imagine the world in their own special way. However, I feel like the technology that goes into film now makes it a very strong form of expression. Tolkien made a truly magical world when he wrote about middle earth. Peter Jackson made that world come to life for the masses when he made the Lord of the Rings movies.
ReplyDeleteFantasy in written form is very special. It allows the reader to get lost in a magical world and imagine fantastic things. It also allows much more insight into characters thoughts and feelings than a film does. Tolkien felt strongly that books were superior in the case of fantasy stories. However, Tolkien was a brilliant mind with a fantastic imagination. I don't believe everybody can picture a world as fantastic as Tolkien did. A story may be more or less enjoyable to a person depending on the readers imagination as well as the authors.
In film the product comes from the filmmakers imagination. It allows everybody to view the story in the same way. I believe that film has brought fantastic stories to millions of people who may have not otherwise ever experienced them. It also in the case of Tolkien has allowed countless people to be inspired to read his books because of the films. A creation like middle earth should be experienced by as many people as possible. Whether the book makes a person want to see the movie or vice versa, I believe they are mutually beneficial.
I think that in some cases, visual adaptions of texts are appropriate and can represent the story being told. However, I think these cases are rare. Hollywood today changes stories to better fit the screen and this changes the plot and meaning. For example, I thought the first couple Harry Potter books were well adapted to the books. Sure, they didn’t include every scene and detail, but they did a pretty good job of translating the words into pictures. However, in the last harry Potter movie, the director chose to include images that were not mentioned in the book, like the weird creature that was supposed to represent Voldemort during Harry’s talk with Dumbledore while he was ‘dead’. The Eragon series has also done a pretty good job of turning the text into images, although they had to cut some of the action because of the material’s density. Everything could not be fit into the needed time fit and the bits of the story had to be cut. One of the things I personally dislike about movies is that you are unable to really get into the head of the main character. In the books, you can read about their blood rushing and muscles straining and the adrenaline and feel what the charter feels, as opposed to just seeing the character running; a recent example of this is in the Hunger Games. Viewers could watch Katniss run around and then see her mourn the death of another character, but you don’t get the same emotional reaction given in the book. There is something lacking in the movie. Images definitely take that feeling away from the reader. There also certain scenes, like the rape scene in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, that are very different experiences in the reading and seeing it acted out. For example, to see something like that acted out on the screen bothers me to the point of physical discomfort. Same thing with scary movies, but I can read a book like Fifty Shades of Grey with no such issues. While I would say that books are richer, it doesn’t necessarily make movies bad stories. Because of certain adaptions that have to be made, they almost turn out to be different stories altogether. Some people would never have picked up a Harry Potter book if they hadn’t been inspired by what they saw on the silver screen. Since we do live in such a visual world today, I think that movies, especially in the last decade or so, have made great strides to give readers the same experience as books. It really depends on the experience the user wants to receive. It’s just like having different learning styles; just because I would rather see an experiment performed before I have to do it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong for my lab partner to prefer having written instructions. Personally, books are what do it for me in terms of fantasy, but that doesn’t mean that a movie buff is ‘wrong’ or that I don’t enjoy movies that were once books.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Tolkien that a Secondary World is better when read than it is when viewed. It's incredible how elaborate movies are these days, but we all interpret things in our own way and nothing is ever quite as good as it is imagined. There's a reason books have a tendency to outlast movies and dramas. They stay around because we can read them the way we want to. There will never be better actors or better effects than the ones we create ourselves. We can't be disappointed by what we make up, because it's always fluid and we can change what we see to fit what we want.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest crutch of drama and movie fantasy is that it is limited to visual and auditory senses. Through the written form, you can experience so much more. You can imagine the smells, the tastes, the temperature, the emotions of the characters. You can feel the things that they feel, and touch the things they touch. It's like what Ransom said in Out of the Silent Planet, how the things he remembers most distinctly are the smells and the minor details. Those are just things you can't express on a screen. They're also the things that make the story more plausible, and you're able to put yourself in the character's shoes and actually imagine being there with them, wherever they happen to be. Regardless of how impressive special effects have become and will continue to become, it still feels like you're only watching the story, and not experiencing it as you do with books.
Fantasy in written form “beats out” fantasy in visual form. Yes, it has been said that Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series became a series of superior films because of the scenery, but even though the movies brought the books alive, they must leave out many elements such as smell and taste, and unrealistic scenes that are close to impossible to depict in the movies. Using textual descriptions has the advantage of pulling the reader in with all senses and making the book come to life. It gives the reader room to use their imagination. For example, in The Hobbit, there’s the quote “Off they went, not waiting for trays, balancing columns of plates, each with a bottle on the top, with one hand, while the hobbit ran after them almost squeaking with fright…”(p. 15) If this was depicted in the movies, we would lose the element of creativity. Also, if the movies depict descriptions like these differently than we imagine, it can cause disappoint our expectations. In one scene in particular, the description states, “They went out again and soon came back carrying torches in their mouths, which they lit at the fire and stuck in low brackets on the pillars of the hall about the central hearth. “(p. 137) Here, I can picture it in my mind as being a scene that is outrageously funny, but if it is depicted in the movies, the scene might end up looking animated. This would take away from the experience of the film.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Tolkien's theory. Reading a book and being able to describe each and every scene in a detailed manner really helps to pull you into the story. It is great to know what the characters are thinking or how they are feeling inside which is something that can't be seen by just looking at the person. For example, I absolutely loved the Hunger Games series, one of the main reasons why the books were such page turners for me was because I was wrapped up in the emotion and the mental things that Katniss was going through. I liked the first movie and I think they did a great job of sticking to the plot of the book but it was lacking the emotional side.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tolkien that fantasy is best experienced as text. It is absolutely not right for filmmakers to adapt an author’s work into a film in a way that is not approved of by the creator of the story material, unless the author has been duly paid and has legally given the filmmakers creative license with his or her work. (This still doesn’t make it ethically right in my opinion, but authors are entitled the free will to do with their property, tangible or intangible, whatever they please.) I feel that authors should have a very large say in how movies based on their works are produced. As a fantasy author, how do you surrender a world you created over to someone else to control how your work is perceived by millions of people? I wouldn’t want to see a movie based on a book I loved if I knew the author didn’t approve of it—it would seem false, no matter how “good” the movie was.
ReplyDeleteIt is true, however, that filmmakers can sometimes spin a story that was originally a book into a better tale than the written version. I have only seen this prove true for one story though—Forrest Gump, which is not a fantasy. The movie has been my all-time favorite for years and I never knew it was originally a book until I randomly ran across it in the library this past summer. Unfortunately the book in comparison with the movie was surprisingly disappointing, because Forrest and Jenny do not end up together and they do not have a son. The simple, good-hearted personality that makes Forrest so endearing and memorable in the movie is not present in the book and the movie builds a much stronger emotional connection to the characters than the book does, because the book is presented as a comedy instead of the epic serendipity story of someone’s life.
Faerie stories are closely connected with magic, and magic is a thing, that, to be true, must be felt. If a movie can effectively communicate the feeling of magic and wonder that a fantasy story should inspire, who am I to say that it shouldn’t be allowed? Generally though, I think it’s best if filmmakers stick to movies and come up with their own ideas, and simply let books stay books. A conversion between the two is almost always going to create discord among fans, and that just sullies the experience. Why not let it remain untainted? There are no limits to what the human mind can imagine and envision, and modern technology can create truly amazing visual effects, so what is it saying if films are continually “borrowing” from books? It’s either a subtle statement that filmmakers aren’t coming up with original ideas, or other factors are playing into this. Recently, the trend seems to be adapting every popular comic book ever made into a movie—Spider-Man, Batman, X-Men, Captain America….and these films have proved to be huge blockbusters and have been largely accepted by the public. I am 100% in favor of these films if they make both the story creators and fans happy and deepen their love for the stories, but on a cynical note, I feel like the bottom line is a plot to make money. It seems like filmmakers are looking for “insurance”—when they make a movie based on a well-loved book, they have an almost guaranteed base of people who they can be sure will pay to see the movie just to see “how they did it”. Overall it just seems that the desire to make money is superceding the desire to create new, original art in filmmaking, and I hope this trend reverses soon. You’ll find me in line at the ticket office much more often when it does! :)
Sometimes words aren’t enough to show us what something looks like or how the battle goes. Sometimes the words take too long. As the saying goes “a picture is worth a thousand words.” One of my favorite books as a child was The Polar Express. I wanted to be that kid that got on that train to see Santa. Yes there are pictures in the book but seeing it on the IMAX screen in 3D was unreal. I loved it. The dancing that I could never see in the book. The hot chocolate moving around. Getting on top of the train and could see how the wind blew in his face. Then fly down on skis to get to the front. The roller-coaster ride down the icy tracks. Plus all the other things in the movie that I couldn’t see in the book. I watch that movie every year at Christmas. I am not saying that all books should be turned into move *Twilight* … but I believe that if a child reads about dragons but doesn’t see a picture he or she might not get what it looks like.
ReplyDelete-Paige Landis
In this manner, I agree with Tolkien. Fantasy books are best left as words on pages instead of trying to play out a fantasy scene on the screen. In fantasy there are lands created that only an imagination could behold. For example, Narnia is a land created by C.S. Lewis that is far away from the reality of today and although it is made with natural substances like trees and cliffs, there are aspects of Narnia that cannot properly be carried out on the screen. Trying to implement these many fantastic scenes leads to cheesy movie parts because they do not look right to the audience's visual eye. These same scenes can be magical and sacred in a book because the reader imagines the scene perfectly for their fantasy world. To stay with the Narnia example, while I was reading the books a talking lion was majestic, powerful, and gentle all in one being. One the screen it was hard to focus on what the lion was saying or doing because it was visually played out in a way that seemed unreal. Fantasy on the screen does not allow the audience to fully enter into the created world because the screen cannot make it real to the audience, it always has an appearance of fake. A book, however, lets the reader make the perfect believable world in their imagination and therefore allows the reader to fully believe this world they have created in their minds.
ReplyDelete• I tend to agree with Tolkien’s statement that a fantasy subcreation is best experienced as text. Though I love going to movies and seeing how the filmmakers brought the book to life, I think the best part of reading is picturing the scene in your own way. Everyone will most likely have a similar idea of what a particular character looks like based on descriptions in the book, but people might picture the character just a little bit different. This is where trouble arises when books are adapted to movies. People will look at an actor cast in a role and say “Oh, he/she isn’t right for the part! They should have cast so-and-so instead!” But in books, we can make the story our own and really connect to it on a more personal level as we can picture it the way we want to picture it. No matter how true the screenwriters stay to the book, never will there be a time that everyone is satisfied with the screen adaptation. People will always have their own ideas as to how a particular set should look or what lines are important enough to be added in. It is of course fun to see the books come to life on the screen, but I think some fantasy books should stay just that—books.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tolkien’s thesis completely. Movies are great, do not get me wrong, but it is a completely different experience than actually reading a book. In a way, they almost can’t even be prepared. For example, when I was younger, my dad would read me The Chronicles of Narnia, and The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe stuck out to me. By listening to my dad read me about a land that is not real for me to visually see, the possibilities of what that land was like were endless. I can still remember imagining what it was like when Lucy first arrived in Narnia with all of the snow and the glow of the light post. It made me think of times that I had played in the snow when I was younger, and it made me imagine how I would feel if I was her.
ReplyDeleteThe true magic of a secondary world is all the possibilities that it holds for you, the audience. That is why reading it is so fulfilling, there are no boundaries, the reader gets to imagine what the world is like for themselves. My idea of what Narnia looks like is completely different, or even just a little different, than someone else’s idea of Narnia. When we see the secondary world before imagining it, we lose that ability to create it in our mind. We lose little details that make the stories so special to us. That is why I find myself getting more attached to characters in books rather than in movies. I created the character in my head, and I know them very well, because I have read in detail what they are feeling by getting a glimpse of what is going on in their head. I agree with Tolkien because to be able to create your own version of a secondary world is much more fulfilling and special than just seeing a secondary world.
I agree with Tolkien's statement that fantasy is better when written in a text. When reading a story you are able to imagine the world in any way you want. The world is not made for you. You can let your imagination run wild when you are reading a book. Whenever I picture what something looks like and then see a movie, I always feels disappointed in the end. After reading the story, you want the movie settings to look exactly as you have imagined them. I am feeling this right now while reading The Hobbit. I have let me imagination run wild and pictured everything to the way I want them to be. Then when I watch the trailers for the upcoming film, I feel disappointed because it is not exactly what the books describes. I do not see the problem with producers creating the world from the point of view in movies. Sometimes the producers do an amazing job at creating a world. Great examples of this would be Avatar or Alice in Wonderland. Producers also have to change certain descriptions in a book to make them work for a movie. Movies are great, but I would rather sit down and read a good book to let my mind wonder.
ReplyDeleteI think that fantasy is best in the book. When it is put on screen it completely crushes my own fantasy world that I have created in my imagination. When we were reading On Fairy Stories by Tolkien the first thing that came to mind was Twilight. I imagined this complete different world than what was portrayed on screen. In my head it was totally believable that Jacob could turn into a wolf, but on screen it crushed my imagined world. More times than not I feel like the movie leaves out something that was very important in the book. I have heard that the movie for The Hunger Games is a complete disappointment; I have not seen it on film so that is only from others opinions. It seems that the director of a movie tries to make it somewhat different from the book to put a different swing on it. I always want to read the book before I watch the movie because the book goes into much more detail and I can imagine this unknown world.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I've always enjoyed books much more than movies, and maybe my opinion is influenced by the fact that I grew up without television, but there it is. When reading a book, you are able to use your own imagination. Sure, the author, in any decent book, gives you ample description, so that you might as well be looking at a picture, but there's still an element of your own thought that's put in.
ReplyDeleteI can see how many would think that a movie is superior to a book. While reading, you try to picture each and every scene as you go through it, so why not go ahead and make that picture? It totally makes sense that that would be the next step in the process. But by making a movie, you are letting down everybody's imagination. Have you ever heard someone walk out of a movie and say, "Wow, that was so much better than the book!" I certainly haven't. When you are reading along, you get to imagine everything about the characters, places and actions. Personalities are what are shorted most in movies. I associate every book character's personality with someone I know, or a mixture of people I know. I have a very definite view of their facial expressions, their humor, their desires, and almost every aspect of their selves. When I watch a movie, much of that is lost. They didn't smirk in quite the same fashion, or they were much more forward in their facial expressions than they ought to be. A movie takes my perception of how things should look and burns it to the ground. They take the magic out of the story by taking the imagination away from it.
To be fair, I love watching movies from my favorite stories. Sometimes, I don't have time to sit down and read straight through my favorite books. I just want a quick view of the story, so I watch the movie instead. It still gives me a portion of the excitement and emotion, however, I've never watched a movie that could make me cry so hard as a book. In a book, they give you more insight into the thoughts and feelings of the characters. I understand their dilemmas on a deeper level, and feel a stronger connection to them. A book, by giving me more details as to the personalities of the characters, gets me much more involved in the plot of the story and much more emotionally invested. People, in general I think, have stronger reactions to books, and are able to make them better just by using their own imagination. By giving us everything (visually at least), a movie gives us much less. By letting us think up our own pictures, a book lets us create our own story, personal to us.