Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 

Topic: My Lord of the Rings oil painting portraits!!

Post Info
Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Date: Aug 21, 2007
My Lord of the Rings oil painting portraits!!

Jason here posting several Lord of the rings oil paintings that are already up on Ebay. 

I posted 3 of these a while back in progress but took those down since the finished art is up.  These took a looonnnggg time to do!  I don't want to sell them all, I think they would look good 10 or 20 of these on a wall or a room or something.  I hope everyone likes them and that I can manage to sell them all!


I'll post 2 more tuesday or wenesday as soon as I can finish them up.  I suck with cameras and I hate how the photos and colors turned out, they look a heck of alot nicer in person. 

Here is a link to my auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZjason_potratz



__________________
Witchking of Angmar - Rank 10
Status: Offline
Posts: 3118
Date: Aug 22, 2007
Hmm...some really nice works here. I personally like the way you made them look just like in the movies, I think many people find it easier to buy a painting of a face they have already seen before especially since they look almost like in reality.
The only one that is more or less annoying me is the Legolas one...I personally find his face there a bit too childish. Of course he was young compared to other Elves, but still he no longer was a child. But then again, I'm not an artist...

__________________
Honor, Freedom, Fatherland
Soldier of Beleriand - Rank 3
Status: Offline
Posts: 129
Date: Aug 26, 2007
Wow! The last one of Aragorn is particularly amazing.

Have you done any of Gandalf?



__________________
Soldier of Beleriand - Rank 3
Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Feb 1, 2011
This is one of the reasons I do not like the films! Although these paintings are nice in themselves, they show the actors and not the characters they are meant to represent. In this respect, the films ruin our own imagination of the things Tolkien wrote about because they force upon us the imagination/ decision of a bunch of people. If I'd display the Legolas one on a wall, for instance, someone not familiar to Tolkien might ask me: "So you're a fan of Orlando Bloom?", because that's what the image shows, actually.

__________________
Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 23
Date: Feb 3, 2011
Hmmmm ....


These pictures bear a resemblence to the actors as they attempted to portray the roles of the characters from the books!

So I would not say that the images as presented are necessarily exclusive of the characters and only representative of the actors/actresses.

I do see some variation in several cases.  And if you ever saw a picture of the actors themselves in their day-to-day garb and whatnot, they do not generally look exactly like the characters they were portraying in LOTR.

I'm sure that the actor/actress choices and choices of dress and style were chosen in order to represent the characters more so than the actors.

WELL unless someone has actually seen the characters somewhere (hahaha) then I'd say that this attempt at representation is no worse than any other... with one exception (on certain levels) ...

I think any representational artform of material from the books could impact the collective imagination about the images of the characters.  I guess the only form that may be more authoritative than any of the others would be J.R.R.T.'s own renditions.

__________________
RevisionIcon.gifeCardIcon.gifPrintIcon.gifBookmarkIcon.gifdiscuss.gifSourceIcon.gif
4star.gifI Like this quoteI dislike this quoteThere is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. You certainly usually find something, if you look, but it is not always quite the something you were after.
-J.R.R. Tolkien (The Hobbit)
Soldier of Beleriand - Rank 3
Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Feb 3, 2011
Meimei, while I agree that the actors, in their daily life, do not look exactly as the characters they portray, nonetheless those pictures do not represent the characters from Tolkien's legendarium either. My only issue with them is not that they aren't good, but that they lack any originality. If I were talented with the brush, I could look up a photo of Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn on the net, and then reproduce it on canvas. But if I were really good, I'd paint Aragorn the way I visualized him. Once the film appeared, countless 'works of art' appeared showing the characters, but in fact they just show what I can see on screen or in Google Images, when looking for photos of actors.

I see the films as the ruin of imagination, and of common sense also. Take Gollum for instance. Tolkien tells us that he wears clothes. What do we see on screen? Gollum wearing rags. What do we see in so called 'art'? Gollum wearing rags, of course. Now who's more qualified to tell us how the characters look? Peter Jackson or JRR Tolkien? Now that's a question worth a million bucks!

As for Tolkien's own representations, unfortunately Tolkien was not an artist. I am well aware of his works of art, I even own 'JRR Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator' by Hammond and Scull, and I love some of his compositions. But he could in no way approach the realism we see in the images posted in this thread. To do so requires more than just casual talent, so to speak. His works could serve to make an impression, or to amuse us (not in a bad sense), but they don't contain images of the characters that could be of more use than his writings about them.

-- Edited by John Wain on Thursday 3rd of February 2011 02:12:25 PM

__________________
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Feb 4, 2011
On the plus side if these paintings were made simply to represent the artists own image of how the characters in the books should look then most people would say 'Who are these people meant to be?'. Plus paintings of random people, while they may look realistic unto themselves, do not provide the comparison these paintings do. People can view these and say 'Wow that really is like Legolas, Aragorn etc' and thereby might appreciate the artist more.

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!

Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Feb 4, 2011
I also think that the books, the movies, and the art work should be judged by themselves without comparison or depredation.
No ... the films aren't the same as the books ... and they weren't meant to be ... they are an artistic work in themselves ... based on Tolkien's work ... but just so different from the books because they are NOT the books ... they are unique to themselves.
And the same might be applied to the artwork too ... the choices of color, texture, clarity, perspective ... hundreds of different criteria that are NOT the books.


Artistic expression should be celebrated for what it is ... the creative genius of the artist, the film maker, or the author.


__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Fundin, Lord of Moria - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 562
Date: Feb 5, 2011
Question Bear: does the above mean that you do not judge the films in any measure with respect to faithfulness to the source?

__________________
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Feb 5, 2011
Galin.
Not at all ...
But it doesn't mean I compare the one art form against the other.
Creativity, technology. time considerations, screen play, all create their own restrictions and contributions in cinema ... books do not.
Judge the books as books.
Judge the films as films.
Judge the artwork as artwork.

There was definitely much missing in the film compared to the books, but so what?
IT IS A FILM ... an art form in itself ... why create conflict by comparing apples to oranges?

I am not offended my friend ... but your "question" was really bait.
So glad you are on this forum.
with affection,
Bear


-- Edited by Bear on Saturday 5th of February 2011 04:58:43 PM

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Soldier of Beleriand - Rank 3
Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Feb 5, 2011
Bear, regarding what you said in your post before Galin's. I don't judge the paintings posted in this thread as bad because of being intrinsically worthless. That said, I appreciate the use of colour, perspective and general impression of each of them. Especially the use of yellow in the last painting of Aragorn, to express the way light falls on his hair, is remarkable and worthy of praise, because it shows that the artist sensed the depth in his composition. However I condemn the lack of originality in choosing the characters themselves - because they are, I repeat, not the characters, but the actors with the make up which turned them in characters.

You can believe those are Aragorn, Eowyn, Arwen, etc. if you 'suspend disbelief' - this is what I did when watching the films, and quite involuntarily. To me Liv Tyler was Arwen in the film; but I must make a mental effort to see her as Arwen in that picture.

I never said the compositions were not good in themselves - but I do not judge them in themselves, period. I judge them with an eye on the artist's creativity. He has the books as his guide: all he has to do is let his inner eye portray the characters, and then put that image on canvas. But! he does not do this - it's as if saying that Peter Jackson's decision (or whoever it was that made the casting) is the canon for how the characters must look.

If the artist made two paintings of Aragorn, putting forth the talent he so clearly is capable of, and one image shows his Aragorn, and the other shows Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, and I were asked to choose one to buy, I'd choose the first one.

I would do so because I could involuntarily suspend disbelief and think that the unknown face is Aragorn in the painting, while I could not do so with the one showing the actor. To paint an actor demands the viewer to see that as the actor more than as the character portrayed.

__________________
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Feb 5, 2011
John,
I am not sure I disagree with you.
The paintings of themselves could be the actors (though I have seen several different portraits of each actor in a different role ... examples Viggo in "Hidilago" or Orlando in "Pirates"  or "Kingdom of Heaven")
Yes! We could be influenced and have limits in our individual imaginal perspectives especially if we saw the movies before reading the books.
I read the books many, many times before seeing ANY images of the actors or the movies.
What I "see" when I re-read the books, for the twentieth plus time, is the imaginal perspective of my own creation ... not the movies which hold their own unique imaginal perspective.
For example; Sean Bean, who played Boromir in the movie, I have seen in dozens of films ... he is still Boromir in the movie not the character in the other movies ... ie the crazed Irish terrorist in "Patriot Games."
As for Liv Tyler ... well let us say her image is Arwen in the movies ... but that is NOT the image I hold when I think of her away from Jackson's movies.
Everybody has their right to hold any imaginal perspective they choose to.
And, for me, if we don't agree that is not a bad thing.
So back to my point;
Judge the books as books.
Judge the films as films.
Judge the artwork as artwork.


If anyone wants to blame the movie for not being the book is Ok for me ... but I can't agree ... the movie is a thing in itself ... and so is the artwork (I like the one Aragorn facing right)
( by the way, the WILLING suspension of disbelief, was a descriptive term of the Stanislovsky school of acting, now applied to all art forms where the audience through book, film, artwork, or whatever, is required to accept as fact (or reality) what is portrayed ... NOT what is. This imaginal perspective must be a conscious choice ... if it happens without your choice come see me right away and we will get you medication and a good clinical therapist smile)

The actual portraits in this post are unique.
You will notice that
melanarus posted exactly one time.
The purpose seems to have been looking for feedback and support for his/her work.
He/She never came back.
I like what melanarus did for its own sake ... not for film, for book, or other artform (such as photography)

But it is just my opinion ...nothing more ...and nothing less.

With a smile,
Bear


__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Soldier of Beleriand - Rank 3
Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Feb 5, 2011
Bear, we do not disagree - or if we do, it is in no more than the choice of words used to express what in my opinion is a similar view held by both of us. Judge everything for its own sake - I totally agree with you here, though I chose to express my feelings about a different matter than this statement of yours.

Regarding my 'involuntary' suspension of disbelief, which you say (noted: with a smile) may be a clinical problem: perhaps my command of English just was not enough to let my thoughts transpire without possibility of interpretation. It is of course conscious, always. But sometimes it is easier to do, and some other times it is more difficult, or even impossible.

When I read Tolkien's 'Smith of Wootton Major' - possibly my favourite short story by Tolkien - I had no problem to feel really involved in what was told. I never said to myself: 'yes, but where does the character go to get to Faerie?' because if I had asked myself regarding this issue, the magic of the story would have been lost. It would have fallen into the risible. On the other hand, I happened to ask myself such questions in other circumstances. If there is a 'suspension of disbelief meter', then seeing actors as characters in films is high on the scale (it's easy for me to imagine them as characters); seeing them in paintings is no longer that easy.

That of course is a personal trait of the individual; whatever anyone else says, however well argumented, the subjectivity of likes and dislikes can hardly be influenced by it.

Regarding the merits of the pictures as pictures: that was never a point of debate between us: I appreciate them just as much as you do.

-- Edited by John Wain on Saturday 5th of February 2011 09:22:38 PM

__________________
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Feb 5, 2011
Sir John,
Right on my friend!
I think your English is excellent.
And the grace, strength, and  ability with which you use it makes your posts a pleasure to read. And your points are clearly made.
My respect to you sir!
Bear


__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 23
Date: Feb 5, 2011
I guess it is true that if you were to look at "google images" for various LOTR characters you would find that much of the artwork is highly influenced by scenes from the movie.

I guess it doesn't make me "sad" because to me there is a basic unreality to any sort of image of such characters.  I don't feel more convinced when I perceive such characters with my own inner eye any more so than when I look at some other image.

Before the movies there were other images available but perhaps the difference may be in the level of advertising, marketing, and circulation of such images.

__________________
RevisionIcon.gifeCardIcon.gifPrintIcon.gifBookmarkIcon.gifdiscuss.gifSourceIcon.gif
4star.gifI Like this quoteI dislike this quoteThere is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. You certainly usually find something, if you look, but it is not always quite the something you were after.
-J.R.R. Tolkien (The Hobbit)
Fundin, Lord of Moria - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 562
Date: Feb 6, 2011

I think my question was a legitimate one Bear, considering that you wrote 'by themselves without comparison' and that the films are an artistic work 'in themselves' albeit based on Tolkien.

I asked you to clarify, and there's nothing wrong with answering 'yes' to my question -- though that approach theoretically opens the door very wide to interpretation and artistic license. Still a yes wasn't out of the realm of possibility, and I've been surprised before on line.

But in any case your answer was 'not at all', meaning, I take it, that you do compare the films to the books as far as faithfulness is concerned, but (if I read the meaning correctly) you don't think it's fair to judge a film in regard to faithfulness without fairly factoring in cinematic considerations (your: 'Creativity, technology. time considerations, screen play, all create their own restrictions and contributions in cinema... books do not. Judge the books as books. Judge the films as films.').

OK, but in my opinion this once again basically boils down to 'films are not books', and that, I would say, is mutually agreed upon -- in other words, people who are comparing the books to the films are not wrong-headedly doing so because they fail to see this distinction.


The question becomes: what is it about film that makes a given character or scene or detail (etc) 'unworkable' on film? Grey area? Yes. Opinion laden discussion? Yes.  

'There was definitely much missing in the film compared to the books, but so what? IT IS A FILM... an art form in itself... why create conflict by comparing apples to oranges?'

We apple to orangers didn't simply want more in amount from the book -- it's certainly not the case with me, as I thought Jackson tried to include too much from the books, besides adding his own scenes or elongating fights or battles.

I find myself rather often wondering just what it is about film than meant X, Y and Z in Jackson's film was 'necessary' as compared to the characters or scenes in the books.


David Bratman made the argument in his essay published in Tolkien on Film, and one of his more interesting questions is basically: is it the filmmaker's opinion that X from the book would not work on film? And if not why not?


Let's consider a drawing: Frank Frazetta's Eowyn -- the artist's talent aside for the moment, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that there is something about the medium of pen and ink on paper that resulted in Eowyn being half-naked. Why is she half-naked? Arguably because Frazetta indulged himself or his fans, injecting himself over Tolkien here for his own reasons (or at least hopefully this example is somewhat mutually agreed upon with respect to faithful adaptation).

He is the artist of this drawing at least, and 'based on' is only based on... Frazetta certainly has the right to portray 'Eowyn' this way (incidentally at the moment I do wonder about the issue of copyright here! but that's another matter).

Now let's imagine that Snowmane is in an illustration and use the minor detail of colour as an example: the medium of pen and ink deals largely with black and white (for sake of argument here, as obviously there are ways to imply varying shades of grey), and Frazetta, considering contrast, decides that making 'Snowmane' a black horse works better for the drawing at hand (say the background is desired to be white or something).

Now the artist has a reason... but is it good enough with respect to adaptation? Could a creative artist like Frazetta not have approached the drawing in a very different way as to make Snowmane white and still keep his desired contrast? and wouldn't that be both creative and arguably better (at least to Tolkien fans), in that Frazetta was more faithful to his source?


Of course a film adaptation is very complicated, but that's part of why I protest against the various incarnations of the 'books and films are different' statement -- yes they are! but, again, that's a very general, mutually agreed upon statement.



__________________
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Feb 6, 2011
Galin,
Just two small things ...

1.) I don't want to judge people ... I fail sometimes and I do express an opinion ... but especially here ...  I may not agree with anothers opinion ... but I hope that is not a judgement of them.

2.) The criteria for judging different art forms changes from artform to artform ... the apple is firm, red or green, tart or sweet.  An orange is juicy, has lots of pith, and meaty sections.
Both apples and oranges have color, grow on trees, and are eaten by human beings.
But they should each be judged by their own criteria ...
I would be a little hesitant if my orange was red.

And last ... I think we will stumble over this again and again ...
Which is OK by me.
I love reading your different perspectives ... they really have enriched my enjoyment of things Tolkien.
I still stand by;
Judge the books as books.
Judge the films as films.
Judge the artwork as artwork.

with a smile,
Bear



__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 23
Date: Feb 6, 2011
I had to go check out the Eowyn art you alluded to Galin - just to see.

Here is an example of someone using their imagination independent of the films!

Although - I must say that her armor outfit does not strike me as a very clever ruse - it does a very poor job of disguising her femininity.  I can imagine that the striking moment where she pulls off the helm saying "But no living man am I! ... " would be somewhat anti-climatic hahaha.

Yeah - even if it were (by some strange chance) the case that pantsing opponents was a secret strategy of the enemy ... I still don't think the top half of her outfit would have gotten her "in" to join the fighting.


That being said ... the artist does have some talent and I do like the facial expressions and things ... although it is interesting that a few selectively placed mushrooms survived the trampling of hte batttlefield ...

I guess if anyone who hadn't read the books too recently or carefully or whatever saw this image and convinced themselves "That's what Eowyn - the REAL Eowyn really looks like" then maybe there would be more problems than just their articulate recollection of textual details hahaha.
But if somone said "I like that pictire - it's good" - it is a pretty good rendition isn't it?  (Disregarding a few choice details for non-artistic reasons)

__________________
RevisionIcon.gifeCardIcon.gifPrintIcon.gifBookmarkIcon.gifdiscuss.gifSourceIcon.gif
4star.gifI Like this quoteI dislike this quoteThere is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. You certainly usually find something, if you look, but it is not always quite the something you were after.
-J.R.R. Tolkien (The Hobbit)
Tom Bombadil
Status: Offline
Posts: 1886
Date: Feb 6, 2011
Several months ago, when I googled LOTR images, I saw several of these that looked similar especially the 2nd and the 5th one. No mistaking there. Did our friend have them online, without a canceling the right click? If people put their work online and don't disable the copy function or at least put a © symbol on it, one must assume that they are making it available to all and sundry, to share their work. Or at least put their name and url with it.

I am not saying that he actually is doing anything wrong, but the proof is not there. Artists should copyright their art. When my Poem got Published, I made sure that everybody who looked at it in any of the Fan Art threads I put it in, like I did here at Tolkien Forums, that my poem
"Love's First Song" © was copyrighted. I guess I should try to publish my other work or at least pay to have it ©ed

Doing this proofs that you care about your work and that nobody can take it away from you and say that it is theirs. You can take somebody to court for Copyright infringement, but in order to do that, it needs the © symbol, which means that you registered it with the Copyright Office.

Just a thought.



__________________

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 23
Date: Feb 6, 2011
You make some good points Arwen Legolas about copyright.

I would say, though, that anything posted online is subject to infringement - not by law - but by virtue of the lawlessness of the internet.  So I have become very, very reluctant to post any of my own work online unless I am ok with it getting used by others in some way.  Actually (and this may be paranoid) I am even reluctant to store anything on a computer that has internet access if I really don't want someone to get a peak at it.

Maybe it wouldn't get reproduced for profit in European or American OPEN markets but there are ways to get a hold of the images via screen shots and anything else is likely to be fair game.  And not everyone has the same principles and not every country has the same laws when it comes to reproductions and modifications of reproductions.  Furthermore, there is no way to control what a person does in the privacy of their own home and whatnot.

It's too bad in a way because the internet provides such an awesome medium for the exchange of ideas and sharing of art and music.  It's very, very, VERY hard, however, to control ANYTHING once it touches the online realms.  In fact - it is especially hard to remove it once it has ever existed in an online setting.  So I am trying these days to be a whole lot more careful with the internets, myself (unless I'm ok with something going viral and mutating itself beyond my own original intentions and designs).  I also don't store sensitive things on my computer unless I feel it is worth the risk that someone with the right elite status will see it.  So if I were to create art and poetry or the like - I would perhaps store random notes on my computer but I wouldn't likely post anything online or store or post actual finished works online unless I didn't mind about what might happen to it.

But that's just my take on it.

__________________
RevisionIcon.gifeCardIcon.gifPrintIcon.gifBookmarkIcon.gifdiscuss.gifSourceIcon.gif
4star.gifI Like this quoteI dislike this quoteThere is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. You certainly usually find something, if you look, but it is not always quite the something you were after.
-J.R.R. Tolkien (The Hobbit)
Fundin, Lord of Moria - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 562
Date: Feb 6, 2011

I have no problem with your statement in general Bear, but to take the fruitful example... wink


'The criteria for judging different art forms changes from artform to artform ... the apple is firm, red or green, tart or sweet. An orange is juicy, has lots of pith, and meaty sections. Both apples and oranges have color, grow on trees, and are eaten by human beings. But they should each be judged by their own criteria ... I would be a little hesitant if my orange was red.'


OK but to stay with the comparison: your 'redness' is impossible in an orange for example, so the inability to successfully translate redness from apples to oranges is an all agreed upon given (scientific attemps aside obviously!). As would be other attributes of an apple that we simply don't naturally have in an orange; even though there is some measure of commonality too, like growing on trees for instance.


But what does 'redness' equate with in the actual application from book to film? Is it impossible to present characters or sequences of events as the author presented them? Surely not impossible, and granted 'impossible' is a rather sweeping characterization -- although again such a discussion will be opinion laden in any event (also taking into account the actor or director's take on lines or actions).


For example, can film translate, or can it not, Frodo as an exceptional Hobbit, even wounded, who stands up to Wraiths at the ford? In a sense, I'm not sure why we can't have a red orange here (if 'redness' here doesn't equate with the 'impossible' of course); and if something can't work on film then why not? Or do we simply have a choice by the filmmakers rather -- similar (only in that it was a choice) to Frazetta choosing to make Eowyn half-naked for his own reasons.


This doesn't mean I want or demand everything from the books, but on the other hand this is only one example of very many. As I say, this matter is complicated. Jackson's team has stated their cinematic concerns as to why they chose Arwen to appear at the ford in the first place. Basically the reason was: too many introductions at this point, so why not introduce a character that was going to have relevance to the rest of the film.


In general
I would say that that's not an unreasonable cinematic consideration, and that an author at least arguably has 'more room' so to speak, in this regard -- and also the possible 'confusion' of non-book readers in theaters could become a consideration at least. But let's note a few things about the filmmaker's reason why this 'orange' wasn't allowed a better chance to be more red (this connects to my 'black Snowmane' point earlier):


A) this change really connects to another change already instituted by the Jackson team: making Arwen a major character in the first place. This too is only an arguable necessity, but even if I have no huge problems with it in theory (I don't actually), it's still a change based on a change


B) Legolas could have been used


C) this reason does not speak to the way in which the movie makers chose to introduce Arwen (sword under Aragorn's neck and so on), nor why she 'needed' to ride with Frodo and herself stand up to the Wraiths. This too was seemingly based (at least in part) on the decision to make Frodo so out of it from his wound that he couldn't make the stand Tolkien gave him


And so the alterations and changes that are said to be instituted because film is film and a different medium than books are not only complicated, but are also open to questioning. What is it about film that made the introduction of 'Asfaloth and rider' as in the books (if Arwen is accepted as replacing Glorfindel in the first place) so unworkable in film?


Nothing I would say, in fact I would argue that the sound of an approaching horse here -- which would at first seem like a Black Rider to be happily revealed as help -- was the far better choice cinematically. And as it happens to be 'more faithful' to the source in my opinion, here's another arguable red orange.


Here I've drawn a comparison to the book -- since the book provided the better (to me) filmic experience -- am I unfairly judging the film by book standards here? I don't think so.

'The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.'
JRRT, letter 210


edit
: when I was writing that I missed some posts in between!

-- Edited by Galin on Sunday 6th of February 2011 08:27:41 PM

__________________
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Feb 6, 2011
Galin,
I think we are going in circles here; apples and oranges, black horses, a half-naked Eowyn, and artwork, films, vs books.
I have always preferred the books.
And I think the films are a masterpiece on their own.

No sense to continue to try and convert each other.

Lady Arwen are you telling me that my writing for "Quest to Doriath" will be copied and posted elsewhere?

I'm going to let this rest.
Bear


__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present

Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 23
Date: Feb 6, 2011
Hey!

Something just occurred to me whilst I was inspired to go and draw up my own imagined image of the epic scene of Eowyn's ...

Sometimes art is not meant LITERALLY ... so maybe that scantily clad Eowyn was not going for realism but was rather making some sort of statement about an opinion regarding women who go into battle alongside men ... or perhaps there was a depiction of the kinds of things that the Naz was mistakenly thinking ...

Art can get tricky that way sometimes.  This can make it hard to stricktly judge by the most literal of standards and hard to compare in general at times.  I think this is one good reason why it is often said that art should be judged as art and literature as literature etc. etc. etc.


-- Edited by Meimei on Sunday 6th of February 2011 07:14:27 PM

__________________
RevisionIcon.gifeCardIcon.gifPrintIcon.gifBookmarkIcon.gifdiscuss.gifSourceIcon.gif
4star.gifI Like this quoteI dislike this quoteThere is nothing like looking, if you want to find something. You certainly usually find something, if you look, but it is not always quite the something you were after.
-J.R.R. Tolkien (The Hobbit)
Fundin, Lord of Moria - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 562
Date: Feb 6, 2011
Bear, I haven't been trying to convert you with respect to your opinion of the films as a whole. My posts have been trying to speak to the myriad specific choices and opinions that might actually go into trying to faithfully translate a given book to film, while keeping the arguable needs of (or art of) film in mind. I trust that no one who wants a 'more faithful' adaptation (in his or her opinion) wants this to the detriment of a film experience. 


Meimei, art can be tricky, yes; and we can't ask Mr. Frazetta for example, as sadly he has somewhat recently passed on. That said, if one looks at his body of work on the whole... it doesn't exactly lack for scantily clad females in any case.

wink

-- Edited by Galin on Monday 7th of February 2011 09:20:50 AM

__________________
Tom Bombadil
Status: Offline
Posts: 1886
Date: Feb 9, 2011
I went on the US Copyright Website. They want $35 for the most basic of Copyrights. I am not sure if that would be per poem, or per bookl, or booklet in my case.

__________________

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

Soldier of Beleriand - Rank 3
Status: Offline
Posts: 121
Date: Feb 10, 2011
How can you copyright your work online? Or better said, how will this stop people from getting it anyway? I could very well copy your poems, or your images, even if they are right-click protected. Mozilla is smart enough to let you drag such a photo to a new tab, and voila, the right-click then works fine! Even in cases where this is not possible, you can still use 'print screen' to the same end.

Whenever I posted something on the net (writing or photos), I never asked anyone not to copy it, or to mention my name if they repost it... because it's useless. Nobody does this. Either people do this by their own accord, because they have a feeling of respect for others' work, or they don't. In which case my asking them to mention me is equal to nothing.

By this principle, I never posted things I feel I can't part with. I wrote some short stories on the other forum (where I came from), but apart from the members there acknowledging my work (because the community was small and pretty compact), I can't guarantee that someone else did not come there (without being a member) and took it, and may now be using it who-knows-where... So I was pretty OK with the idea that that work might get used by someone else. I only put it online because I did not mind it.

What you can do with images, is not release them in their original resolution, or if you do, then add watermarks all over them so they can't be used (although that somehow ruins the image).

-- Edited by John Wain on Thursday 10th of February 2011 03:03:34 PM

__________________
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Feb 10, 2011
It does sound like it could be something hard to police. I'd be wary about posting anything on the internet unless your copyright company can somehow give you a cast iron guarantee of some sort Arwen.

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!

 
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard