I'm inclined to differ with Tolkien on one point. I think that effective readers--the same people who can use their imagination to conjure up the action in a fantasy novel in the theater of their minds--can also sometimes conjure around the visual elements in a movie. Perhaps the effects occasionally fall short or can't compete with what the imagination could produce. But they don't necessarily prevent the imagination from working unless they are truly awful.
As an audience, new effects technologies have perhaps actually spoiled us, making us always demand the most elaborate--and expensive--effects. The result is that it's harder the moves and TV shows in the fantasy genre to do well commercially even if they are popular. Netflix is a good illustration, as it kills off fantasy series more rapidly than those in other genres--because the effects budgets are bigger.
I'll admit that I'm probably in the minority on this issue, but I might rather see more well-acted and well-written productions with somewhat more basic special effects than far fewer with blockbuster effects, mesmerizing as they sometimes are.
This was boiling in my mind, good point, I agree: maybe we and creators of modern fantasy adaptations are spoiled by the possibilities CGI brought. I think, new (mainstream) cinema tend to choose spectacle over creative storytelling, direction, writing, casting or plenty of other tools a filmmaker can use. I love CGI, my mouth drips when it's good, but I prefer a great story.
A fantastic counterexample is Dune, in my opinion. I think Villeneuve is a master of creating myth through information gaps, music, sound effects and hints of tradition like costumes.
I enjoyed reading your analysis, and agree on many points.
Another interesting and rare aspect I'd like to add is our different perceptions and imaginations as humans. Around 1-5 percent of people, including me, cannot conjure mental images or imagine just faded glimpses compared to those without this condition. (Man, that is a superpower in my eyes!)
Aphantasia is so interesting in this sense. I never see a character clearly until they are represented in a visual medium, so “the fairest of them all” has a similar feeling for me than any other character: almost mythological.
On the other hand, I can fuse concepts, ideas with “pictures” of people or things into one. In my mind, senses are closer to each other and there is good passage between them. So for aphantaisics, in a way, films can be better for fantasy as they add the visual to the conceptual, keeping the concepts untouched.
Too many times even fantastic effects cannot help an adaptation, and I wish filmmakers concentrated more on creative storytelling than the spectacle of visuals. I think to create myth, information should be left out. It must be hard to resist showing everything on screen now when productions have the means to enchant us with CGI...
In your opinion, which (fantasy / sci-fi) movie balances showing and not showing masterfully?
One interesting film is *The Thief of Bagdad* -- the original, the silent one featuring Doug Fairbanks Sr. The very limits of the quality of the film help the simple, artfully deployed FX.
Great analysis! I’ve thought much about this question as well since hearing Tolkien’s claim that stageplay cannot render fantasy. While I do think there’s some personal preference at work, it’s interesting that the example he picks is Macbeth. Shakespearean plays — at least in the Elizabethan tradition — had almost no props whatsoever. When Macbeth stumbles out of the chambers covered in blood, it was almost certainly left to the audience to imagine that blood.
Based on the thoughts of Lewis and Barfield (associates and fellow Inklings), I wonder if there are two things going on:
1. To Tolkien, vision has a reifying effect in contrast to the abstract nature of the written word. If I write about a bloody, floating dagger then your imagination sets to work on daggers, but if it’s a prop then you must imagine THAT dagger because it’s done for you. Plenty of people will never picture Aragorn and not picture Viggo.
2. Likewise to Tolkien, imagination is a skill that visual media does not allow the participant to exercise.
Oh, and another thing: Tchaikovsky wrote the ballet *The Sleeping Princess* rather than *The Sleeping Beauty* because nothing could ensure that the prima ballerina would be beautiful, but she could be declared a princess by fiat.
Very well-supported analysis!
I'm inclined to differ with Tolkien on one point. I think that effective readers--the same people who can use their imagination to conjure up the action in a fantasy novel in the theater of their minds--can also sometimes conjure around the visual elements in a movie. Perhaps the effects occasionally fall short or can't compete with what the imagination could produce. But they don't necessarily prevent the imagination from working unless they are truly awful.
As an audience, new effects technologies have perhaps actually spoiled us, making us always demand the most elaborate--and expensive--effects. The result is that it's harder the moves and TV shows in the fantasy genre to do well commercially even if they are popular. Netflix is a good illustration, as it kills off fantasy series more rapidly than those in other genres--because the effects budgets are bigger.
I'll admit that I'm probably in the minority on this issue, but I might rather see more well-acted and well-written productions with somewhat more basic special effects than far fewer with blockbuster effects, mesmerizing as they sometimes are.
This was boiling in my mind, good point, I agree: maybe we and creators of modern fantasy adaptations are spoiled by the possibilities CGI brought. I think, new (mainstream) cinema tend to choose spectacle over creative storytelling, direction, writing, casting or plenty of other tools a filmmaker can use. I love CGI, my mouth drips when it's good, but I prefer a great story.
A fantastic counterexample is Dune, in my opinion. I think Villeneuve is a master of creating myth through information gaps, music, sound effects and hints of tradition like costumes.
I enjoyed reading your analysis, and agree on many points.
Another interesting and rare aspect I'd like to add is our different perceptions and imaginations as humans. Around 1-5 percent of people, including me, cannot conjure mental images or imagine just faded glimpses compared to those without this condition. (Man, that is a superpower in my eyes!)
Aphantasia is so interesting in this sense. I never see a character clearly until they are represented in a visual medium, so “the fairest of them all” has a similar feeling for me than any other character: almost mythological.
On the other hand, I can fuse concepts, ideas with “pictures” of people or things into one. In my mind, senses are closer to each other and there is good passage between them. So for aphantaisics, in a way, films can be better for fantasy as they add the visual to the conceptual, keeping the concepts untouched.
Too many times even fantastic effects cannot help an adaptation, and I wish filmmakers concentrated more on creative storytelling than the spectacle of visuals. I think to create myth, information should be left out. It must be hard to resist showing everything on screen now when productions have the means to enchant us with CGI...
In your opinion, which (fantasy / sci-fi) movie balances showing and not showing masterfully?
One interesting film is *The Thief of Bagdad* -- the original, the silent one featuring Doug Fairbanks Sr. The very limits of the quality of the film help the simple, artfully deployed FX.
Great analysis! I’ve thought much about this question as well since hearing Tolkien’s claim that stageplay cannot render fantasy. While I do think there’s some personal preference at work, it’s interesting that the example he picks is Macbeth. Shakespearean plays — at least in the Elizabethan tradition — had almost no props whatsoever. When Macbeth stumbles out of the chambers covered in blood, it was almost certainly left to the audience to imagine that blood.
Based on the thoughts of Lewis and Barfield (associates and fellow Inklings), I wonder if there are two things going on:
1. To Tolkien, vision has a reifying effect in contrast to the abstract nature of the written word. If I write about a bloody, floating dagger then your imagination sets to work on daggers, but if it’s a prop then you must imagine THAT dagger because it’s done for you. Plenty of people will never picture Aragorn and not picture Viggo.
2. Likewise to Tolkien, imagination is a skill that visual media does not allow the participant to exercise.
Oh, and another thing: Tchaikovsky wrote the ballet *The Sleeping Princess* rather than *The Sleeping Beauty* because nothing could ensure that the prima ballerina would be beautiful, but she could be declared a princess by fiat.