Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

LOTR the Movie as effective an adaptation as The Wizard of Oz?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters
View Poll Results: LOTR as effective an adaptation as The Wizard of Oz?
Agree
30
78.95%
Disagree
8
21.05%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

LOTR the Movie as effective an adaptation as The Wizard of Oz?

Old 08-14-02, 03:15 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 532
LOTR the Movie as effective an adaptation as The Wizard of Oz?

I, like many people already believe Peter Jackson's LOTR will stand the test of time. That it will become part of Tolkien's world as much as Victor Fleming's 1939 adaptation has become a part of L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz (or like Gone With The Wind or A Streetcar Named Desire). That we won't be able to think of the one without the other.

Agree or Disagree?

Last edited by Ian11; 08-14-02 at 03:18 AM.
Ian11 is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 09:37 AM
  #2  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,843
LOTR is a much more faithful adaptation. The Wizard of Oz barely resembles the source material.
Groucho is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 09:43 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 16,666
Well, I think the reason we won't be able to hear Lord of the Rings and think book/movie as one, is because this release is so high profile and the Lord of the Rings name is ubiquitous. No one else is going to try and do the Trilogy for a long, long time...so naturally we'll associate the big-budget Trilogy with the books, as opposed to say the 70s animations.

However, I think Lord of the Rings will probably stand the test of time in some sense. It will probably seem more dated in style longer before most human dramas. But it's good and stuff.
LBPound is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 11:36 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,008
Originally posted by Groucho
LOTR is a much more faithful adaptation. The Wizard of Oz barely resembles the source material.
I agree with you.

Although The Wizard of Oz is not a "faithful" adaptation, I still think it's a great movie, but on its own terms, not as a book made into a film. A much more faithful Oz adaptation is the (IMO) grossly underrated Return to Oz, a blending of the second and third Oz books, The (Marvelous) Land of Oz (the only Oz book in which Dorothy was not a character) and Ozma of Oz.
movielib is online now  
Old 08-14-02, 12:09 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
Pink Floyd ruined (read: enhanced) The Wizard of Oz for me. Honestly, I cannot separate Dark Side from the film now. I don't say that as the annoying "look how kewl I am for watching Oz with Dark Side" lamer, but in all seriousness. Whether intentional or not, the two have merged seemlessly in my mind, so that I cannot have one without the other. I'm not sure if that's good or bad or a little of both, but it's what's happened to me over the years. Interestingly, I can easily separate the books from the films; however, I cannot separate the film from the album.

Lord or the Rings defined generations of storytelling and movie-making and had been a part of many of our lives for decades before Jackson's film adaptation. Had the film not been such a faithful adaptation, I think we'd have a very easy time separating the two, since the source material is so ingrained into our minds' eyes. However, at least the first part of the series was so remarkably close to what many of us pictured that it's grafted on top of our mental images. The parts of the book that were not featured in the theatrical release have been expanded in my mind to exist within the filmed universe. I see Elijah Wood now when re-reading the books even though many of these events were not filmed (or were cut for the theatrical release). Other books with less faithful adaptations exist in two states in my mind, and when I re-read the book, I'm in a completely different mental universe from the film. With The Fellowship of the Ring (and likely the subsequent films), they have become one.

Kind of a convoluted answer, since the question really involves some assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with. However, I think the focus of your question is whether Jackson's film will endure and be forever linked with the books. In that respect, I have to agree.

das

Last edited by das Monkey; 08-14-02 at 12:13 PM.
das Monkey is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 12:10 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The house that boredom built.
Posts: 4,459
The Wizard of Oz is a brilliant movie because you can watch it over and over again and still find something completely idiotic about it.

----------------------

Glinda of the North (to Dorothy): "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?"

Glinda (later): "Only bad witches are ugly."

Ouch!!

-------------------

Glinda (to Dorothy): "That's [the Witch of the East's] sister. She's worse."

Then why did the less powerful witch have the super badass slippers?

-------------------

Dorothy (to guard): "May we have [the broomstick]?"

Guard: "Please, and take it with you."

That WAS the idea.

---------------

Witch of the West materializes in cloud of smoke in the middle of Munchkin Land.

Glinda (to witch of west): "You have no power here."

So the ability of self-teleportation is common to all in the land of Oz?

---------------------

Scarecrow (to Glinda): "Why didn't you tell [Dorothy] before (that she could go home any time)?"

Glinda: "She wouldn't have believed me."

I think I would've tried "tap your shoes together" at that point, even if I was skeptical.

-----------------

Just follow the yellow brick road .... which forks several times. Perhaps a map would've been helpful.

-----------------

Witch of West (to Dorothy): "Instead of killing you now, I'm going to leave you in this room to think about it. I really want those slippers, but I'll wait."

Brilliant.

-----------------

The ruby slippers, while super-powerful, can't save a witch (who could teleport without them) from a house falling on her.

-----------------

So many more, but I have padding to do.


BTW: LOTR. 20 minutes of quality, 40 minutes of nap, 20 minutes of quality, 40 minutes of nap.... you get the idea
sexy_overlord is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 12:22 PM
  #7  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,843
sexy_overlord, you can retire now. No question, that is the funniest thing you've ever posted here at DVDTalk.

On a side note, anybody know the best way to clean coffee stains off a monitor?
Groucho is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 12:29 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
The Antipodean's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 6,129
"Oz" is a terrible adaptation of the books -- that said, it's a great movie, of course, but it barely resembles the original material. I think "Return To Oz" from the mid-80s, despite its flaws, is much more akin to the spirit of the Baum books. I could rattle off the differences between the book Oz and movie (Dorothy isn't a chesty teenager, there's no ridiculous "was it all a dream?" ending, the slapstick performances by the Lion, Scarecrow, etc., and of course, there's no bloody singing in the book), but again, I don't really think "Oz" was a BAD movie - - just different from the book.

"LOTR," on the other hand, is a great distillation of a long, complex book into a 3-hour movie. Purists can complain about what was left out (Tom Bombadil, the singing), but I think it is much better as an adaptation than Oz ever was.
The Antipodean is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 12:43 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,049
pssst -- I have it on good authority that if you cue up Britney Spears' "Oops . . . I Did It Again" CD to begin precisely when the title-card to the "The Lord of the Rings" first appears, that it brings out whole new meanings and bizarre coincidences in Jackson's re-telling of the Rings saga.

Everytime Britney coos "Oops . . . I Did It Again" - Frodo whines "I wish the ring had never come to me."

Coincidence? Or maybe it was just the corn-cob sized doobie I smoked before pressing play?

I'm pretty sure I saw a hobbit hang itself in the murky background of the escape on Buckleberry's Ferry scene.

Trust me. I. Know. What. I. Saw.

grunter is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 02:21 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The house that boredom built.
Posts: 4,459
I have it on good authority that at the end of Return of the King, Frodo and Samwise will be in a cave in Mount Doom standing in front of the big flaming eye of Sauron when Golem pulls back a curtain revealing some old man at a computer (possibly Bilbo).
sexy_overlord is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 02:24 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fascination Street
Posts: 6,521
Ask again in December 2003.
Jepthah is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 03:20 PM
  #12  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 86
LOTR:FOTR is a more faithful adaptation. Sure there are some MAJOR differences with Tolkien's book, but the feeling and tone that he was after is captured wonderfully. Actually, and I'm probably alone on this, there are several things in the film that I prefer over the book, particularly the character of Boromir, his death scene, Aragorn's last words to Frodo, and the excising of Tom Bombadil, imo the most boring chapter in the entire novel. I fail to see what is so damn interesting about some fat gay guy with yellow boots shaking and jiggling and going "Ho Ho Tom Bombadiloo Ho! Ho!". The only things I liked about those sections was how Tolkien described Goldberry.
Bass God is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 03:59 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a sewer.
Posts: 616
I like Return to Oz more than Wizard of Oz.
C.H.U.D. is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 04:54 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,067
Originally posted by Bass God
there are several things in the film that I prefer over the book, particularly the and the excising of Tom Bombadil, imo the most boring chapter in the entire novel. I fail to see what is so damn interesting about some fat gay guy with yellow boots shaking and jiggling and going "Ho Ho Tom Bombadiloo Ho! Ho!".


I agree completely. Getting rid of old Tom removed nothing from the narrative. I always thought he was the worst part of the book, actually.
Jason is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 07:31 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Originally posted by Jason
I agree completely. Getting rid of old Tom removed nothing from the narrative. I always thought he was the worst part of the book, actually.
Basically, the character of Tom Bombadil was meant as a bridge between the light of The Hobbit and the darkness that would pervade much of Lord Of The Rings.

That being said, there's quite a few interesting theories about the character of Tom which have greatly changed my appreciation of him to a much more positive light but his exclusion from the film was the right choice I think. In a book pacing can be achieved gradually - in a movie you have very little time to put as many ideas in the mix as possible. IMHO, the character of Tom Bombadil (and Goldberry) would have required far too much screen time to convey any real sense of purpose - and considering that Tom is, more than likely, a prop Tolkien used to represent the reader, there really is little point for his inclusion.

Anyway, it really is remarkable how well Jackson managed to streamline the original source and still maintain much of the atmosphere of said work.

As for The Wizard Of Oz, I actually find the film quite unbearable to watch. Frankly, I much, much prefer the animated adaptation The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz (1987) and it's 3 sequels: Ozma Of Oz, The Marvelous Land Of Oz and The Emerald City Of Oz.

-matt
raithen is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 08:10 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 611
I like Bombadil, he does have purpose in the books but I definitely agree with the choice to remove him from the movie.

sexy_overlord: great post

Sierra Disc: interesting comment regarding singing in Wizard movie, but not in the book. Even more interesting in a thread regarding LOTR where the opposite is true...

Bass God: Have to disagree with your statement that "the feeling and tone that he was after is captured wonderfully" in LOTR. Jackson stayed very true to the plot and characters but in dropping the music, poetry and other cultural backdrops of the books I think he sacrificed a lot of the feeling of the books. Still a great adaptation, no way to stay true to the story and characters and maintain the cultural tone w/o creating a 5 hour musical/fantasy/action/adventure film...

As far as the original question goes I'll abstain until ROTK in 2003.
jim_cook87 is offline  
Old 08-14-02, 08:19 PM
  #17  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 86
Originally posted by jim_cook87
Jackson stayed very true to the plot and characters but in dropping the music, poetry and other cultural backdrops of the books I think he sacrificed a lot of the feeling of the books.
Well maybe the Extended Edition in November will have even more of the feel of the books, several of the hobbits songs are going back into the film, particularly in the Prancy Pony scene, and I think one poem is being inserted at the beginning.
Bass God is offline  
Old 08-15-02, 12:53 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,589
The Lord of the Rings is a great movie, but The Wizard of OZ is a true classic.

Yes, Iwill agree that Rings was truer to the book than OZ was.

But, the movie that was the truest to the book I feel was Harry Potter
Iron_Giant is offline  
Old 08-15-02, 01:30 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: DE
Posts: 1,070
I could probably watch LOTR over and over again without ever getting tired of the material( I actually plan to ) . It is done with incredible style and energy. I could NOT watch Wizard of OZ again and again, but hey thats just me.

I think Jackson has taken an already amazing literary epic and transformed it into an incredibly powerful visual epic. I think it will stand the test of time because of its sheer watchability and the appeal of the LOTR books.

Oz never really did it for me...it has cheese abound, but my Mom tells me it was the biggest "TV" event of the year when it played on the network channel.
darkessenz is offline  
Old 08-15-02, 02:02 AM
  #20  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 532
das Monkey understood my question better than anybody. Part of the confusion was the title of the thread, so my bad. My question isn't necessarily about how faithful an adaptation LOTR the movie was to the book (although its an important part of the equation). A movie being too faithful to the source material can hurt its effectiveness as a movie IMO. Its more about as dasMonkey put it "whether Jackson's film will endure and be forever linked with the books". From the momentum of the votes so far I think its safe to say Jackson's film will endure as a substantial and crucial part to understanding Tolkien's legacy. A whole new generation of young people and the uninitiated will understand LOTR as Jackson envisioned it (sans book) whether you like it or not. Just like so many people have embraced Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, and Streetcar w/o ever reading them. And in some ways eclipsed the source material itself. The fact that an overwhelming number of Tolkien fans have embraced the movie gives it credibility.

Might be premature since we have yet to see Two Towers and ROTK. But its hard to imagine Jackson botching the rest of the trilogy, judging from the sure handedness of the FOTR. And hard to imagine anyone elso attempting a new version again for a long long time to come. Like it or not, its fait accompli.

Last edited by Ian11; 08-15-02 at 02:18 AM.
Ian11 is offline  
Old 08-17-02, 09:55 PM
  #21  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 61
I have a good feeling that "LOTR" will stand the test of time as my favorite movie "The Wizard of Oz" has.

Yes, I was one of those kids that helped make it a "major television event" every year of my childhood. That may have something to do with my affinity for it, but I find the more ancient I become the more I like it. When Judy garland sings Over the Rainbow" that is true teleportation into another world. I really enjoy the Oz bashing that some have attempted in this thread, if you want to logically pick apart a fantasy movie more power to you, but I think you miss the point. "Ouch!"

FOTR has some very good devices for that teleportation to another world; for one, like Oz, the sets are incredibly beautiful, alien but instantly recognizable, the use of the non-human languages especially the Elvin by Liv Tyler, great rhythm.

We will have to see wait and see what the trilogy brings but it is off to a great start.
jartslack is offline  
Old 08-18-02, 09:23 AM
  #22  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 785
Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I like Return to Oz more than Wizard of Oz.
Agreed! Although Return To Oz still scares me. I used to watch it when I was like 12 and I always closed my eyes whenever the roller guys came around. Scared this shtit outta me!!!

Oh And Wizard Of Oz is BETTER!
jim_mailman1962 is offline  
Old 08-18-02, 12:53 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 22,041
LOTR so far seems like a better adaptation and film in terms of acting and FX. However, LOTR, no matter how many awards it wins or money it makes, will NEVER be as recognized in a pop culture sense as Oz.
When was the last time you saw a LOTR themed Casino in Vegas? Probably never will, though the Excalibur will probably be the closest thing.
Dr. DVD is offline  
Old 01-28-03, 10:03 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,919
Originally posted by sexy_overlord
The Wizard of Oz is a brilliant movie because you can watch it over and over again and still find something completely idiotic about it.

----------------------

Glinda of the North (to Dorothy): "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?"

Glinda (later): "Only bad witches are ugly."

Ouch!!

-------------------


Witch of the West materializes in cloud of smoke in the middle of Munchkin Land.

Glinda (to witch of west): "You have no power here."

---------------------


Witch of West (to Dorothy): "Instead of killing you now, I'm going to leave you in this room to think about it. I really want those slippers, but I'll wait."


ok, I know this praise is a little late, but these observations are just hysterical. Thanks for brightening my day sexy_overlord!!!
garmonbozia is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.