Jamie Lannister vs Boromir

[Harbinger19]

Not particularly. They're dumbed down, altered versions. The only one who's relatively unchanged** is Gandalf, but has arguably the most egregious alteration thanks to the standoff with the Witch King of Angband.

**from what my many-angled mind remembers

Has thy many-angled mind confused Angband, the fortress of Morgoth in Beleriand, with Angmar, the realm that was separated from it by a few thousand miles and years, you Lovecraftian horror you?

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

Has thy many-angled mind confused Angband, the fortress of Morgoth in Beleriand, with Angmar, the realm that was separated from it by a few thousand miles and years, you Lovecraftian horror you?

I sure did. Add it to the League of Typos. The Lamethrower will be pleased.

[Morning]

Movie Aragorn may be dumbed down from his book version, but he's still a freak beast. He was taking down 2-3 orcs per sword swing at one point at movie-Helms Deep. Having him on a GoT battlefield would be like typing in a cheat code.

[wjowski]

There's a deep sense of irony in complaining about how the LOTOR movies devianted from the books in a GoT-related thread.

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

There's a deep sense of irony in complaining about how the LOTOR movies devianted from the books in a GoT-related thread.

While this is fair. Not much to compare or deviate from after the books stopped, GoT-wise.

[Anarchist]

Movie Aragorn may be dumbed down from his book version, but he's still a freak beast. He was taking down 2-3 orcs per sword swing at one point at movie-Helms Deep. Having him on a GoT battlefield would be like typing in a cheat code.

Definitely


Just look at how many they are facing.

[The Dork Knight]

Both ASOIF and LoTR would have remained relegated to a (mostly) niche audience of "nerds", forgotten and dismissed in the shadow cast by global phenomena like Harry Potter and Twilight and catering largely to only a minuscule fraction of adult nerdom, were it not for the movies/TV shows

I suppose LoTR might have at least made the "fairy tales" section of bookstores, alongside Narnia

Honestly this is a board filled with the most dedicated of "nerds" and I think only Pendaran has actually read both series in their entirety. And how many people have seen the live action versions? Almost everyone

Which is why I find criticism of their mass media versions laughable, in the same way in which I find overt criticism of the MCU laughable. No one ever thought that LoTR or ASOIF could ever be adapted as successfully as they were , and no one ever thought superhero movies would one day rule Hollywood to the extent they do today

Dumbed down versions, altered versions whatever .

At the end of the day these are the versions that changed the audience range from "millions" to "billions"

Maybe, just maybe these are the best possible adaptations at least till this point. Old timers may disagree but in all honesty LoTR is a better trilogy than the original Star Wars, probably the greatest trilogy of all time and GoT at this point is, simply the best TV series ever, certainly the "biggest"

And people still moan about their on screen adaptations lol

[The Dork Knight]

TL;DR - The Live action adaptations made these fantasy series a part of pop culture, in the same way the MCU and other movies made superheroes for adults "cool". No more specky gits and metal mouths associated with fantasy literature (or "superheros" ), we are going mainstream baby!

If that's not achieving your goals I don't know what is. It bemuses me as to how the adaptations being critically and commercially successful as they are, could have been better. Perhaps a page by page re-enaction ala watchmen (minus the last scene) , bombing in the box office would have pleased "fans" more ?

Ask yourselves why is it that the popularity of one of the greatest comics of all time is still largely limited to a niche audience while something like LoTR has become a pop culture phenomenon? Or hey a movie about the Winter Soldier or Iron Man or Deadpool if you want better comparisons?

Oh and Sean Bean was an excellent Boromir. Can't see how the character could have been better played in 2 odd hours

[Nik Hasta]

Both ASOIF and LoTR would have remained relegated to a (mostly) niche audience of "nerds", forgotten and dismissed in the shadow cast by global phenomena like Harry Potter and Twilight and catering largely to only a minuscule fraction of adult nerdom, were it not for the movies/TV shows

I suppose LoTR might have at least made the "fairy tales" section of bookstores, alongside Narnia

Honestly this is a board filled with the most dedicated of "nerds" and I think only Pendaran has actually read both series in their entirety. And how many people have seen the live action versions? Almost everyone

Which is why I find criticism of their mass media versions laughable, in the same way in which I find overt criticism of the MCU laughable. No one ever thought that LoTR or ASOIF could ever be adapted as successfully as they were , and no one ever thought superhero movies would one day rule Hollywood to the extent they do today

Dumbed down versions, altered versions whatever .

At the end of the day these are the versions that changed the audience range from "millions" to "billions"

Maybe, just maybe these are the best possible adaptations at least till this point. Old timers may disagree but in all honesty LoTR is a better trilogy than the original Star Wars, probably the greatest trilogy of all time and GoT at this point is, simply the best TV series ever, certainly the "biggest"

And people still moan about their on screen adaptations lol

So your argument is that because something has mass appeal it is immune to critique?

Like... whaaaat?

Just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean that you can't, quite rightly, find fault with it. Heck, I don't like the MCU, GoT or LotR, I don't really watch Marvel movies much because I don't care about them, I gave up on GoT (both the books and the show) years ago and I never finished LotR because I found the writing too dense and a bit dull.

This doesn't mean that people can't like the original more and express their opinion about how their preferred version is better. Monetary success has nothing to do with personal opinion and you shouldn't speaking condescendingly about it.

TL;DR - The Live action adaptations made these fantasy series a part of pop culture, in the same way the MCU and other movies made superheroes for adults "cool". No more specky gits and metal mouths associated with fantasy literature (or "superheros" ), we are going mainstream baby!

If that's not achieving your goals I don't know what is. It bemuses me as to how the adaptations being critically and commercially successful as they are, could have been better. Perhaps a page by page re-enaction ala watchmen (minus the last scene) , bombing in the box office would have pleased "fans" more ?

Ask yourselves why is it that the popularity of one of the greatest comics of all time is still largely limited to a niche audience while something like LoTR has become a pop culture phenomenon? Or hey a movie about the Winter Soldier or Iron Man or Deadpool if you want better comparisons?

Oh and Sean Bean was an excellent Boromir. Can't see how the character could have been better played in 2 odd hours

Without getting into your sardonic comments about nerd culture, I'll respond simply to the adaptation question.

Now I'm going to throw down something a little complex here but come with me on this:

A book is a book.

A comic is a comic.

A movie is... a movie.

All are entirely different genres with their own conventions, strengths and weaknesses. Transitioning from one medium to another can be very challenging and can cause stories, characters, sequences and even themes and concepts to be dramatically altered. This process of adaptation can make fans of the original medium uncomfortable because it means the thing they like is being altered to change, or even not include, parts of the original they liked.

This is further exacerbated by the propensity of nerd culture to think of movie versions of stories or characters to be somehow "definitive" or something similar because film is the largest and most pervasive mass-media platform we have at the moment. Movie Iron Man is, effectively, the default version of Iron Man now and the comics and games and other supplementary media have bent to be closer to that version.

Watchmen is not a very good movie because the plot, style, themes and writing of Watchmen were best geared for their native medium of comics. The LotR trilogy is one good film and two less good films and, even with the extended additions, I'm given to understand that they still cut out and alter huge chunks of the story. I've read Sharp's write-ups on Gimli, Sauron and the army of the dead to just name a few things that are massively different in content, writing and theme.

To summarise, I could go on but I think I'll keep it a little brief; people are allowed to like and dislike things as they please, monetary success is not a measure of objective quality and you should stop being condescending about geeks and nerds on a board that is populated by geeks and nerds because it's asking for trouble.

[The Dork Knight]

Watchmen is not a very good movie because the plot, style, themes and writing of Watchmen were best geared for their native medium of comics.

This is literally the point I'm making

LoTR was considered even more un-adaptable for the big screen, yet it was turned into one of the greatest trilogies of all time both critically and commercially

Which is why I'm saying it is the best possible adaptation that could have been made. Gimli, Sauron , Tom Bombadilo what have you'd additions could in all probability have turned it into another's Watchmen- priceless art poorly adapted

And because a bunch of new people watched these movies they'll read the books and find out about the actual characters which they never might have, which they wouldn't do for something like Watchmen

It's like the Bourne series which vary widely from the source material but nonetheless were the best possible adaptions

[The Dork Knight]

To summarise, I could go on but I think I'll keep it a little brief; people are allowed to like and dislike things as they please, monetary success is not a measure of objective quality and you should stop being condescending about geeks and nerds on a board that is populated by geeks and nerds because it's asking for trouble.

You misunderstand

I consider myself part of the "nerd culture" for one thing and have certainly met "nerds" quite different from the stereotypes

Yet for the vast majority of people these were the stereotypes associated with people who read comics or fantasy literature that no longer exist

Largely because of the live action adaptations

[The Dork Knight]

Just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean that you can't, quite rightly, find fault with it. Heck, I don't like the MCU, GoT or LotR, I don't really watch Marvel movies much because I don't care about them, I gave up on GoT (both the books and the show) years ago and I never finished LotR because I found the writing too dense and a bit dull.

I've no problems with people criticising things . It's when they dismiss an entire series that is hugely appreciated by the vast majority of the population for "dumbed down" characters or whatever, as is often the case when discussing the LoTR films on these boards

Like of course they're dumbed down . Almost all adaptations are "dumbed down" in some way or the other. It's what gives them a plausible running time when adaptating from 1000+ page book series

Yet the majority of LoTR characters retain their most important characteristics.... with a bit of artistic license for character's written in the 50s (or earlier?) having at least some connection with the audience, relating in some way

It's why the majority of people liked them. For instance I'm curious what exactly could have been added to Boromirs character without turning into a hobbit like clusterfuck ?

This doesn't mean that people can't like the original more and express their opinion about how their preferred version is better. Monetary success has nothing to do with personal opinion and you shouldn't speaking condescendingly about it.

Monetary AND critical success. You'd think we're talking about Dragon ball evolution or Avatar here and not the Oscar record holder

Seriously let's have Gimli as a thoughtful poetic character that creeps on Galadriel . How well is that gonna go over with the mass audience as compared to a wisecracking comedic value character

For that matter what then really sets him apart from say Legolas and Aragorn or anyone of the interchangeable warrior-poets in the books ?

Adaption is a difficult process and for my money I don't see how they could ultimately have done a better job with any of the major plots . Considering the source material and Tolkien himself calling it impossible to adapt...we now have one of the greatest and most successful and critically acclaimed trilogies ever, seeped in pop culture

But yeah sure. Having the Army of the dead not actually turn up in Pelenor and just help raid some ships and help some farmers attack would have nailed that scene . Total blockbuster material . And while they were about it they could maybe have included days of Frodo singing in Elronds halls too

Cinematic license mate . On one hand we have a pop culture phenomenon and on the other people bitching about them not being 100% true to the books . You rarely have it all and honestly the films are pretty close to the basic ideas and themes without people going BUT DETAILS!

[The Dork Knight]

This is further exacerbated by the propensity of nerd culture to think of movie versions of stories or characters to be somehow "definitive" or something similar because film is the largest and most pervasive mass-media platform we have at the moment. Movie Iron Man is, effectively, the default version of Iron Man now and the comics and games and other supplementary media have bent to be closer to that version.

While I dislike the idea of say RDJs Iron Man influencing the comics too much, for me , it could be worse. Today Iron Man has an ongoing and is one of the central figures of the Marvel verse

While Fantastic Four, the foundation on which Marvel was built, no longer has an ongoing, despite multiple critically acclaimed runs right up to the end (but also a bunch of flop Live action adaptions) and for me, that's a bigger tragedy

There are going to be kids growing up quoting Iron Man or Ant Man or Deadpool...and not one of them will 'get' "It's clobbering time!"

Why ? Simply because some characters had good Live action adaptations and others didn't

[Nik Hasta]

So, your objection is more; "people shouldn't criticise the LotR films because they did well and were the best we could have hoped for?"

Forgive if I'm not convinced by that. Like, I get adaption can be challenging but I also can understand and allow people to be upset with a thing regardless of the critical and commercial success of a thing.

People can express dislike of a thing, see me not liking GoT or the MCU at all. I think Return of the King is a bad film, like I have never read the book of it, I just think it's kind of bad as a film. It also made millions of dollars and won Oscars but neither of those things impress me either.

Again, you can self identify as part of geek culture but if you don't get why people don't like the mainstream Hollywood version of their favourite thing then I think you might have misunderstood what drew the culture together.

My main objection was that your tone, as I read it, was less "hey guys adaptation changes things and that does not diminish or impact the original thing hat you feel in love with," and more "shut up nerds, mainstream is the best,"

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

So, your objection is more; "people shouldn't criticise the LotR films because they did well and were the best we could have hoped for?"

Like, just take the recently released Dark Tower, as an example.

Best we could have hoped for as an adaptation? Likely. Is it a good film? No, not even remotely; and it somehow managed to do a worse job of adapting the source material.