Where are all the Tolkien enthusiasts?

[Hummingbirdtat2]

I'm surprised to find no threads regarding Tolkien's masterpieces, and only a few references to him in some of the other threads. Surely I am not the only literature fan that has left instructions to be buried with her copy of The Lord of the Rings along with her Shakespeare collection when she dies? Anyone, anyone? :lol: I know you're there, I can hear you breathing!! What did you think of the movies? Would you recommend them to friends who had not read the books? As much as you love the books, would you recommend THOSE to friends? What do you think of the fact that Tolkien created an entire world, with various cultures, languages, and histories from scratch? Come, pull up a chair and join me!

My second choice, btw, was to have my ashes scattered all over Middle Earth. Don't think that one's too feasible though! :lol:

[simon]

Well Hummer, perhaps it is that the genuis and sheer astounding perserverance of Tolkien's books leaves little to say agianst his masterpeice. Nobody can argue that the world he created is one of a kind and unique. And naturally it is recommend with the utmost sincerity becuase there is nothing else like it, though it at times does get boring, what with the lenghty description of cooking wear and minute details of houses and families.

But as for the movie, it also is a great masterpeice as never before has a director been able to create such an epic tale of this proportion. Standing by itself it is an amazing accomplishment just like the books. I tend to see the movies and the books as seperate creations based on the same idea, not a movie based on a book. But although the movie is has wonderful scenes and is rich in every detail it is often too rich and too long to just sit straight through it, like any culture it cannot be absorbed in one sitting.

[trismegistus]

The books are great. Peter Jackson should be castrated for ruining them.

[Hummingbirdtat2]

Fastest way to kill a thread! lol.

Care to share with us the ways in which you feel the books were ruined by Jacksons representation of them? I personally feel that very little could be done to ruin the books, if anything. But I'd be interested to hear your interpretation.

[bjortan]

Well, I'm a fan of both Tolkien and Jackson... and while I don't think the Ring movies are his best work, I think he came as close as anyone can hope to come. Let's face it, to make these movies and make them credible you need a huge budget, you need big name stars, you need all that sickening PR. And then there's the no-movie-is-ever-as-good-as-the-book thing. Once the last of the 4DVD-boxes gets here, I'm going to watch the three movies back-to-back... and then I think I'll be done with Tolkien for a few years. It's been something of an overdose lately.

(Then again, a friend of mine dismissed the movies as "an 11-hour Enya video". So you can't please everyone, I suppose.)

I'm not sure I agree that the world he created is unique and one of a kind - don't most fantasy writers do the same thing? Of course, Tolkien did it better and in more detail than just about anyone else.

[EAP]

Love Tolkien. Like Silmarillion more then LOTR. Disliked Movie No. 1. Didn't care to watch 2 and 3. Recommend the books. Not the movies. Finnish Myths.

[amuse]

back in '96 i was getting my wisdom teeth pulled under a local anasthetic. well, don't you know, i had this brilliant idea that i would read at the same time, lol. my dentist asked what book was i reading, and when i said lotr (forget which one) he said he thought so - isn't that Cool??? out of all the zillions of books there are.
still haven't finished the silmarillion. love the lore and background stuff, just haven't managed to because i always read a few other books when i work on that one. but it did help after the movies came out - and i liked them, btw, even though i've read his ltor and hobbit books around 24 times in all - to put me back into My world of tolkien, my pictures, which were the most important things to me after seeing the movies. thankfully it worked - the pictures in my head are different for the book and the movies, even though the characters are the same. it's like they're two parallel universes. i love tolkien. great thread. :) i can't laud him enough. even memorized some elvish for a speech class so i could do mildly credible justice to the man and his work.

[crisaor]

Hummingbirdtat2, I recall several threads about Tolkien and LotR. You can search them in the archives.

[Hummingbirdtat2]

Thanks for the info, but since I'm new here I was kinda hoping to actually participate in a discussion as well; perhaps with other new people who have similar interests. Silly me, huh? ;) .

[amuse]

no, keep talking. what's your favorite line, who's your favorite character (un-oh, i don't have one), etc. etc.?
my favorite line is "the bow of legolas sang." i used to read that one part over and over, marveling how perfectly the story was set up for that one thrumming stroke from his bow. it almost makes me cry, it's so brief, pure, and true. just makes me shiver.
as for favorite characters...i really like - egads, must think and can't do that coming down from a polysci study session. will get back to you.

[Hummingbirdtat2]

My absolutely favorite line of all time is "His will was set, and only death would break it." The reference is the Chapter entitled Mount Doom, and Sam and Frodo are nearly up the mountain. Sam had been carrying on a bit of an internal debate, and then suddenly his head cleared. He found within him new strength, both physical, and strength of purpose. That one line can still make me ache inside, no matter how many times I read it.

Incidently, it's a line that I also feel was extremely well represented in the movies.

My favorite character is Aragorn, the reluctant king, the servant king, the tender warrior; and I could write an entire book on all the reasons I adore him. He was my first crush as a teenager! lol.

Do get back to us on your favorite, as well!

[trismegistus]

Fastest way to kill a thread! lol.
I'm simply a firm believer in brevity. I'm the first to confess that I can be long-winded, so I tend to keep things short. If folks want more they're free to ask. ;-)


Care to share with us the ways in which you feel the books were ruined by Jacksons representation of them?
Sure. My biggest objections are to what he did to characters. I don't care that the story was edited and even changed at points; that was inevitable because of time constaints.

I care very much that the nature of every member of the House of Denethor was changed to make them seem more violent/less caring/more greedy and grasping. I care very much that Gimli, who is a powerfully stoic character in the books, is turned into the court jester for dwarf-tossing, horse-throwing, and women-with-beard jokes. I care that the nobility of the Ents' decision to risk their very existence on war is changed into the response of a simpleton's trick of Pippen's. (Oh those hobbits! Cute and so clever, too!)

In a classic Hollywood move, Jackson and company made the conscious decision to make the beautiful people (especially our "buddy cop" team of Legolas and Aragorn) seem even more beautiful by making many of those around them more ugly, stupid, and/or silly than Tolkien would have dreamed.

I won't even get into the crappy dialogue insertions that surely make Tolkien cringe wherever he is now.

[Hummingbirdtat2]

I think those things reflect more on the movie-maker than on the books though. The quality of the books is not affected, can not be affected, by such Hollywood-all-mighty-dollar driven devices. Tolkien's genuis is still Tolkien's genius, regardless of how someone chooses to interpret him. If someone uses a screwdriver to drive a nail, the screwdriver has been misused, but it does not destroy the quality of the tool itself. It simply reflects misjudgement on the part of the tool-handler.

Your points are valid, though, in regard to the films. I have to agree that I was relatively disturbed by the representation of Theoden. Like the house of Denethor, his nobility was completely corrupted. Jackson portrayed him as a timid character; wracked with self-doubt. I missed the father figure that Tolkien wrote.

Regardless, I enjoyed the movies. And I felt that Tolkien's underlying purposes and themes were upheld when all was said and done.

Has anyone else experienced the confusion between the first line in Tolkien's poem "All that is gold does not glitter" and the Shakespeare quote from A Merchant of Venice "All that glisters is not gold"?

[amuse]

oh definitely yes. i was rather taken aback the first time i read that!

[Capnplank]

Love the books, love the movies. I only had one complaint about the film breaking from themes and importances and whatnot, which disappointed me greatly but still couldn't entirely take away the movies being very engrossing and pretty loyally recreating Tolkien's fantasy world.

[trismegistus]

I think those things reflect more on the movie-maker than on the books though. The quality of the books is not affected, can not be affected, by such Hollywood-all-mighty-dollar driven devices.
Oh without a doubt. That's why I opened my first post by saying the books were great.

The biggest problem with Jackson's movies is that the film industry finally had the tools to make Tolkien's lit into celluloid. Jackson had the will to get the project finished, and some seriously fine talent lined up behind it. There will never be another opportunity to make these novels on this scale. Jackson has made the definitive version which is what really pi$$es me off. He could have done it right; he elected not to, and he's sealed the filmed version of the novels into this hopelessly flawed form. Thanks to Jackson, we cannot in our lifetimes hope to have a film which is true to Tolkien's works.

[amuse]

on the plus side, people who have never read the books are reading them, thanks to mr. jackson.

[Taliesin]

Sure. My biggest objections are to what he did to characters. I don't care that the story was edited and even changed at points; that was inevitable because of time constaints.

I care very much that the nature of every member of the House of Denethor was changed to make them seem more violent/less caring/more greedy and grasping. I care very much that Gimli, who is a powerfully stoic character in the books, is turned into the court jester for dwarf-tossing, horse-throwing, and women-with-beard jokes. I care that the nobility of the Ents' decision to risk their very existence on war is changed into the response of a simpleton's trick of Pippen's. (Oh those hobbits! Cute and so clever, too!)

.


Not to mention Faramir. Or all the characters that even weren't in the movie (Bombadil, Glorfindel et cetera ) :mad:

[Hummingbirdtat2]

"There Denethor sat in a grey gloom, like an old patient spider, Pippin thought; he did not seem to have moved since the day before." (JRR Tolkien The Lord of The Rings, The Return of the King. "The Siege of Gondor" paragraph 8)

I surely would not have wanted to be Mr. Jackson. He was faced with the monumental task of making much-loved books into movies that would be well and widely recieved, even though the books themselves had only a specialized following. In order to even partially do the books justice, the cost was monumental. To be able to make it worth anyone's while and not lose money on the deal he had to make the movies so that they would be widely enough received, outside of the specialized audience of the books. I would not have liked to have been faced with the choices and decisions he was by any stretch of the imagination. It's pretty easy for those of us not in that position to rail against him, but I wonder if, in the same position, we would have been able to do much better.

I'm really curious, though, how you specifically feel that Jackson misrepresented the characters of Denethor and Boromir. I double-checked, just to see if I was remembering incorrectly. In the chapter entitled "The Siege of Gondor", Denethor criticizes Faramir for not bringing him the Ring as he believed Boromir would have done and rails against Mithradir for delighting to bear ill-news. Did Denethor not drive himself mad by using the Palantir; by assuming to himself the authority of Gondor to use it? Did he not try to burn himself and Faramir alive in a fit of grief? Did he not whither on the pyre, still holding the Palantir? I'm confused where you think he was misrepresented. I personally find no evidence in the text that does not follow closely with what was given on screen.

What about Borormir? Am I mistaken in remembering that he cracked under even just close proximity to the Ring, and tried to take it from Frodo? I could be wrong, though. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the text and there is some subtleties of nobility in those characters that I am missing. It's possible, and definitely wouldn't be the last time I've been accused of romanticism and naivete. :)

I was disappointed by how tentative Faramir was represented though, and the internal conflict that he was shown to have that was not written in the text.

[amuse]

i'm having a hard time with my precise fave character(s). i gave my books away to a friend from japan - they were wonderfully old and tatty but she wanted them anyway - i remember finding "the voice of saruman" to be a chilling chapter. i thought he was well done. of course i loved gandalf. i would have to say tolkien's descriptions of shadowfax - time flowing over him etc.- were stunning to say the least. those always gave me goosebumps. sam for his simplicity i found beautiful. i found strider sexy and endearing, he was very macho at times, and funny when he reunited with the hobbits after the battle of gondor. he was also quite kingly at the end, and i liked how he grew as a character. of course, the special vocal intonations given each character were superb, and i especially like sam and his "oliphants" and the elves singing. i found their stay with celeborn and galadriel to be especially lovely, and found references to her later, and arwen - and the subsequent quarrels over who was the fairer to be rather sublime - "your love is given to the morning, mine to the evening" or some such line by gimli. such staunch, true creatures in the fellowship...except boromir. i despised him, to the point where it bothered me. jerk!!!!!!! okay, that's putting it nicely. and the guttural orcs - i even loved them just for being themselves. but the best, ah that would have to be yeah sam. what a hobbit. just the kind that tolkien described In the hobbit - steadfast yet full of surprises. so loyal, adventurous even when least expected, but at the end of the day - "well, i'm home."

[trismegistus]

In order to even partially do the books justice, the cost was monumental. To be able to make it worth anyone's while and not lose money on the deal he had to make the movies so that they would be widely enough received, outside of the specialized audience of the books.
I don't believe he was required to make the changes he did. Was he forced to have Aragorn die and be resurrected or was that simply a feel-good second version of Gandalf's death? Was he forced to turn Gimli into a buffoon? Faramir into the "tentative" figure you yourself call him? Doubt it but let's say he was, I personally would have preferred that he not make the films at all if he could protect neither his own nor the integrity of the books.


I'm really curious, though, how you specifically feel that Jackson misrepresented ... Denethor .... I double-checked, just to see if I was remembering incorrectly. In the chapter entitled "The Siege of Gondor", Denethor criticizes Faramir for not bringing him the Ring as he believed Boromir would have done and rails against Mithradir for delighting to bear ill-news. Did Denethor not drive himself mad by using the Palantir; by assuming to himself the authority of Gondor to use it? Did he not try to burn himself and Faramir alive in a fit of grief? Did he not whither on the pyre, still holding the Palantir? I'm confused where you think he was misrepresented. I personally find no evidence in the text that does not follow closely with what was given on screen.
First regarding your list, Denethor does not rail against Gandalf for delighting in bringing bad news. Rather he says that others accuse Gandalf of delighting in bringing bad news, but that the particular news that Gandalf brings is already known to him, Denethor. (Personally I read this as an oblique reference to the words of Grima Wormtongue. Denethor's statement is his way of letting Gandalf know that he, Denethor, knows even the details of what happens elsewhere.)

The withering on the pyre thing is minor but since you brought it up it should be noted that Denethor does NOT burn to death on the pyre in the movie. Jackson elects to have him hurl himself over the edge of Mindolluin. I suppose he, Jackson, couldn't resist the cinematic wonder (although fairly worn trope) of the "falling star." I don't object strenuously to this, but IMO even this is a slight weakening of Denethor's character. He does not burn to death, he leaps to his death, clearly a quicker ending.

In the novel Gandalf says of Denethor: "by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best."

Denethor is a throwback to the Numenoreans, the exact claim for which Aragorn is also cited, and as Gandalf himself states, Denethor is far more like Faramir in his nobility, insight, and personal strength than he is like Boromir; yet in the film we are given little more than an older version Boromir. In the novel he is a "proud and stern" lord of Men, not the vicious near-lunatic that Jackson portrays him as. Does he send Faramir back to Osgiliath with unjust words in the novel? Yes. But he hardly devours a feast while his son is struck down in the field. That is a scene invented by Jackson, and the montage that goes into it portrays Denethor as a gluttonous and even bloodthirsty tyrant.


What about Borormir?
The most damning scene involving Boromir is in Lothlorien. If you recall, when Galadriel gazes at each of the Walkers upon their arrival, no one other than Legolas and Aragorn can endure her gaze. In the movie, Boromir is the only one who cannot face her. Thus in the novel he is a soldier of flawed nobility; he is neither great nor terrible. This scene in the film transforms him into a criminal - the wicked Judas among the saintly Apostles.

In addition to these added/altered scenes, watch how Jackson shoots these two men. Where is our attention drawn? How do edits play a role in our understanding of them, their awareness, their motives, and their relationships with others?


I was disappointed by how tentative Faramir was represented though, and the internal conflict that he was shown to have that was not written in the text.
Exactly. Faramir's most noble moment in the novel isn't when he rides back to doomed Osgiliath, it's when he faces the exact circumstance as Aragorn, Galadriel, and Gandalf: the Ring is entirely in his power and he rejects it calmly and deliberately (just as those other three characters did). Jackson waters this act down when he has Faramir take Frodo and Sam with him in his retreat to Osgiliath, and even more so by placing Faramir under the stress of battle before he sets Frodo free. What we are told is that if given quiet time to consider the Ring, Faramir will act exactly as his brother did. It is only the external pressure of defending the city that "allows" him to do the right thing.

Pitiful.

But seeing as how we agree on Faramir (and perhaps now on Denethor and Boromir :brow: ), what say you to his portrayal of Gimli? I thought it loathesome ... in case you couldn't guess.

[Hummingbirdtat2]

Nope, definitely still don't agree.

Thank goodness for different points of view!!

I love that little evil eyebrow thingy ("thingy" being a technical term, don'tcha luv it?)!

:cool:

[Shea]

Hi, I would have been all about this discussion earlier if that stupid Hurricane hadn't come through. As it is, I've read a bit but don't really have time to read the rest. Interesting disscussion though.

I had read (and thoroughly enjoyed) The Hobbit when I was a kid and had always intended to read lotr one day. I pushed myself into it when the movies came out, but alas, I read them rather fast. I'm realizing (as I re-read) that I missed some rather large chunks, but I can't really decide on if I missed them becuase I didn't understand them, or that I see them now because the movies helped me to understand them. In any case the movies are good, but the books are tons better.

I have a rather different respect for any movie of a book, because no matter how they differ, it's the only way for me to disscuss literature with my husband. He practically refuses to read fiction. He loves Jackson's movies but still won't read the books.

BTW, did anyone touch on the fact that Tolkein didn't exactly create Middle-Earth from scratch? He was an Anglo-Saxonist and since I've been dabbling a bit in the study of such, I see where some of his inspiration came from. For example (I think), "Theod" in Old English means "King", and "Ent" means "Giant". I've also seen how the Old English language could have inspired some elvish words and names. I've also seen characters (not neccessarily names) like Wormtounge and Eowyn in Beowulf.

[amuse]

ooh ooh ooh! great points! although he did begin writing elvish for example when he was 12 (though some of has finnish over or undertones, i believe).
as a philologist, i think his knowledge of languages couldn't have helped but influence his incredible gift (his creation of mood, setting, character and all.)

what did your husband think of the movies, btw?

hmm. i didn't know there was a bio (by Humphrey Carpenter) published in 1977...


unable to leave well enough alone...my favorite Tolkien site is down, but:

http://www.delanohighschool.org/BillBaugher/stories/storyReader$106
Throughout his life, Tolkien had cultivated a love of language, especially ancient languages. At Oxford he would major in philology, which is the study of words and language. He would be much influenced by Icelandic, Norse and Gothic mythology. Even some of the characters and place names he would later develop would be drawn from the names from ancient sagas. The forest of Mirkwood, which played a prominent roll in both "The Hobbit" and in The Lord of the Rings was borrowed from Icelandic mythology. The names of many of the dwarves in "The Hobbit" were actual placenames in the myths.

&

http://www.tolkienet.com/framebase.asp?http://www.tolkienet.com/lothlorien/theman.asp
In early 1908...John begins his first term at Oxford.
In 1910, on the 17th of December, John is awarded an Open Classical Exhibition to Exeter College, which he attended, focusing on various topics, but eventually settling on English, with an emphasis in philology.
It was whilst he was at Oxford that he began inventing a language based on Finnish. This language emerged in his stories as Quenya or High-elven. He was awarded First Class Honours degree in English Language and Literature in 1915.
Only a month later, he was commissioned...left to fight in France during the First World War...It was while convalescing that he started to study early forms of language and work on The Silmarillion. For the rest of his life, Tolkien expanded the mythology of his fantasy worlds...in 1918, Tolkien joined the staff of New English Dictionary, which was later to be come the Oxford English dictionary, where he worked for two years. In his first weeks he researched the origins of 'warm', 'wasp', 'water', 'wick' and 'winter'.
In 1925 he had become Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University. It was during this time that he wrote "The Hobbit", mainly to amuse his four children, but it was eventually published in 1937.
He had been appointed Merton Professor of English at Oxford in 1945, and continued in this post until he retired in 1959.
His scholarly works included studies on Chaucer (1934) and an edition of Beowulf (1937). He was also interested in the Finnish national epos Kalevala, from which he found ideas for his imaginary language guenya and which influenced several of his stories. Most of the inhabitants of Tolkien's imaginary Middle-earth are derived from English folklore and mythology, or from an idealised Anglo-Saxon past.
In 1972 he received CBE from the Queen. :banana:

:( sorry if i'm over-enthusiastic. :)

[Shea]

amuse, your enthusiasm is shared by me! I actually tried to read that Bio, but have been so busy, then I had to return it to the library. The one episode that stuck out in my head was when a nearby farmer cut down and chopped up a perfectly good willow tree for no apparent reason. Tolkien was extreamly saddened by that. To him, it was like having a dead relative just left out in the field to rot.

My husband likes the movies actually, sometimes I think he watches them more than I do. But I can't really tell if he's interested or not in my comentaries on how they differ from the books. I guess it depends on what we're talking about. If I try and bring up what I think Tolkiens moral implications are, then we have a pretty good discussion. Once again, he's only interested in the practical.

One thing about Tolkien that he has recently taken an interest in, is how he converted C.S. Lewis (another of my fav authors) from being an athiest. But I've still got to research that on my own yet.

[crisaor]

One thing about Tolkien that he has recently taken an interest in, is how he converted C.S. Lewis (another of my fav authors) from being an athiest. But I've still got to research that on my own yet.
Do you like G.K. Chesterton? You can do another research on that one. ;)

[Shea]

Crisaor, I'm not familiar with that name. What did he write?

[EAP]

Gilber Keith Chesterton wrote a plethora of things, not the least of which are the Father Brown Detective stories.

Though folks usually love The Man Who Was Thursday more. :(


Wikipedia Summation: 'He was a literary and social critic, historian, playwright, novelist, Catholic Christian theologian, debater and mystery writer.'

[crisaor]

Shea, as EAP said, his father Brown stories and the Man Who Was Thursday are his most acclaimed writings. Owning both of them, I can say that only the first book of Father Brown (The Innocence of Father Brown) is somewhat close to the quality of the man who was thursday, his finest piece IMO. I mentioned him because when he met Father John O'Connor (who inspired the Father Brown character), he converted to catholicism. He's also wrtitten about st. Thomas Aquinas and st. Francis of Assisi.

[JediFonger]

whew quite the long thread... but i'm enjoying it nonetheless.

eap, i have not found another human soul that loved silmarillion more than lotr... until now! congratulations... you will now receive the 3 jewels... ya just gotta fetch 'em in the sky, the deep and the sea! =^). i found the world of silmarillion to be more vast and epic and i totally loved the battle of the gods/godesses (angles) valars and melkor/morgoth (lucifer) ripping apart arda. i really enjoyed feanor as well. i think he's my fav character in the history of middle earth! i identify with him most cause i'm just as impatient as him!

regarding the topic @hand. as far as i know, which is very little, i'm the biggest Tolkien nut (enthusiast) in the radius of 50miles at least. i first heard of this 'great series of tales' coming out in cinema in early 2000 and have decided to readup on it (as i often do with movies that have yet to be released). when i first got the hobbit, i thought back to when i was 13 or 14 and was at the library, a librarian had suggested this very book to me. in retrospect what a foolish little boy i was to refuse to read the book. anyway my fav part in hob is at the very end. this following excerpt of exchanges was so emotional i almost broke down and cried. i've never been so affected by a book. NEVER. but here i was a grown man:

"Farewell, good thief," [character that is dying] said. "I go now to the halls of waiting to sit beside my fathers, until the world is renewed. Since I leave now all gold and silver, and go where it is of little worth, I wish to part in friendship from you, and I would take back my words and deeds at the Gate."

Bilbo knelt on one knee filled with sorrow. "Farewell, King under the Mountain!" he said. "This is a bitter adventure, if it must end so; and not a mountain of gold can amend it. Yet I am glad that I have shared in your perils - that has been more than any Baggins deserves."

"No!" said the dying. "There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West. Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure. If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. But sad or merry, I must leave it now. Farewell!"

*sniff sniff*. and that's just in the hobbit alone! there ain't space enough here to quote the entire lotr book but regarding the movies, i really loved the movies cause it has opened the door to Tolkien fanaticism on an even more popular level.

crisaor, i think you are judging Peter Jackon rather unfairly. he had one chance to make it really good and has done so as far as all Tolkien fans, nonfans are concerned. it's entertaining, relative short (considering he only made 1/2 of lotr) and god deserved nods for it. now go waaay back in the late 90s when PJ was shopping lotr around the studios. lotr is a big risk/venture for movie studios. investing 300million into 3 movies is NOT cheap! yes they got their profits back in spades but think about the time prior to fellowship. all movies are a risk, you never know who will come out and watch it. take sky captains of tomorrow, it only made 16mil but more fans should have been out to see an ORIGINAL SF/fantasy. movies is one big risk after another! PJ had to make choices that had to do with summarizing lotr (which is really 6 films each 3-4 hours long) down to just 3 films. remember also that this has opened the door for SOMEONE else to re-adapt lotr. PJ is the FINAL authority on it. he's simply opened the door for more takes on Tolkien. but you must also take into consideration of the fact that if they did 6 films based on lotr then book1 is mostly just fantasy characters sitting around TALKING to one another! no action! although great for staying true to the books it would kill box office potential, who love action more than anything else.

as for lotr itself, i think the first feeling i felt after reading most of Tolkien's popular works (sil, hob, lotr) is major disappointment, not at Tolkien's work but at other works which i longer feel are as well written as Tolkien's. like i had read Stephen King's Dark Tower before lotr and i thought THAT was good writing. re-reading that series now i just wonder at how King gets his accolades as a "good writer" if compared to Tolkien. then i got a grip of reality, there is only ONE Tolkien in the history of mankind. good thing he wrote this before i died and i had a chance to read truly "good literature". i mean even right now i have not found a contemporary nor authors of the past that have equaled Tolkien in his technical merits of writing not just the conjurer of story.

finally Tolkien INSPIRES me to write well. his writing IMPLORES me to write better or else i would feel guilty!

[crisaor]

crisaor, i think you are judging Peter Jackon rather unfairly. he had one chance to make it really good and has done so as far as all Tolkien fans, nonfans are concerned. it's entertaining, relative short (considering he only made 1/2 of lotr) and god deserved nods for it. now go waaay back in the late 90s when PJ was shopping lotr around the studios. lotr is a big risk/venture for movie studios. investing 300million into 3 movies is NOT cheap! yes they got their profits back in spades but think about the time prior to fellowship. all movies are a risk, you never know who will come out and watch it. take sky captains of tomorrow, it only made 16mil but more fans should have been out to see an ORIGINAL SF/fantasy. movies is one big risk after another! PJ had to make choices that had to do with summarizing lotr (which is really 6 films each 3-4 hours long) down to just 3 films. remember also that this has opened the door for SOMEONE else to re-adapt lotr. PJ is the FINAL authority on it. he's simply opened the door for more takes on Tolkien. but you must also take into consideration of the fact that if they did 6 films based on lotr then book1 is mostly just fantasy characters sitting around TALKING to one another! no action! although great for staying true to the books it would kill box office potential, who love action more than anything else.
JediFonger, I'm not sure, but I think you mean to reply to Trismegistus, 'cause I've barely said anything in this thread concerning LotR. Even so, your comments still apply, because I think pretty much the same as he. Gimli was a (very bad) joke, and there will be no more LotR movies in the future. We're stuck with this series. The third one was okay, I'll give that to Jackson, but the first two ones sucked big time. In summary, here's what I think of the series:

* BAD SCRIPT. This is particularly notable in the first movies. The characters act as if they're all the same, and there's nothing of the development seen in the book, much less interesting dialogues. The way some characters behave is pathetic. For example, Gimli yells that elf suck, while being in an elf city ^sigh^ . Arwen has role in the movie that is not even in the same universe of the book; I understand that they needed a female lead and blah blah blah, but i just don´t like it a bit. Faramir is also a good example, as has already been pointed out.
Also, the events are misplaced throughout the entire movie. Some of them are even invented! What the hell are they doing in Osgiliath? Why is the battle of Helm's Deep the essence of The Two Towers, when that battle takes one fu**ing chapter of the book? I could go on.

* POOR EDITING. There's plenty of useless scenes all across the movies, while the really important stuff is left out (either for DVDs or extended versions). The part when Galadriel speaks to everyone in the party and gives a present to each one of them is an example that comes into my mind. Keeping in mind that not all people checks these versions, the quality of the adaptation suffers.

* MIXED RESULTS WITH THE CAST. I felt that some characters were greatly depicted, while others were a very bad choice. I know this is a subjective thing, but it still counts. The hobbits are great, but Cate Blanchett could not be the best looking female in her own neighbourhood, much less the Middle earth. The same thing can be applied to Liv Tyler. Gimli, the dwarf, was played by John Rhys-Davies, who happened to be the tallest actor in the set. I don't know about you guys, but these things tend to annoy me.

In short, The fellowship of the rings was a complete disaster, both of edition and dialogue. Luckily, the extended version mended a few of its errors and it wasn't so bad in the end. I couldn't manage to see the second one, so I'm not sure if they mended it somehow. The Return of the King rules, though.

[JediFonger]

it's still a 3 movie story and what was done in one is a need to 'setup' a pay-off that pays off either in fellowship or two towers or return of the king. i was disappointed at first (like you) but realize that if it had been more true to the book then the audience who don't know the story might be lost. i think it was a fair trade-off to kick off excitement for movies set in Middle Earth.

re: dwarves+elves bad blood. how else would you show their disdain for each other onscreen? it'd be impracticle to show the history of why. that'd be entire movies in of itself.

re: useless stuff in the editing. can you list and example where one scene is useless in the trilogy

re: cate was pretty good (considering the lighting). she's got that ethereal quality that elves need to show immortality. can you name another actress with other-worldly beauty as cate? as for john, they were shooting all of them in forced perspective anyway. so i dunno what original height would have to do with potraying a character. either way i would have gone with midgets to potray hobbits. in fact i just saw willow (the movie) the other day and was surprised at how much of hobbit/lotr was in it. that's what the hobbits are, short people.

[trismegistus]

Oops! See below. Re-posted.

[trismegistus]

Good to see this is still going. I wasn't sure I'd get back to find the thread still alive. So:


i have not found another human soul that loved silmarillion more than lotr... until now!
You can add at least two more names to that list: mine and a friend of mine (who, so far as I know, doesn't write on this board). The Silmarillion is to LOTR what LOTR is to The Hobbit. It's another step up in scope and in literary technique, too. It's a gorgeous work and I think as LOTR shows the influence of Beowulf, The Silmarillion SCREAMS Milton.


he had one chance to make it really good and has done so as far as all Tolkien fans, nonfans are concerned.
No. Not all. I'll be honest, I don't understand how any devotee of the novels can be happy with what Jackson did to them. Sure it's nice to see the beauty of Middle Earth brought to life, and that's something that Jackson pulled off quite well, but he wilfully altered a significant portion of Tolkien's wonderfully crafted dialogue, and I won't go again into the issue of characterization.


remember also that this has opened the door for SOMEONE else to re-adapt lotr.
I totally disagree. No studio in the next 40 years will shell out the budget required to do another version of LOTR because people (other than hardcore Tolkien fans) will not go to see another version. This is like Ben-Hur in scale. It took 30 years before Wyler re-made Niblo's '25 version, and in the case of Ben-Hur we're talking about a time in Hollywood history when studios were FAR more capable of supporting and willing to risk the budget an epic requires. No, Jackson's LOTR is THE LOTR for the foreseeable future.


PJ had to make choices that had to do with summarizing lotr (which is really 6 films each 3-4 hours long) down to just 3 films .... if they did 6 films based on lotr then book1 is mostly just fantasy characters sitting around TALKING to one another! no action!
But as I wrote, for the most part I don't care about what he edited out. It was understood that great swaths of the story would be cut away. But once you cut that stuff away, DON'T ALTER WHAT'S LEFT!!!!! It's simple: Tolkien gifted you with an astoundingly good story, characters that function perfectly in their given roles, and skilfully used language. Use what he gave you. Unless you're a great novelist or playwright, you're not going to match the original in your alterations, so either leave it be, or shell out the cash to get Tom Stoppard to do your screenplay.


dwarves+elves bad blood. how else would you show their disdain for each other onscreen?
The insertion of a 30 second scene that's actually in the books would handle that piece of exposition. Gloin reacts angrily to the tender care shown to Gollum by the elves. Gandalf replies, "If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council."

In any case, I think crisaor was talking more about the logic of the situation and the style of the dialogue.


can you list and example where one scene is useless in the trilogy
Sure. I can name two without a moment's thought:
1. Aragorn's "death" and the crap that surrounds it (the mourning, etc.)
2. That farce with Legolas and the oliphaunt in the 3rd film. Is there honestly not enough action in a BATTLE SEQUENCE that Jackson felt the need to write in what was never there? (Here's an idea, Pete. Get rid of that clumsy three minute setpiece, and put in the scene where Gandalf the White confronts and breaks Saruman, a far more important and far more profound scene.)

Crisaor, I agree with you on most of what you write, but we do disagree on one thing. IMO the films got worse as they went along. RTK enraged me far more than FTR.

[JediFonger]

regarding the films i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree (as i disagree on most of your points). two important points. first, there'll definitely be remake(s) within our lifetime, mark my words. second, can you imagine characters just sitting around (like the pages in the council of elrond) expositing past histories for hours on end like a play? i don't think modern audiences are patient enough. if they are then they end up at the playhouse not the cinema.

[Taliesin]

I totally disagree. No studio in the next 40 years will shell out the budget required to do another version of LOTR because people (other than hardcore Tolkien fans) will not go to see another version. This is like Ben-Hur in scale. It took 30 years before Wyler re-made Niblo's '25 version, and in the case of Ben-Hur we're talking about a time in Hollywood history when studios were FAR more capable of supporting and willing to risk the budget an epic requires. No, Jackson's LOTR is THE LOTR for the foreseeable future.



Well, I don't know anything about another movie, but there's going to be a musical (http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/10/23/NewsInBrief/Rahman.To.Compose.lord.Of.The.Ringsmusical-537038.shtml)

[crisaor]

I was disappointed at first (like you) but realize that if it had been more true to the book then the audience who don't know the story might be lost. i think it was a fair trade-off to kick off excitement for movies set in Middle Earth.
Actually, despite my critics, I enjoyed the series. As you say, it was very moving to see the middle earth come to life. I just think that a better job than this could've been pulled off with little more effort (or will).

re: useless stuff in the editing. can you list and example where one scene is useless in the trilogy
I already did. The battle at Osgiliath, the (unnecessary) long battle at Helm's Deep, the fact that the party/departure piece in the first movie lasts like 45 minutes and the scene which should have been the MOST IMPORTANT of the entire movie (it was in the book), that is, the Council of the ring, lasts only 5 minutes, as everybody yells, Frodo says I'll do it, and everyone else goes ok, he'll do it, great, I'm outta here. Pathetic. The movie is called the fellowship of the ring for a reason, but Jackson didn't seem to care about this. Also, what the hell happened to Saruman???? Jackson decided to edit him out of the third movie for no apparent reason, and the character who engineered much of the conflict in the second movie is merely dismissed as if nothing happened. A good actor was lost, as Christopher Lee was one of the best performers (apart from being the only member of the crew who actually met Tolkien once), and because of this, the transformation of Gandalf went unregistered, among other things.

re: cate was pretty good (considering the lighting). she's got that ethereal quality that elves need to show immortality. can you name another actress with other-worldly beauty as cate?
Hmm, I dunno, Cameron Diaz, for instance. I wasn't criticising Cate's acting, she's good at that, but I find her unappealing, which is the exact opposite of the emotion her character is supposed to generate. She perfomed her role as well as she could, I just think that there were other people more fit than her for the part.

as for john, they were shooting all of them in forced perspective anyway. so i dunno what original height would have to do with potraying a character. either way i would have gone with midgets to potray hobbits. in fact i just saw willow (the movie) the other day and was surprised at how much of hobbit/lotr was in it. that's what the hobbits are, short people.
I know, it's not that important, but that kind of things tend to bother me in the end. Besides, the forced perspective is misused throughout the movies. In the part where Frodo first appears is the only time I recall it was well done, the rest of the times, the halflings are as tall as the actors who play them.

You can add at least two more names to that list: mine and a friend of mine (who, so far as I know, doesn't write on this board). The Silmarillion is to LOTR what LOTR is to The Hobbit. It's another step up in scope and in literary technique, too. It's a gorgeous work and I think as LOTR shows the influence of Beowulf, The Silmarillion SCREAMS Milton.
You can make it three names. ;)

The insertion of a 30 second scene that's actually in the books would handle that piece of exposition. Gloin reacts angrily to the tender care shown to Gollum by the elves. Gandalf replies, "If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council."
In any case, I think crisaor was talking more about the logic of the situation and the style of the dialogue.
That's a perfect and very plausible approach at the matter. And that was exactly what I meant. :)

Crisaor, I agree with you on most of what you write, but we do disagree on one thing. IMO the films got worse as they went along. RTK enraged me far more than FTR.
Despite some of the mistakes you mention (e.g. the oliphant scene), I believe that these were very minor compared to those of the first two movies, and RotK was a better adaption, as I felt that an important amount of the books essence was captured in the film. The dialogues improved slightly, some of the secondary characters were very well depicted, and some scenes (such as the army of the dead and the king trying to burn his son) were astonishing and reflected very much the same things I pictured. Also, I recall reading somewhere that Jackson said that he directed the first two movies just in order to do the third one. I think he did a good job in this one, but I wish he'd put the same intensity in the first ones.

[JediFonger]

crisoar, the saruman scene will be dealt with in the extended DVD =). ok now back to the books, why do you admire the silmarillion so? the onering.net nuts are going through it in their reading room forum. and yesh they are entirely NUTS! =). they have very in depth discussion of Tolkien's work by the book. sometimes taking things apart and putting it together. it's amazing! it's almost like a fulltime job!

[trismegistus]

Hmm, I dunno, Cameron Diaz, for instance.
Now I wouldn't like that casting. Diaz is too cute. IMO there must be a regal beauty in Galadriel, and Cameron (though she is many things I like very much indeed) is not regal. Personally I though Blanchett was pretty close to perfect, although I questioned Jackson's choice when I heard she was cast in the role.

[crisaor]

crisoar, the saruman scene will be dealt with in the extended DVD =).
You see, that is the sort of things that annoy me. I don't have DVD, so I'll miss out on some of the good suff. That can't be right.

ok now back to the books, why do you admire the silmarillion so? the onering.net nuts are going through it in their reading room forum. and yesh they are entirely NUTS! =). they have very in depth discussion of Tolkien's work by the book. sometimes taking things apart and putting it together. it's amazing! it's almost like a fulltime job!
I like it because besides dealing with a wide variety of subjects (world creation, gods pantheon, legendary stories, epic battles, etc.), it's a true literary masterpiece. It doesn't mean that the LotR series is bad, on the contrary, but the Silmarillion has all of the good stuff of the trilogy and more. Everytime I read it, I get the feeling that I'm reading a book in which the author reached its peak, even when he didn't finished it and it had to be compiled later by his son Christopher. Like Trismegistus said, it has a much richer literary technique, it's more poetic, it causes a bigger impact on the reader.
Anyway, I'll be checking out that forum you mentioned. Thanks. :)

Now I wouldn't like that casting. Diaz is too cute. IMO there must be a regal beauty in Galadriel, and Cameron (though she is many things I like very much indeed) is not regal. Personally I though Blanchett was pretty close to perfect, although I questioned Jackson's choice when I heard she was cast in the role.
Of course she's cute, that was my point. I would 've liked much better so see someone breathtaking performing that role instead of Cate, not necessarily Cameron, I was just naming an example.

[EAP]

Glad to see the discussion moving away, [sort of ;)] from the movies. Whatever you opinion about them, the books are the optimum deal.


And there are many, many, many forums dedicated to discussing his works and the cinematic adaptations based on them. Tolkien forumites are among the most passionate in the game I'd say. Right there with the Starwar and just behind the Harry Potter ones.

[Admin]

I loved the books, and I loved the movies. I think a lot of you are being unfair to Peter Jackson etc.

Aragorn "falling" - Yes, lame. Considering I knew that in the third movie Frodo would have a near death experience I thought it would reek of being formula driving to stick another such instance in the second movie.

Faramir - Yes, I prefer how he was written in the book. However, watch the extended edition. There is an amazingly well done seen in the extended edition of The Two Towers that provides a nice back story for him, his father, and his brother. Also there is supposed to be more in the extended edition of ROTK. In my opinion you have no business judging Peter Jackson unless you have watched the extended editions. That is how they were meant to be seen.

Focus on Aragorn & Legolas - A wee bit annoying. I liked the development of Legolas' and Gimli's friendship in the books, the bits where Gimli promises to show Legolas a cave and Legolas promises to show Gimli a forest. But I don't mind the use of Gimli as comic relief. It was good comic relief after all. Pippin and Merry provided some also but they grew and matured nicely, especially Pippin.

Really though I don't think the movie focuses on Aragorn & Legolas' as much as it seems they do, its just that merchandise/fan/screaming-girl-wise they're the most popular and so you probably see more posters etc featuring them.

Arwen -- I did dislike the story changes that made her a major character. However, while the story in the book is better, the movie story with Arwen having more lines isn't all that bad.

bombadil -- thank god they left him out. In the books everything between the ferry and bree is basically worthless faerytale crap with no bearing on the actual story. I tell people who want to read it to literally skip those chapters, they're boring, and just plain annoying.



that is, the Council of the ring, lasts only 5 minutes, as everybody yells, Frodo says I'll do it, and everyone else goes ok, he'll do it, great, I'm outta here. Pathetic.


Pathetic? Hardly, thats one of the best scenes in the movie. The reflection of the arguing people in the ring while the mordor music comes on. Frodo standing and saying "I will take the ring to Mordor, though I do not know the way." Come on, imagery, drama, what else do you want?



, what the hell happened to Saruman???? Jackson decided to edit him out of the third movie for no apparent reason,


There was a reason, time. The movie was running too long, and they needed to advance the plot. They had a whole lot of stuff to cover in ROTK. But wait for the extended edition.



Hmm, I dunno, Cameron Diaz, for instance. I wasn't criticising Cate's acting, she's good at that, but I find her unappealing, which is the exact opposite of the emotion her character is supposed to generate. She perfomed her role as well as she could, I just think that there were other people more fit than her for the part.


Oh god no, not frog girl. Cameron Diaz is ugly. She has a big mouth and wide set eyes, she looks like a frog. Liv Tyler isn't so hot either. Cate Blanchett however was an excellent choice. That was one of the better bits of casting, if she doesn't look as good as you'd like that's probably because of makeup and costume, in real life she's better looking. She has naturally almond eyes and fine features though. Uma Thurman maybe, but not frog girl.




The bottom line though is the movies were amazingly done. Go watch the Dungeons & Dragon's movie if you want to see what a bad movie is and what LOTR could have been. The attention to detail, the music, the cinematography. They could have easily crunched out cookie cutter props but instead they put countless hours and dollars into details details details. Some of the scenes were breathtaking. The sweeping vistas of Minas Tirith during the battle. The balrog and the wizard. Also some really wrench your heart. Such as Aragorn telling the hobbits "You kneel to no one." Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain.

Or, how bout the look in Sam's eyes the moment he realizes Frodo isn't going to drop the ring. You have this hobbit who has done nothing but fight and believe and stick with his master all through the journey. Even when tossed aside he came back, loyal. He has never lost faith, and then at the end doubt finally creeps in and in a broken voice he asks what Frodo is waiting for but at this point he knows, though he may refuse to believe it, that Frodo is lost to the ring.

Sam is definitely my favorite character, in the books and the movies. Its not Frodo's story, its not Aragorn's story, it's Sam's story. He is the hero. I wish they had done more developing with him, instead for much of it they made him seem like a bully to gollum. They also left out one of my favorite parts, when Sam wears the ring. Still, he has the last line in the movie and that makes up for it somewhat.

I truly love the end of the books though, where Sam says that marrying Rosie was the greatest thing he had ever done. He is just that modest, he probably has never thought in his mind for a second that he was the hero, he probably thinks he was just along for the ride.

As for the rest of the books, well you know how I feel about Bombadil. Otherwise I think they're as near to perfect as you can be. Having Frodo succumb to the ring is just the best ending that there could be, for it shows that we are all frail.

As for favorite lines, there are many. This poem alone is full of quotes you can use every day:

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost.
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring.
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.

[JediFonger]

crisaor, if you thought anyone here is a Tolkien enthusiast, ya ain't seen nuthin yet:

http://www.theonering.net/rumour_mill/readingroom/index.html

^they are quite, literally (ha ha), Tolkien scholars.

[crisaor]

Pathetic? Hardly, thats one of the best scenes in the movie. The reflection of the arguing people in the ring while the mordor music comes on. Frodo standing and saying "I will take the ring to Mordor, though I do not know the way." Come on, imagery, drama, what else do you want?

Drama??? That's drama? That's (very) bad comedy, not drama. If I were to guide myself from that annoyingly short scene, I'd have to conclude that none of the characters there (specially Gimli) had any bit of self-respect.

There was a reason, time. The movie was running too long, and they needed to advance the plot. They had a whole lot of stuff to cover in ROTK. But wait for the extended edition. [...] Also there is supposed to be more in the extended edition of ROTK. In my opinion you have no business judging Peter Jackson unless you have watched the extended editions. That is how they were meant to be seen.
I'm sick of that excuse. And I heard it with the Matrix trilogy too (they're separate movies, dammit. It's not X-files or any other series, it's movies!) The movie premiered as what it was, the official release. If Jackson (or somebody else) is a bad editor, the extended editions shouldn't be used as an excuse. Besides, the extended versions of the last movies were not released in video in this part of the ecuador. If you don't have DVD, you're screwed. Forgive me, but that isn't cinema.

Oh god no, not frog girl. Cameron Diaz is ugly. She has a big mouth and wide set eyes, she looks like a frog. Liv Tyler isn't so hot either. Cate Blanchett however was an excellent choice. That was one of the better bits of casting, if she doesn't look as good as you'd like that's probably because of makeup and costume, in real life she's better looking. She has naturally almond eyes and fine features though. Uma Thurman maybe, but not frog girl.

Cameron Diaz = a frog?????????? ugly??????? :mad: :mad: WTF? :eek:
You realise of course that this means war. ;)

[Admin]

We'll have to disagree on the council scene.

The last 2 Matrix movies were just poor writing, no reason to bring them up here. They sucked, LOTR just kept getting better.

Its not about being a bad editor either. You try writing a screenplay that covers all the important aspects of one of the books but does not end up 5 or 6 hours long.

Though I do feel for you about the DVD thing, that does truly suck. Perhaps you can find a pirated copy to download eventually -- illegal sure but if they made it legally available you wouldn't need to.

[crisaor]

We'll have to disagree on the council scene.
Yep. :)

The last 2 Matrix movies were just poor writing, no reason to bring them up here. They sucked, LOTR just kept getting better.
I agree. I liked RotK very much. I brought that up because when I talked to people about how bad I thought Reloaded and Revolutions were, the number one excuse for justifying them was "they're a single movie, that's how you have to see it". Seeing a similar comment regarding LotR, I thought it had some sense to mention it.

Its not about being a bad editor either. You try writing a screenplay that covers all the important aspects of one of the books but does not end up 5 or 6 hours long.
Yes, of course. But if I was paid half the amount Jackson or the screen writers were paid, I'd certainly would've done my best at it. :D :nod:

Though I do feel for you about the DVD thing, that does truly suck. Perhaps you can find a pirated copy to download eventually -- illegal sure but if they made it legally available you wouldn't need to.
It's possible. I'll suppose I'll just have to force a friend/relative to stand 6+ hours of middle earth contents ;). Thing is, so far I've only seen in videostores the "regular" DVDs of the lasts 2 movies. Is the extended version included, if you will, in these versions? Or are they separate ones?

[amuse]

Sam is definitely my favorite character, in the books and the movies. Its not Frodo's story, its not Aragorn's story, it's Sam's story.
this gave me chills.

i loved the tom bombadil stuff. but i will always adore faery tales.

[trismegistus]

The sweeping vistas

Yep. That about says it all for Jackson's LOTR.

[Admin]

It's possible. I'll suppose I'll just have to force a friend/relative to stand 6+ hours of middle earth contents . Thing is, so far I've only seen in videostores the "regular" DVDs of the lasts 2 movies. Is the extended version included, if you will, in these versions? Or are they separate ones?


They're seperate. The normal edition is released first, and then the extended edition later. For the first two extended editions they actually brought the actors back in and shot more footage for the DVD. The third extended edition is not yet out.

The extended edition of Fellowship didn't add much. You saw the whole gift giving scene with Galadriel which was nice, and a little more of hobbiton at the beginning, but there wasn't alot of additional story there.

The Two Towers extended edition is a must see though. The Boromir/Faramir/Denethor back story is excellent and adds alot to those characters.

[JediFonger]

i dunno if it's sam's story it's more Tolkien's story =).

the final extended edition of the rotk was just announced:
http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_400_hv_home.html
12/14. i'm SOOoooo there! then afterwards i'll be spending 12 hrs in Middle Earth!

as for matrix... i think you guys are really bashing it awfully hard. when i get home i'll post an essay i wrote in philosophy class about matrix trilogy in a new thread =).

[crisaor]

They're seperate. The normal edition is released first, and then the extended edition later. For the first two extended editions they actually brought the actors back in and shot more footage for the DVD. The third extended edition is not yet out.
That clears it up, thanks. I'll have to keep my eyes open for them.

as for matrix... i think you guys are really bashing it awfully hard. when i get home i'll post an essay i wrote in philosophy class about matrix trilogy in a new thread =).
Go right ahead. :)

[JediFonger]

In defense of the Matrix Trilogy:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3182

[JediFonger]

In defense of the Matrix Trilogy:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3182

and crisaor, as for extended editions of lord of the rings they'll be packaging all 3 movies in extended edition for $120 as a box set =). note i'm not paid by Peter Jackson or New Line =).

another difference is the audio visual presentation of the 3 movies have been vastly improved from the plain ole vanilla edition. because of the runtime of each film they are spread out over two DVDs. not only that but you are also getting an extra DTS 6.1 DISCRETE track (if your home cinema has 6 speakers and your a/v receiver can decode it). not only that but you are also getting director Peter Jackson+writers of lord of the rings commentary track, cast track, crew track. not only that but you are getting 2 extra DVDs each about totalling 12 hours per movie worth of 'making ofs'. i know because i have seen the entire documentary for fellowship and two towers. i've also listened to the Peter Jackson+writers commentaries for both fellowship and two towers as well as the cast one. i think the crew one is a bit dry+boring so i never made it through. so i think the choice is clear, if anyone wants a pretty definitive archive of the lord of the rings on DVD, the extended editions are it. and if you've read the book the extended scenes really tickle you though in trismegistus's case it would make him throw up his instestines =). heh heh heh.

and admin (no nicknames?) Peter Jackson in various interviews in on and offline medias have said that the theatrical cuts are actually the official "director's cuts" of the 3 films. He says that he has no preferences whichever way people see the 3 films because the regular non-Tolkien fanatic will still like the theatrical cuts but may budge at sitting through even more material per movie. and the Tolkien fans will obviously see the extended edition. so he's a bit of a shrew business-man/entertainer.

re: bombadil, i think this is an interesting character because in the Letters of JRRT he actually says that tom symbolizes the mystery of faery tales. you always need mystery figures because it fulfills the need for the reader to go on. otherwise if everything is explained and satisfied there is no need to re read any works of literature. i find that an interesting concept. think about of the many modern stories nowadays. editors will publish anything and everything but require logic and tying up of loose ends. can you imagine lord of the rings in the modern publisher's hands? no way in hell would it have been published without major changes.

re: sam. i agree he was pretty well done and i just couldn't believe they really put up that scene of sam carrying up frodo. it was one of the few times taht i actually cried in the cinema it moved me so. it was also one of the few times when i read a book that made me cry for the characters. as for him wearing the ring i think we'll have to wait for the next adaptation of lord of the rings. hopefully it'll be in our lifetime! i can just imagine it six movies with the following original titles to the 6 books under lord of the rings:

Book I: The Return of the Shadow
Book II: The Fellowship of the Ring
Book III: The Treason of Isengard
Book IV: The Journey to Mordor
Book V: The War of the Ring
Book VI: The Return of the King

[trismegistus]

if you've read the book the extended scenes really tickle you though in trismegistus's case it would make him throw up his instestines =).
And those things are DAMNED tricky to get back in once they're out, let me tell you!



as for him wearing the ring i think we'll have to wait for the next adaptation of lord of the rings. hopefully it'll be in our lifetime!
Heeeey! Weren't you the guy who wrote, "there'll definitely be remake(s) within our lifetime, mark my words"?

I miss the happily confident JediFonger!

[JediFonger]

i hate to say this cause if it doesn't come true... the statements will come back to haunt me (if this forum is around for the next 50 years). and i also don't wanna flaunt myself but:

if i ever become a professional moviemaker (i'm working on it, another 30 years maybe?) lotr as a 6 part movie would probably be one of the first few things i wanna work on. after silmarillion (if the copyright is resolved) and the hobbit. even if Peter did the hobbit after kong i think it's still quite possible to do my own adaptation of the hobbit. =). my adaptation will be pretty simple, just look for Robert Rodriquez's Sin City coming out next April or so. He has taken Frank Miller's creation and shot the film frame per frame according to the graphic novel.

[trismegistus]

if i ever become a professional moviemaker (i'm working on it, another 30 years maybe?) lotr as a 6 part movie would probably be one of the first few things i wanna work on.

Well you know I'M keeping my fingers crossed for you. Hell, let me know what I can do to help. I'll be happy to fund raise. Anything to get a film version that truly respects the integrity of the text.

[JediFonger]

thx for the vote of confidence tris :bawling:

it'd be funny if this news spread across the internet gossip columns like wildfire and then somebody searched me up on IMDB.com and found nothing... then the rumours subside and i'm still a "nobody". hehehehe. i hate speaking too soon on things that have a slim chance of happening. therefore i am not making any promises. instead i choose the language of 'i may.. or may not'. plus it ain't only me. there are a lot of other people who, once they establish themselves a moviemakers, would adapt lotr as their own. it's merely a matter of time. and getting all the copyright kinks worked out.

[trismegistus]

it's merely a matter of time. and getting all the copyright kinks worked out.

You forgot the most important commodity of all: money. $300 million is a lot of scratch, and who knows what that'll balloon to in 30 years? (The single biggest reason I don't see it getting done.)

[JediFonger]

the problem with that ain't money it is creativity. films in the past had to do more with less and now people are doing less with more. it's puzzling... look at sky captain. even though it cost upwards of $40million the CG still looked like it was done on a $16,000 workstation. it's crazy!

[Admin]

They used a sepia look on sky captain on purpose to give it a more retro appearance.

Also, in general, render farms use many cheap systems linked together rather than more expensive systems. (Google runs the same way actually). Its cheaper this way since the components needed are mass produced for the consumer market. So You'd have hundreds of $500 systems linked together.

The CG cost should keep on decreasing, but the other costs will not. Honestly, I doubt CG was a large portion of the LOTR films budgets. Think of all the elaborate sets/costumes/models they had to build. Plus many scenes were done in the wilderness where they'd have to helocopter people/supplies in or whatnot. Shooting outside a studio creates tremendous additional cost.

Without that money you'd have to scrap your detail. Which means instead of each and every rohan soldier wearing a unique costume with many unique cultural designs you'll have a StarTrek like situation where everyone on an alien planet dresses in the same robe and lives in the same squat grey house.

[Mililalil XXIV]

As a protestant (while I was one), I was told not to read the books. I avoided them like pimples for years. Then one day I came home from work only to see the movie (first one) playing in my home. I wanted to hate it - and did think the beginning looked silly - but let loose a tear in seeing Boromir's last battle and death. Immediately I was suspicious that I had ignorantly misjudged the books. I read them and loved them better than the movies.

Those are no ordinary books.

The night I had seen the first movie, I thought about how opening the door to a sinful sentiment is like opening the city gate to an army of orcs closing in for the kill. I saw so many wonderful pictures of spiritual truths interwoven with with threads of real history and Prophecy. Tolkien's Vision would always be entwined with mine ever afterward.

[shorebreak]

Yea, there's a lot of depth and richness in those books with the professor stealing liberally (and admitedly) from northern european and other mythologies. The languages themselves and there evolution was what he seemed to be most interested in. He left enough notes in the appendices that, back in HS, a friend's mum could speak Elvish. She was hilarious. Anyway, back then those books were really important to a lot of kids and because I'd already done 'em too many times, knowing the story got me some some standing and probably kept me from gettin' beat up.
The movies are better than I hoped for, I'd watch 'em again, but I'm gonna read the books again first. Theatre of the mind wins every time.
Catching up on my reading as it continues to rain here in NoCal.

[Nasser]

I kinda hate the movies.. they are good though.
the books are terrific.. inexahaustable.:flare:

[Anthony Furze]

Im just about to start reading the first in the Lord of the Rings series-to break my lack-of-reading habit.

[Alexei]

I think you can count me in the number of Tolkien’s fans! :wave:

[LauraJayne]

Ahh Tolkein.
How I love that man, for bringing Lord of The Rings to the world!

[Lioness_Heart]

YAY LOTR!!!
I love the Hobbit too.

[LauraJayne]

YAY LOTR!!!
I love the Hobbit too.

I had this argument with my English Language teacher last lesson.

I said I ADORED The Hobbit.
Yet everyone else said it was awful.
I dont see why it's awful!!

x

[Idril]

I kinda hate the movies..

I kind of do too. They were visually impressive and I think for the most part, well cast but the story line changes were really more than I could comfortably deal with.


I had this argument with my English Language teacher last lesson.

I said I ADORED The Hobbit.
Yet everyone else said it was awful.
I dont see why it's awful!!

x

I wouldn't say The Hobbit is awful but it's not my favorite of Tolkien's writings either. I just find it somewhat meandering and stilted, like it never really gets off the ground. The first half of FOTR is much like that as well which is why when I reread LOTR, I often start when the Hobbits get to Bree. :blush: :rolleyes:

[andave_ya]

A decidedly Tolkien fan here. See my avatar? :cool: Galadriel's one of my favorites. Not everyone likes her, unfortunately. She's better in the books, but Cate Blanchett was definitely the right person to act her. Books vs. movies? I love them both. My favorite is the book, though.
The movies are fantastic, especially the soundtracks. My friend from church coined a perfect phrase for soundtrack music; he said when you listen to them you feel a sense of "epic" How true, especially for the LOTR music! Does anyone else listen to them?
What I didn't like the most in the movies is Faramir and the Ents. Book Faramir is absolutely grand! And the Ents! WOW! Book Ents anyways. I wish the movie had shown Quickbeam. :(

Looking forward to reading more in this thread!

[grace86]

Tolkein Enthusiast right here!!!

I like the movies as a seperate entity. Don't hit me, but I am going to have to reread the first book because I keep smashing the book and the movie together. I read it so fast it seems like the whole book was just a dream. Good dream though. :D

Haven't read the other two yet. I've just read the first volume, then The Hobbit, and I've seen the movies.

What makes me sad about the movies is that they left a lot out that would have been really nice to see on the screen.

[Shea]

What makes me sad about the movies is that they left a lot out that would have been really nice to see on the screen.

Yeah. I wish he could have kept Sharkey and the fall and resurrection of the Shire at the end. It almost feels like Frodo and co. are unappreciated when they return home. But I know Jackson was running out of time.

[Captain Pike]

I read "the hobbit" to both my kids years ago. Then I began to read the trilogy. To me, it seemed to go downhill the further I got. And then the final nail in the coffin was "the Silmarillion", couldn't even read it, all along difficult to pronounce names, going nowhere.

[Idril]

I love The Silmarillion but I certainly admit the beginning is hard to get through. The creation story and the early years of Middle-earth when the Valar were still living there is horribly, mind-numbingly boring and the language is so formal and stilted but if you keep going, it really does get better. It's very different from LOTR or the Hobbit, it's not written in the same narrative form, it's written like the history it is and that turns a lot of people off but the stories that it contains are fascinating. The Elves are actually interesting, passionate, proud, prone to really bad decision-making, impetuous and not always the most admirable of people, in short, they actually have personalities! :p There are a lot of names and some of the names are so similar, it's hard to keep track of everything but it really is worth the effort, although, I do think you need to be a die-hard Tolkien fan to have the motivation to stick it out.

[Shea]

I tried to start reading it once, and like you said Idril, it was tough to get through. I wasn't able to continue because teaching got in the way. But I am determined to read it soon. I got so excited about the extra time I have since I quit teaching that I started three books. None are the Silmarillion.

[Idril]

I tried to start reading it once, and like you said Idril, it was tough to get through. I wasn't able to continue because teaching got in the way. But I am determined to read it soon.

Well, if and when you make a second attempt, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask, I love sharing my knowledge. ;) :p :lol: I used to have a friend on a Tolkien site that had an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge, not only of LOTR, The Simarillion and The Hobbit but also of all the HoME series books, Tolkien's Letters, all the languages and all his other non-Middle-earth writings and I would go to him for any questions I could find the answers to or if I was just too lazy to look them up. I haven't talked to him in quite awhile now and I often wish he was still at my disposal. :p

[Wintermute]

Was Tom Bombadil in the Movie? I can't remember. I know Tom was one of my favorite characters from the books, although I never did figure out his origins. If this has been discussed in this thread already, my apologies--haven't had time to read the whole thing.

[Shea]

Well, if and when you make a second attempt, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask, I love sharing my knowledge. ;) :p :lol: I used to have a friend on a Tolkien site that had an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge, not only of LOTR, The Simarillion and The Hobbit but also of all the HoME series books, Tolkien's Letters, all the languages and all his other non-Middle-earth writings and I would go to him for any questions I could find the answers to or if I was just too lazy to look them up. I haven't talked to him in quite awhile now and I often wish he was still at my disposal. :p

Will do!! Thanks:thumbs_up

Wintermute, Bombadil wasn't in the movies though some of his lines were given to Treebeard in the extended version of TTT. I think Bombadil started out as a bedtime story for Tolkien's kids.

[Idril]

No, Tom was not in the movie. A good portion of the first half of FOTR was cut out, including their meeting with Tom. His origins are very murky and Tolkien apparently liked it like that, he resisted all attempts at pinning old Tom down, he's just an enigma.

[andave_ya]

Isn't Tom Bombadil fascinating? Alan Lee, in the Lord of the Rings sketchbook, actually sketched Tom and Goldberry. Absolutely amazing!

[Idril]

Isn't Tom Bombadil fascinating? Alan Lee, in the Lord of the Rings sketchbook, actually sketched Tom and Goldberry. Absolutely amazing!

I find him rather annoying actually but I realize I'm in the minority. :lol:

[andave_ya]

Taken in conjunction with the book, Tom Bombadil has got to be the most infuriating character in it, Idril, I agree. However, Tom as a separate entity is really interesting. Where'd he come from? What is he? :confused:
But yes, in the book Bombadil is annoying. :D

[Tasartir]

I would actually recommend the books and the movies to ALL of my friends, just let them choose whether they'd like to watch the movies or read the books first, it really doesn't matter.

[Wintermute]

I would actually recommend the books and the movies to ALL of my friends, just let them choose whether they'd like to watch the movies or read the books first, it really doesn't matter.

Hi Tas,

I have a third option that I'd like to suggest--audio books. If you can afford the $50/book, I'd very much reccomend them. I don't have them here at work so I can't remember the reader's name, but he does a spectacular job.

Having an hour and a half communte each way every day, I've discovered the treasure of audio books, and the LOTR series can help turn a boring drive into a daily adventure.

[Triskele]

I'm surprised to find no threads regarding Tolkien's masterpieces, and only a few references to him in some of the other threads. Surely I am not the only literature fan that has left instructions to be buried with her copy of The Lord of the Rings along with her Shakespeare collection when she dies? Anyone, anyone? :lol: I know you're there, I can hear you breathing!! What did you think of the movies? Would you recommend them to friends who had not read the books? As much as you love the books, would you recommend THOSE to friends? What do you think of the fact that Tolkien created an entire world, with various cultures, languages, and histories from scratch? Come, pull up a chair and join me!

My second choice, btw, was to have my ashes scattered all over Middle Earth. Don't think that one's too feasible though! :lol:

what do i think, ooh, thats a dangerous question, i think of tokien as almost a demigod come down to earth to grace us with his literature, the very fact that he could make such a world, such language, developed characters, plots, subplots, and alternate meanings for his book, whether you consider it to be one, three, or six books i think is a matter of personal disgretion, i remain true to his original plan and only read it as a single book.

[Triskele]

Taken in conjunction with the book, Tom Bombadil has got to be the most infuriating character in it, Idril, I agree. However, Tom as a separate entity is really interesting. Where'd he come from? What is he? :confused:
But yes, in the book Bombadil is annoying. :D

i disagree, he is clever, and is, not that i can recall at least, ever caught without a response, also the verse he often speaks in is beautiful, like most of the verse in the books. although i do realize that i am in the minority on this site, i think that the movies were excellent adaptations of the book, the book cannot translate word for word into film, the only things that bother me are the expansion of Arwens role in the movie, and Eowyn, i think was miscast, and seems at least to me quite petty and not at all a hero, which she is represented as in the book. but otherwise i think that the line splicing and scene cutting was necessary, unless you are actually suggesting a 98 hour movie trilogy be seen in the theaters (i admit i would love to watch one), most fans are not really hardcore tolkien freaks and so the movies needed to be shorter, faster, and less descriptive than the books.

[rae_of_light]

I had (note the 'had', ahaha) a friend who called Lord of the Rings 'Lord of the Retards'. I wanted to deck him with my extra-thick copy of The Two Towers.... I wish that the movie had had more of Eowyn than they did, she is truly amazing! Eowyn is my favourite character, but after that would have to come Pippin. He is so endearingly clueless and sweet, kinda like me! Okay, me, not so much...

[andave_ya]

i disagree, he is clever, and is, not that i can recall at least, ever caught without a response, also the verse he often speaks in is beautiful, like most of the verse in the books

You're right, he is clever. He just seems out of place. He belongs in something whimsical, though, not dramatic. I'll be the first to admit I love whimsey, but not intermingled with dramatic fantasy.

Eowyn! Yes! After Galadriel, she's my favorite lady in LOTR. I love Arwen too, but she's more romantic interest, not really...spirited? like Eowyn. In the book, anyways.

[rae_of_light]

Meh, I think Arwen is overrated... I like the spiritedness(is that a word?) the romance-y stuff doesn't really interest me. I know, I'm a disgrace to all girl-kind!!!

[Shalot]

Yeah -- I agree with that. The Arwen/Aragorn thing in the books was understated, but Peter Jackson made more out of it in the movies and those parts didn't interest me at all. I guess Liv Tyler looked like an elf and all but I found some parts of that romance bit sickening.

[Idril]

I guess Liv Tyler looked like an elf and all but I found some parts of that romance bit sickening.

Not to mention Liv Tyler and Viggo had absolutely no chemistry whatsoever. :rolleyes: I am not a fan of movie Arwen at all for a variety of reasons but I'm not going to start Arwen bashing or I'll never stop. ;) :lol: The thing that frustrated me about the whole Arwen's bigger role thing is that there were areas to add her. She's actually in the book a lot more than you realize at first because her name is only mentioned in a couple places, in Rivendell when you meet her and then when when the marriage is announced but she's referred to quite frequently, just not by name. I can't think of any concrete examples right now and I'm too lazy to look for them but Aragorn talks about where his heart lays to Eowyn, her brothers bring him that banner she made while never mentioning her name, Galadriel gives Aragorn a gift from Arwen, again, never mentioning her by name, Elrond makes illusions to their betrothal and the conditions he put on it, things of that nature. She's scattered everywhere and it would've been so easy to just actually use her name there or use the story of Aragorn and Arwen from the appendix about their meeting and how they fell in love and all that gooey romantic stuff but that's not what Jackson did. Instead he made up this ridiculous story about Aragorn almost dying, Arwen being sent off to Valinor by her father and gave her Glorfindel's job of rescuing Frodo, it was all just so horribly contrived. :rolleyes:

There were a lot of people that were unhappy about Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, saying she was unnecessarily creepy and cold but I think she was fantastic. Book Galadriel was a little creepy, not in a bad way but she was very powerful and otherworldly, not this benevolent elf queen some people want her to be.

And I agree with the Eowyn comments. She was actually cowering when she confronted the WitchKing...book Eowyn doesn't cower. :p

[rae_of_light]

That they made Arwen's role bigger and Eowyn's smaller(i think, correct me if I'm wrong here) drives me insane!!! Eowyns character is so much better.
I think that the actor Cate Blanchett was absolutely perfect for the job, not creepy at all. She has that otherworldy quality about her that some might find creepy, but I find it... enthralling

[andave_ya]

Sorry, all, in my last post I didn't specify. I like book Arwen more than movie Arwen, though I do think Liv Tyler was the right person to play Arwen. It's just that Arwen was changed WAY too much, so that non-hardcore Tolkien fans would enjoy the movie. Unfortunate.

Galadriel! I do like Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. My family thinks she's slightly creepy, but...

*goes off to daydream*

You can tell I like Galadriel, can't you? :blush:

[Triskele]

You're right, he is clever. He just seems out of place. He belongs in something whimsical, though, not dramatic. I'll be the first to admit I love whimsey, but not intermingled with dramatic fantasy.

but many of the characters are quite whimsical, or at least comical. the hobbits are quite entertaining in the first book, but get serious later on, the ents i think are just as whimsical a tom bombadil, albeit with a great deal less energy. this i think i what makes lotr such an incredible book, it takes on a whole plethora of moods, tones, and fancies, all employed in an epic, though many would better belong in other book tolkien makes this work and that, i think is his genious

[rae_of_light]

Reading and posting on this thread reminded me that I haven't read LOTR in quite some time, so on Saturday I pulled out my copy and started reading. (I am now on the Two Towers) What struck me this time was how humerous the books can be at times!! I don't usually laugh aloud or even smile while reading, but when I read LOTR again, I did both!! Does this book make any of you laugh at times, of do I just have a very odd sense of humor??

[andave_ya]

this i think i what makes lotr such an incredible book, it takes on a whole plethora of moods, tones, and fancies, all employed in an epic, though many would better belong in other book tolkien makes this work and that, i think is his genious

He is a genius, there's no denying.:)

[JediFonger]

sorry but neither arwen nor ewoyn deserved the amount of screen time compared to what it was in the book. they occupy merely a fraction of what many of the other more important characters register. the only reason methinks PJ did it was to appease the female population.

[yummymummy]

I love Tolkein, Introduced my daughter to it as soon as she was old enough to listen to bedtime stories. have got bored of people saying they loved the films but have never read the books. I find it sad that people will never know the joy of finding a book ( or 6) that they can immerse themselves in. I do agree that Arwen was too involved in the films, but I think that is't right that Eowyn was trembling when she faced the Witch King, Well what can I say PJ did a wonderful job he made people that had never even wanted to read the books love Lord of the Rings.....