Tolkein Types
Jan. 1st, 2003 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerStolen from here:
(Type 1) Those who feel a film shouldn't be made at all. Just by
existing, they moan, the film robs the reader of the opportunity to
use his own imagination to visualize the characters and places of
Middle Earth. (I have to wonder if this includes naked buxom woodland
elves, a detail that's not likely to be filmed.) A Type 1 fan begins
by hating any attempt to film Tolkien's stories, gradually descending
into a place of madness, where calendars, posters and cover art from
the Brothers Hildebrandt or even Tolkien himself are also forbidden,
and the only version of the story that should be allowed to exist is
plain text in the exact font of Tolkien's personal typewriter.
(Type 2) Those who hate the film because it couldn't be an exact
literal translation of the stories. These fans rage that filming The
Lord of the Rings should only be attempted if every word in the books,
including every syllable of the songs and poems, are on the screen.
The project, they estimate, should be at least a six film series, and
should use CGI for the elves, because mere humans can not (by
definition) be beautiful enough. Type 2 fans are split on whether the
appendices should be filmed. Some say that the appendices are not the
story and no detail revealed therein should be on the screen,
regardless of how germane. Others say that the appendices are part of
the story and should be filmed entire, including the family trees and
glossary.
(Type 3) Those who hate the film because of a particular detail.
These fans typically obsess on one or two key details of the film,
working themselves up into remarkable expressions of rage over
surprisingly small details. Examples are Liv Tyler at the Ford, Liv
Tyler is not a good enough actress, the absence of Bombadil,
misspelled Dwarvish words on the walls of Moria, Cate Blanchett isn't
beautiful enough, Gandalf bumps his head on a beam at Bilbo's home.
(Type 4) Those who hate the film for reasons that are simply mistaken.
These people have misunderstood the text, and expect the filmmaker to
misunderstand the text in exactly the same way. Example 1, "Elijah
Wood looks too young" although he is precisely the age that Frodo
would have appeared, according to a careful reading of the text.
Example 2, Legolas shoots his bow too fast. (Don't ask me -- I just
record these things.)
(Type 5) Subsequent experiences have caused me to add a fifth
category, Tolkien "fans" who have *never read the books* but
nevertheless think that the film got major details wrong. Examples
include people who think the Ralph Bakshi treatment from 1978 is
canonical, (placing Legolas at the ford instead of Glorfindil (text)
or Arwen (latest film)) and fans of various Lord of the Rings
offshoots (Dungeons and Dragons, EverQuest, Shanara, etc) who expected
the film to better match their own vision of Middle Earth.
(Type 6) And finally, I've been forced recently to create a sixth
category specifically for print-fans who think the film was too
violent. Despite all those hacked off arms and legs, all those
beheadings and arrows through the throat and eye, the strangulations
and throat slitting all in the text, these print-fans have, against
all reason, built up a mental image of a bucolic Middle Earth where
everything is cute and fluffy; where the most evil thing that happens
is a sharp word or an imposing presence, where violence occurs only
offscreen, and where the only loss is a clean disappearance down a
chasm (followed by a miraculous re-appearance several chapters later).
Even when the text in question is read to them, they still can't
imagine that a print-accurate version would earn an NC-17 for
excessive violence.
Recently, the more clever of the fans types above have tried to build
credibility by trying to make their objections more substantial, but
they usually give themselves away in the third or fourth paragraph.
"All these abominations are undeniable proof that Tolkien's books
should never have been filmed" (Type 1). "But I'm not surprised at
how horrible this film is. I knew that Jackson was a liar and a hack
when he put Arwen at the ford" (Type 3). "If Bakshi could film the
literal text, why couldn't Jackson?" (Type 5).
(Type 1) Those who feel a film shouldn't be made at all. Just by
existing, they moan, the film robs the reader of the opportunity to
use his own imagination to visualize the characters and places of
Middle Earth. (I have to wonder if this includes naked buxom woodland
elves, a detail that's not likely to be filmed.) A Type 1 fan begins
by hating any attempt to film Tolkien's stories, gradually descending
into a place of madness, where calendars, posters and cover art from
the Brothers Hildebrandt or even Tolkien himself are also forbidden,
and the only version of the story that should be allowed to exist is
plain text in the exact font of Tolkien's personal typewriter.
(Type 2) Those who hate the film because it couldn't be an exact
literal translation of the stories. These fans rage that filming The
Lord of the Rings should only be attempted if every word in the books,
including every syllable of the songs and poems, are on the screen.
The project, they estimate, should be at least a six film series, and
should use CGI for the elves, because mere humans can not (by
definition) be beautiful enough. Type 2 fans are split on whether the
appendices should be filmed. Some say that the appendices are not the
story and no detail revealed therein should be on the screen,
regardless of how germane. Others say that the appendices are part of
the story and should be filmed entire, including the family trees and
glossary.
(Type 3) Those who hate the film because of a particular detail.
These fans typically obsess on one or two key details of the film,
working themselves up into remarkable expressions of rage over
surprisingly small details. Examples are Liv Tyler at the Ford, Liv
Tyler is not a good enough actress, the absence of Bombadil,
misspelled Dwarvish words on the walls of Moria, Cate Blanchett isn't
beautiful enough, Gandalf bumps his head on a beam at Bilbo's home.
(Type 4) Those who hate the film for reasons that are simply mistaken.
These people have misunderstood the text, and expect the filmmaker to
misunderstand the text in exactly the same way. Example 1, "Elijah
Wood looks too young" although he is precisely the age that Frodo
would have appeared, according to a careful reading of the text.
Example 2, Legolas shoots his bow too fast. (Don't ask me -- I just
record these things.)
(Type 5) Subsequent experiences have caused me to add a fifth
category, Tolkien "fans" who have *never read the books* but
nevertheless think that the film got major details wrong. Examples
include people who think the Ralph Bakshi treatment from 1978 is
canonical, (placing Legolas at the ford instead of Glorfindil (text)
or Arwen (latest film)) and fans of various Lord of the Rings
offshoots (Dungeons and Dragons, EverQuest, Shanara, etc) who expected
the film to better match their own vision of Middle Earth.
(Type 6) And finally, I've been forced recently to create a sixth
category specifically for print-fans who think the film was too
violent. Despite all those hacked off arms and legs, all those
beheadings and arrows through the throat and eye, the strangulations
and throat slitting all in the text, these print-fans have, against
all reason, built up a mental image of a bucolic Middle Earth where
everything is cute and fluffy; where the most evil thing that happens
is a sharp word or an imposing presence, where violence occurs only
offscreen, and where the only loss is a clean disappearance down a
chasm (followed by a miraculous re-appearance several chapters later).
Even when the text in question is read to them, they still can't
imagine that a print-accurate version would earn an NC-17 for
excessive violence.
Recently, the more clever of the fans types above have tried to build
credibility by trying to make their objections more substantial, but
they usually give themselves away in the third or fourth paragraph.
"All these abominations are undeniable proof that Tolkien's books
should never have been filmed" (Type 1). "But I'm not surprised at
how horrible this film is. I knew that Jackson was a liar and a hack
when he put Arwen at the ford" (Type 3). "If Bakshi could film the
literal text, why couldn't Jackson?" (Type 5).
