Lord of the Rings didn't hit the spot. Should I read The Hobbit?

[Stonebolt]

After about a month of reading (I'm a slow reader and probably only read it an hour or so a day on average), I have come to the second last chapter of Lord of The Rings and will probably finish it tomorrow. The parts that were about Frodo and Sam or The Siege of Gondor were great, but I found a lot of it rather dull.

My question is, is The Hobbit any different? It appears Lord of The Rings was intended for rather experienced readers. And I was wondering if The Hobbit was any easier or faster paced.

[Calidore]

Both. I stalled out on reading LOTR about a half-dozen times from teenhood until the first movie came out; I always started with The Hobbit, which I finished and enjoyed every time. Very different experiences.

[Stonebolt]

Thank You. :)

[m2vihand]

As I know things happen faster in the Hobbit. Great read anyway. :D

[Stonebolt]

I just got to the end of the third chapter in the hobbit. It appears that there is some inconsistancy between The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings.

In The Hobbit, it appears to have taken them only three or four days to get to Rivendell, in LOTR it took a couple weeks. And in The Hobbit, when they set east they immediately go into some kind of "lone-land" whereas in LOTR, once they leave Bag End it takes them a couple days to get out of The Shire and even after they'd left they were in Bree-Land.

What's going on? Was this on purpose?

[Dark Muse]

I myself have been wondering the same thing. I could not get through LOTR. I ended up stopping somewhere in the middle of the second book. I just found it so slow and a bit dry and it did not catch nor keep my attention. But I already owned a copy of The Hobbit so I have been hesitant to read it and wondering if I should even bother to do so.

[Dr.reid_16]

the lord of the rings trilogy was great, yet it will not come close to the hobbit - I just finished it about a month ago and found it brilliant! just a spectacular read, i found it. another book, very different but quite similar in the context of journey's is Jack Kerouac's - On the Road. also another great book!

[Calidore]

The problem is, LOTR reads like it was written by a university professor with an interest in language- and world-building. It's a very well-crafted story that's unfortunately not thrilling in the least. Since the multiple failures I mentioned above, I've read it through twice now, and I've learned to like it. I like the Silmarillion better, however; I think that type of book (more a collection of mythological stories) suits his natural style. "Beren and Luthien," for example, is just jaw-droppingly good.

[JBI]

Did not like either. They are both kind of tedious. I think in general a flaw of Western fantasy, particularly American fantasy, is an obsession with the epic which is annoying as it plays on too simple an idea but removes essential factors like reader association. The epic has a hard time relating to me when all I feel is boredom having the world around it explained. Authors since Tolkien have used ignorant protagonists paired with sages to beat this problem but it never does. The interesting bit of the story is lost in paragraphs of description

[Waldo]

Personally I felt the Hobbit was more childish in writing, more akin to a fairy tale, but perhaps that has to do with me reading it while still young, while the LOTR trilogy was much more of the epic fantasy it is.

[WyattGwyon]

I just got to the end of the third chapter in the hobbit. It appears that there is some inconsistancy between The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings.

In The Hobbit, it appears to have taken them only three or four days to get to Rivendell, in LOTR it took a couple weeks. And in The Hobbit, when they set east they immediately go into some kind of "lone-land" whereas in LOTR, once they leave Bag End it takes them a couple days to get out of The Shire and even after they'd left they were in Bree-Land.

What's going on? Was this on purpose?

It's been a while and I don't have a copy of The Hobbit on hand to consult, but in LOTR, Frodo was crossing The Shire on foot, wasn't in any hurry, took back roads and then went cross-country. Bilbo and the Dwarves took the Great East Road, were traveling for business, not pleasure, and most important: weren't they riding and not walking? That alone would account for the difference.

Later on in LOTR they had many diversions and distractions along the road (Old Forest, Bombadil, barrow wights, etc. After Bree they were in the wilderness while, presumably, the party in The Hobbit could once again ride on a good, direct road.

Dark Muse, Dr. Reid, Calidore, et alia: The Hobbit is a minor prelude to LOTR.

I read LOTR like ten times beginning at age 14 and the idea of having trouble getting through it would never have occurred to me. For my friends and I it was a world to inhabit and we never wanted the story to end.

Calidore: That it was written by a professor of philology is not a failing, it is among the book's greatest assets. One major problem with virtually all fantasy that uses imaginary languages and proper nouns allegedly derived from such languages is that they are invariably unconvincing. This is because the unity of tone provided by common roots, consistent phonetic systems, and a realistic grammar is very difficult to fake. LOTR sounds authentic because the languages, written and pronounced, actually exist and have the unity and consistency of real languages. The same is true for history. When ancient tales and myths are retold in LOTR they sound authentic because Tolkien actually created the mythology and history of the world before he even thought of writing the book. (Remember, The Silmarillion was a precursor of LOTR.) When I read the books as a teen, of course, I didn't understand any of this consciously, but I felt it, and my ear for language told me it sounded true. In short, Tolkien poured vastly more effort into creating a realistic world for LOTR than any writer before or since. Pearls before swine apparently.

Incidentally, did you guys happen to notice how beautiful the script used to inscribe the One Ring is? How authentic it looks? (Watch the movies again because they copied it correctly.) The reason it looks real is because it is probably the most sophisticated phonetic alphabet ever developed. It can be used to write any language, including English, and it even has variable rules depending on the incidence of concluding vowels and consonants and other factors. One would, for example, use different rules if one were writing English vs. Italian with this alphabet.

As for those who found LOTR tedious, I just cannot comprehend this. I found it enthralling from beginning to end. Oh well, maybe what they say about today's youth is true.

[JBI]

Yes, oh about today's youth, we should all read Lord of the Rings on the toilet.

[Fafnir]

Oh well, maybe what they say about today's youth is true.

Oh please, in my experience, the majority of today's literate youth consists of nothing but a bunch of overzealous Tolkein fanboys.
Actually, maybe what they say about today's youth is true...


Incidentally, did you guys happen to notice how beautiful the script used to inscribe the One Ring is? How authentic it looks? (Watch the movies again because they copied it correctly.) The reason it looks real is because it is probably the most sophisticated phonetic alphabet ever developed. It can be used to write any language, including English, and it even has variable rules depending on the incidence of concluding vowels and consonants and other factors. One would, for example, use different rules if one were writing English vs. Italian with this alphabet.

This is my problem. Whilst this is no doubt an impressive linguistic feat, Tolkein's painstakingly in-depth world fails to engage me as a reader.
It's too much, I just can't bring myself to care enough about Middle Earth to bother trawling through its vast, imagined histories. This probably appeals to many fans, personally I found it a little dry.

That being said, it's been a long time since I've read the book. Maybe when I've run out of other books I'd like to read I'll give it another go and rethink my opinion.
Although I remember being turned off as soon as page one. Something about 'tweens' and 'eleventy' rubbed me the wrong way...

[WyattGwyon]

Oh please, in my experience, the majority of today's literate youth consists of nothing but a bunch of overzealous Tolkein fanboys.
Actually, maybe what they say about today's youth is true...

Although I remember being turned off as soon as page one. Something about 'tweens' and 'eleventy' rubbed me the wrong way...

The point of the way the book begins is to show the Shire as a sheltered little enclave in a brutal and dangerous world. I think the quaint expressions and customs are supposed to rub one the wrong way—Bilbo himself was sick of them and wanted to get the hell out. That's sort of the idea . . .

As for today's youth, I just threw that in for the hell of it. You're probably right about the legions of fanboys (and girls).


Yes, oh about today's youth, we should all read Lord of the Rings on the toilet.

Yes, I absolutely insist that you do! And you better take Ulysses in there too, just in case.

[MarkBastable]

If I may link to a past post (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=736781)....

[billl]

Yeah, it was a long time ago, but I remember that LOTR ended up being too long for me. I was disappointed, because I had thought The Hobbit was great.

[Lokasenna]

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate - I'm sure most LitNetters are sick of me banging the Tolkien-is-great drum.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are quite different in style - Tolkien is knowingly keying into two different literary genres. I would encourage you to give it a go, but if you didn't enjoy LotR then it might not be to your taste either.

[Calidore]

Calidore: That it was written by a professor of philology is not a failing, it is among the book's greatest assets. One major problem with virtually all fantasy that uses imaginary languages and proper nouns allegedly derived from such languages is that they are invariably unconvincing. This is because the unity of tone provided by common roots, consistent phonetic systems, and a realistic grammar is very difficult to fake. LOTR sounds authentic because the languages, written and pronounced, actually exist and have the unity and consistency of real languages. The same is true for history. When ancient tales and myths are retold in LOTR they sound authentic because Tolkien actually created the mythology and history of the world before he even thought of writing the book. (Remember, The Silmarillion was a precursor of LOTR.) When I read the books as a teen, of course, I didn't understand any of this consciously, but I felt it, and my ear for language told me it sounded true. In short, Tolkien poured vastly more effort into creating a realistic world for LOTR than any writer before or since. Pearls before swine apparently.

I don't disagree with anything you said above. However, your last sentence there...


As for those who found LOTR tedious, I just cannot comprehend this. I found it enthralling from beginning to end. Oh well, maybe what they say about today's youth is true.

...and there are uncalled for. I understand that many find it fashionable to look down on those with alternative viewpoints, but that doesn't make it right. Resist the temptation to believe your taste is the only taste anyone should have--you'll learn more and teach better.

I, like you and I think most others, am hugely impressed at the realism Tolkien's years of effort brought to his world (not to mention the fact that he wrote the whole damn thing in longhand). I, like some others but unlike you and some other others, don't think a bulletproof background in itself makes a great novel.

[davigalindo]

I don't really like The Lord of the Rings - except the movies... I left the first book in the beggining. I'm an even slower reader than you, but the thing is that I hate maps (I like A Song of Ice and Fire though). But I've read The Hobbit and I think it's fine. Quite childish actually, but fine. Things happen fast, and the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter is great. Not my kind of book, though. Even though I really love the commercial good-but-not-great Harry Potter series, I'm quite not into fantasy books. Some parts - like the whole Troll plot - aren't good at all. I think The Middle-Earth stories are too overestimated, just as The Chronicles of Narnia, but I understand these are children books (but even with this in mind, I think the Harry Potter books are better).

(sorry for my English, I'm Brazilian and the only experience I have with your language is reading)

[MorpheusSandman]

I thought LotR was one of the more tedious reads I've ever slogged through. The Hobbit is everything LotR is not; it reads like an economical, elegant, classic fable. I've read it three times, but I can't imagine ever going back to LotR.

[Dark Muse]

After much debate with myself in part because of the moving coming out I was inspired to finally jump into The Hobbit and give it a go, considering as I mentioned a couple posts back I really could not get into LOTR and ended up giving up on it in the middle of the 2nd book of the trilogy.

But The Hobbit for me really does read much better than LOTR and I am finding it more engaging to read and easier to get into. I am actually enjoying it quite a bit.

After this some day I may even attempt to revisit LOTR.

[MorpheusSandman]

I should add that the LotR films are much better films than the novels are novels.

[mona amon]

I loved the LOTR movies and preferred them to the book, which I thought was too rambling and long-drawn-out. The movies took all Tolkien's wonderful material, pruned and tidied it up or something - anyway, they left out Tom Bombadil and that's enough reason right there to like the movies better. Come to think of it, the Harry Potter movie 5 should have left out Grawp...

As for The Hobbit, I bought it along with my copy of LOTR about 7 years back, and it's still lying unread on my shelf, but I haven't given up the idea of reading it sometime.

[blazeofglory]

I have read this wonderful book and though written by a youth in his early years it is a mature book and I enjoyed reading it and found the book totally unpudownable. I think I I will enjoy if I do reread it

[kev67]

The Hobbit and Watership Down were my favourite books as a boy. I read The Hobbit over a dozen times and Watership Down about eight times. They are quite similar stories in a way. I did not enjoy LOTR so much, although I have read it twice (possibly thrice). It's a harder read. The Hobbit just rattles along. Each chapter is a separate adventure, my favourite being Riddles in the Dark.

[Calidore]

I should add that the LotR films are much better films than the novels are novels.

I'd agree with this. The fanboys shrieked because things were changed, but as Peter Jackson put it, novels and film are two different mediums, and a slavishly literal adaptation wouldn't work at all.

What makes me nervous about the Hobbit film is that it's a light story blown up first into two movies and then three (though it seems from what I've read that the third will largely be epilogue and transitional material between this story and LOTR). One thing I've learned from LOTR and King Kong is that Jackson & co. are much better at compressing than expanding. King Kong had lots of bloat and repetition, and I'd hate to see The Hobbit made tedious.

I'm still hoping for an anthology film made up of stories from The Silmarillion. Some of Tolkien's best stuff is in that book.

[JCamilo]

The movies are awful. Simple as that. The books are not.

[MorpheusSandman]

The movies are awful. Simple as that. The books are not.Wrong on both accounts.

[JCamilo]

Sorry, but since Newton is Kaput, we know a 3 and half hour thrailler for DVD versions cannot be a great movie. The direction is awful. The narrative has no sense of chronology, timing. The best acting is a CGI creature. The awful acting and silly dialogue from elfs and dwarves. The continuity problems such as misterious disapereance of Saruman. It is a Titanic f/x effect, in super speed video-game battle. Very poor movie. Perhaps your lacanian experience with tolkien has caused you troubles, but it is your experience.

[MorpheusSandman]

Yeah, those are just a bunch of empty propositional claims, not one of which is true. Peter Jackson is a fine director, as is evidenced by his work outside LotR. I don't know what you mean by "no sense of chronology, timing." Acting has never been paramount in fantasy--see Star Wars... similar with dialogue (though I find it humorous you lambaste the film for these things while the silliness is even more heightened in the novels). Most all films have continuity problems (IMDb goofs pages testify to this). I don't know what "Titanic f/x effect" is, and the battles are relatively few given the gargantuan runtime. If LotR is a poorly made film, then so are all big-budget blockbusters. I have no Lacanian troubles with Tolkien; he's just a poor writer that only survives because he was a great mythologist.

[JCamilo]

His work out of Lotr? The acclaimed Dead Brains? King Kong? No, outside LoTR Jackson is not really a fine director.

No sense of timing and chronology? The movie has a poor rythim. While traveling by a giantic world, the characters meet each other as if that world is my yard. There is the clumsy sequences of epic battle and sentimentalism with side stories like Aragorn love story.

Acting is not a paramount on Fantasy is such silly claim I will not bother to list fantasy good performer. I will just point that if you have to appeal to genre to justify poor acting, then you just agree the acting is poor.

As the dialogue, did you even finished the book? And sorry, the dialogue is even poorer. The comedy of Gimili legolas is awful.

LoTR main villain in second movie vanishes and his magical item appear out of nowhere. It is a major continuity mistake, not some goofy. (Two claims you already agree, and you just called they are not true. Kaput on you?)

The battles are not "few" and the special effects show is all the time. I never said was poorly made movie for lack of money, but heck, congratulations, the majority of blockbusters are bad movies.

Considering LoTR is one of the most sold books of all time, his survival based on his academic wok and not on his novel is one silly claim. One of those you argue and mean nothing, as you cannot prove or sustain it.

So, let me understand... the acting is not good, editing is not good, your best defense is comparing to blockbusters and dialogues yoou consider bad... And yet the movie is good? So, good is when you suffer to watch?

[davigalindo]

I like the movies, so they are okay to me. I agree though that Jackson could make it shorter. However I really can't read the books. They are boring and filled with confuse names and maps.

I find Jackson's King Kong a fine piece of art and I like even his worst movie, The Lovely Bones, but I hate the lenght of these movies.

[MorpheusSandman]

JCamilo, let's just nip this in the bud since all this is is a "yes it is/no it isn't" affair. I'd wager you don't know enough about the art of filmmaking to even begin to convincingly argue your case since most of your complaints can be made against some of the greatest films of all time. Very few serious bibliophiles or literary critics give a crap about LotR, which is sustained by the love of fantasy fanboys.

[JCamilo]

Me? I write movie critics as part of my job. I am considering if I will accept the invintation for the Hobbit Media season this week here in Brazil. You?

Where is your argument to why the movie is good?


So far you seem to agree the acting is not good (You justify with the lame "Never a Paramout in fantasy" because I am sure people who know about the "art of filmaking" do judge the acting according the genre right?).

The same goes to the dialogue while you agree it is silly in the movie (As you claim, it is more silly on the books, which obviously imply it is silly in the movie. Just less). You just find funny I lambast the movie over it, albeit you do not find funny that you agreed with me after saying my claims, not one of which are true.

Your next argument is showcase of mature movie criticism. I cannot point the continuity mistake (which you acknowledge there is, after again, saying nothing I said is true), and you justify telling me to look imdb goofy mistakes. As if those mistakes are all continuity and the sudden disapearance of a major character equates a character holding a gun with gloves and then without gloves, right? Bright argument.

Then, you try to justify it because many blockbusters are like this. Hey, congratulations, I know that people who know much about movies do consider blockbusters as paramout of quality. Yes, I do base my movie criticism on Transformers.

I wish most of my complains can be made with the best movies of all time, but I am afraid your list of best movies of all time are the new Star Wars movies.

[WyattGwyon]

Not wishing to step into such a polarized debate, but you (JCamilo and Morpheus) are both wrong!:-) That is to say, you are both immoderate in your negative appraisals.

The books: The poetry is execrable, and the prose is mostly pretty lackluster. Tolkien has some annoying tics—everything happens "suddenly," for example. Another potentially major problem is the stylized and cliche descriptive passages (e.g., "beautiful as the stars," etc.). On the other hand, one must remember that LotR is the work of a fictional author (Frodo), a relatively naive chronicler, within the frame of the story, and it is likely that Tolkien employed these stylized descriptions to evoke the spirit and cadence of ancient sagas. In any case, overly particularized and naturalistic descriptions of, say, Galadriel, would have been just wrong stylistically. Nevertheless, intentional or not, I could see where this kind of writing could be unpalatable to many. On the plus side: Some of the dialogue is actually very good, and most of the best dialogue in the movies is quoted word for word from the text. Much of the topographical and geographical description is clear and effective.

The movies: I think Jackson et alia were faced with a monumental task and did a creditable job in many respects. The huge cuts in the Fellowship were necessary and many of the other departures from the book help to clarify motivations and details that weren't well developed in the text. Some of the departures, on the other hand, just dumbed down what subtlety there was in the books (e.g., making Faramir a near clone of Boromir in order to justify adding extra battle scenes (Osgiliath)). The technical values, scenery and most of the effects speak for themselves. The screenplay, wisely, preserves much of the excellent dialogue in the books. Some of the gratuitous humor, especially the dwarf-tossing bits, is just really stupid and some of the special effects in battle scenes, especially Legolas's exploits, are asinine.

I would be hard-pressed to decide if the books as books are better or worse than the movies as movies. But I don't think the case is as clear cut as either of you make it out to be.

[JCamilo]

Look, Jackson had a monumental task, Yes. But so? He did it well?

I didnt analyse the movie as necessarily a faithfull adaptation. Albeit, I think it should be, but it is not what makes a movie good or not. So, I didnt mention the cuts. There is no Tom, boohoo. Such is life. But I have seen the "necessary cut" claim as a justification often used. However, this only proofs the lack of competence of Jackson and the script. Take the example of the second Moive. Saruman death scene is not present (a major plot role) and justified : no time for it. However, Gandalf death scene was repeated. Also, the aditional and unecessary romance scenes with Aragorn and Arwen. There is obviously a need to cut, but simple as put, they did badly (Faramir for example, his initial meeting with Frodo in the book is better and much simplier. Would last less time than in the movie, since the awful construction of such character was so bad that made necessary a complete out of place battle between frodo/sam and a nazgul).

The technical vallues and scenaries are awesome. But a reason why the movie is bad is that is the awesome aspect of the movie. They are aging, just like the new movie will make Avatar already look old. Movies based on such technical effects - like Titanic - age. The tech is awesome, Gollum awesome, but truth to be told, those samethings were true for Jar Jar Binks. Not enough.

The books are moving close to be that line where Bram Stoker, Haggard, Dumas, Conad Doyle are. Largely flawed works, but as a whole, memorable enough for either creating characters, an idea or plot that many generations do read. The movies? As blockbusters, with some large scope production that are memorable... funnny enough, for being the Books adaptation. Just a side product. Read the movies. If the books vanish, so will the movies, they just have nothing special to sustain themselves. The books do sustain themselves. I bet this is much enough to bet in 50 years will need another Lord of the Rings. (or less, considering how original they are those days). But based on the same book.

[mona amon]

I bet this is much enough to bet in 50 years will need another Lord of the Rings. (or less, considering how original they are those days). But based on the same book.

Oh, I don't know - what will you get other than a slicker version of these movies, with better technology and a bigger budget? I think they did such an excellent job in bringing out all the beauties of the book that it will be difficult to surpass that.

To the OP - Here's an entertaining article about The Hobbit vs LOTR - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/12/why-the-hobbit-is-a-better-book-than-the-lord-of-the-rings.html

[MorpheusSandman]

Me? I write movie critics as part of my job... You? I used to write film criticism on the side until I realized there wasn't enough money in it to keep me doing it.


Where is your argument to why the movie is good?Stunning production values and cinematography, probably the best use of green screen character capture ever, and an epic sweep unmatched in the history of film. One probably has to go back to Fritz Lang's silent cinema to get anything on a similar level, and even then it wasn't nearly as sprawling.


So far you seem to agree the acting is not good (You justify with the lame "Never a Paramout in fantasy" because I am sure people who know about the "art of filmaking" do judge the acting according the genre right?).Acting is judged according to genre. If you're judging the acting in a Kazan film on the same standards as those of a Kurosawa film or a Bresson film then you're being unfairly biased. The acting in Star Wars is atrocious, but that's part of its charm.


The same goes to the dialogue while you agree it is silly in the movie (As you claim, it is more silly on the books, which obviously imply it is silly in the movie. Just less).I don't think the dialogue is bad for a fantasy film, it's just that fantasy films aren't... well, the


I cannot point the continuity mistake (which you acknowledge there is, after again, saying nothing I said is true), and you justify telling me to look imdb goofy mistakes. As if those mistakes are all continuity and the sudden disapearance of a major character equates a character holding a gun with gloves and then without gloves, right?I'm honestly not even sure of what mistake you're talking about as it's been a while since I've seen the films, but you strike me as one of those Tolkien fanboys that were ready to pounce on ANY mistakes the films made. Hitchcock called such stuff "refrigerator moments" because they're kind of stuff you wouldn't notice until well after the movie finished (and, say, you got up to go to the fridge for a late night snack), and I think the only way anyone would notice is if they went into the films looking for them.


Then, you try to justify it because many blockbusters are like this.No, I just said that if LotR isn't a well-made film, then no blockbusters are well-made. Simple as that.


am afraid your list of best movies of all time are the new Star Wars movies.And you know this based on what, exactly? :rolleyes:


The technical vallues and scenaries are awesome. But a reason why the movie is bad is that is the awesome aspect of the movie. They are aging, just like the new movie will make Avatar already look old. Movies based on such technical effects - like Titanic - age. The tech is awesome, Gollum awesome, but truth to be told, those samethings were true for Jar Jar Binks. Not enough.This is what makes me suspect you know nil about films, despite your job as a critic. I could name at least a dozen films that are remembered because of their "technical values," despite the fact they look dated today. All of Fritz Lang's big-budget silent work, Melies, Intolerance, Greed, Jaws, original Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, The General, Children of Paradise, etc. Yeah, those are all forgotten.


If the books vanish, so will the movies, they just have nothing special to sustain themselves.The films could sustain themselves as historical film documents. Their influence on mainstream blockbusters has been immense in the last decade; so much so that Kristen Thompson even wrote a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520247744/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

[JCamilo]

How to debate with someone who says :

"I could name at least a dozen films that are remembered because of their "technical values," despite the fact they look dated today. All of Fritz Lang's big-budget silent work, Melies, Intolerance, Greed, Jaws, original Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, The General, Children of Paradise, etc. Yeah, those are all forgotten."

Really? It is the technical vallue that make those films remembered? Except the few montions that are among the first productins ever such Intolerance, those movies are recalled for reasons quite beyond the special effects. You have acting of quality (I know, Vivien Leigh acting is a bit too much for someone who thinks acting is judged according the genre), there is a script to support better themes and better dialogues (yes, because 2001, Blade Runner are just about special effects right), great directing (I am sure someone will survive writing movie critics talking about the Oscar Kubrick won and not the one he should have won, you know, his directing and not special effects of 2001), by the narrative (Star Wars survive because the first movies actually have a decent structure for the narrative, not to mention the appeal of the scenary and characters. You know, the new versions Lucas made, with superior F/X didnt had the same success at all, impact or watever, which should indicate to you even Star Wars go beyond the technical aspect, as famous it is), even music use (Yes, sure, Jaws is remembered because the technical part, right.), or, like Buster Keaton who keps the train alive until today.

Sorry, but that is the reason you have to stop writting about movies. You try to legitimate by calling me a fanboy (but then, You think Newton is Kaput) instead of writing something useful... because really...

"Stunning production values and cinematography, probably the best use of green screen character capture ever, and an epic sweep unmatched in the history of film. One probably has to go back to Fritz Lang's silent cinema to get anything on a similar level, and even then it wasn't nearly as sprawling."

Is ridiculous. Stunning? Yes. But without a good directing, script, etc a stunning movie is just a set of pictures. It is trying to tell a story that would be pretty. And you had to go back to Fritz Lang to get a Stunning movie? Yes, because you didnt mention 2001, Blade Runner and many other stunning movies.

The use of green character? Yes, Gollum saves the movie. But it is not enough and I am sure in Hobbitt you will have already a superior version. And I certainly cannot go back to Fritz Lang to find "the use of green character".

Epic sweep? Oh, sure. Cecil B.Mille is the greatest director because of epic sweep. I wonder what does Fritzlang with that, considering even his Niebilueng movies are not really epic. And of course, the epic scale of movies has never been indicator of great movies. Some like Ben Hur or Ran are (and they use much better than LoTR.) Some like the new Star Movies just fail.

I guess you added Fritz Lang just to add some old filmaker to show case a knowledge but really, go to IMDB and tell me the Epic scale of M.

[WyattGwyon]

I'm honestly not even sure of what mistake you're talking about as it's been a while since I've seen the films, but you strike me as one of those Tolkien fanboys that were ready to pounce on ANY mistakes the films made. Hitchcock called such stuff "refrigerator moments" because they're kind of stuff you wouldn't notice until well after the movie finished (and, say, you got up to go to the fridge for a late night snack), and I think the only way anyone would notice is if they went into the films looking for them.

No, I just said that if LotR isn't a well-made film, then no blockbusters are well-made. Simple as that.


The major flaws in the films are in the category of missed opportunities—missed because they padded each of the movies out with extra battle scenes at the expense of important themes and content. I don't expect or want a faithful adaptation for its own sake, but any major changes should have some justification other than more violence, special effects, and action for their own sake. For example: An important theme in the books, especially in Return of the King, was the decline of civilization in Middle Earth due to excessively valuing military prowess and power over wisdom and learning. The contrast between Faramir (a student of Gandalf, who represents wisdom and learning) and Boromir (the favorite of Denethor, who is the symbol of a degenerate militaristic state), and especially their opposite reactions to the temptation of ultimate power (the ring) brings this home. This is a timeless theme with tremendous relevance to the modern world and, especially, the values currently being enacted by the United States on the world stage. Thus the films sacrifice the soul of the books' content for the sake of mindless and redundant action. There are other important themes sacrificed as well: The battle scene they should have included (rather than the redundant extra ones), was the scouring of the Shire. This was a rallying cry against the torpor of complacency and physical comfort and a call to action by the little people when their values are threatened.

To sum up, Morpheus, I would suggest that, while you make many good points about the enduring value of the films, you, like the films themselves, have missed the enduring themes of the books. This oversight may also have something to do with why you fail to see that the books are destined to endure, at least in part, because of the important themes at their core. Great films are ennobled by such themes—Jackson's LotR did not aspire to greatness, and will be less enduring than the books because of it.

[JCamilo]

Oh, I don't know - what will you get other than a slicker version of these movies, with better technology and a bigger budget? I think they did such an excellent job in bringing out all the beauties of the book that it will be difficult to surpass that.

To the OP - Here's an entertaining article about The Hobbit vs LOTR - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/12/why-the-hobbit-is-a-better-book-than-the-lord-of-the-rings.html

The entire strength of the movies is the technical aspect. This means, as soon the technology improves, they will do it better. Plus, really, if they do it again, there is no reason to believe they will use the same script (Jackson didn't had all freedom in the world when he started, adapting LoTR was tricky busines, I am sure he would expand the movies more if he could now, so a new movie could be completely different. For better or worst.

[kev67]

I have to say this new Hobbit film does fill me with much enthusiasm. How can you stretch that book to a trilogy of three-hour films? It could be turned into one two-hour film.

[qimissung]

In addition to making this a trilogy, which is completely unnecessary, Peter Jackson is also releasing one version of "The Hobbit" that was filmed at 48 frames per second. Critics are divided on the success of this. Here are two opposing view points:

This one has a spoiler:


http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-movie-review-48-fps/

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/06/why_does_the_hobbit_look_so_weird/


I did not finish LoTR, although I did start it when I was in high school. It moved too slowly for me. Maybe I'll try it again, sometime. My kids and I loved the movies. I'm sure that for me it had nothing to do with Viggo Mortenson as Aaragorn (stops for a moment to breathe) (:D).

"The Hobbit" on the other hand was completely adorable AND a great and exciting read. Can't go wrong with it. I wish Jackson had been able to restrain himself a bit.

[MorpheusSandman]

Really? It is the technical vallue that make those films remembered?Perhaps not the only reason in all cases, but take away the technical values and many of these films are extremely average in most other ways. Does anyone really watch GwtW for the extraordinary acting? It's neither Leigh's or Gable's best performance, as both are overwrought--melodrama acting to match the melodrama production. OK, so there's a lot of philosophical and cinematic interest in 2001, but take away its revolutionary depiction of space and future technology, the SFX showcase that is Beyond the Infinite, and you don't have much else; the best acting is done by a robot! Similar with Blade Runner, but it even lacks 2001's philosophical intelligence. Take away the neo-noir/cyberpunk setting and what else of worth is there? Star Wars has a great narrative? It has the same narrative as all "epic journey" stories! Little nobody discovers he has a secret past and a grand, unknown destiny and sets out to fulfill it. The new Star Wars did not have "superior F/X" if we're talking about historical context. Few films were as innovative in their time as the original Star Wars.


that is the reason you have to stop writting about movies.Says the person that think standards for acting and narrative apply universally; you'd be laughed at by any legitimate film critic. Everything is contextual.


Is ridiculous. Stunning? Yes. But without a good directing, script, etc a stunning movie is just a set of pictures.The art of film is images in time, so to say that a "set of pictures" can't make for a great film is just ignorance. Kiarostami's Five? Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi? Hell, Malick's Days of Heaven is a masterpiece solely because of the stunning "set of pictures" it has. The preeminence of "story" and "characters" is nothing but an unjustified bias. There are plenty of masterpieces where the story, characters, and acting are slight to non-existent.


And you had to go back to Fritz Lang to get a Stunning movie?No, I specifically said you'd have to go back to Lang to get a similar "epic sweep." I was specifically thinking of his 5-hour Die Nibelungen. 2001, Blade Runner, et al. are much shorter and don't cover nearly the breadth of setting or narrative.


Cecil B.Mille is the greatest director because of epic sweep.Who said anything about greatEST? I actually think DeMille is underrated, but that's another subject.


I wonder what does Fritzlang with that, considering even his Niebilueng movies are not really epic.How do you figure they aren't epic?


And of course, the epic scale of movies has never been indicator of great movies. Some like Ben Hur or Ran are (and they use much better than LoTR.) Some like the new Star Movies just fail.I didn't say epic scale alone was enough, but combine that with the great cinematography, and what I consider to be fine direction and writing and that most certainly is. First and foremost it's the epic experience of the films that make them memorable. The new Star Wars my strive towards a similar experience, but they certainly didn't achieve it.


I guess you added Fritz Lang just to add some old filmaker to show case a knowledge but really, go to IMDB and tell me the Epic scale of M.I said Lang's silent films. He scaled down considerably once he got to sound. I love M, so I don't know what your point is.

[MorpheusSandman]

To sum up, Morpheus, I would suggest that, while you make many good points about the enduring value of the films, you, like the films themselves, have missed the enduring themes of the books. There are no enduring themes in isolation, there are enduring renderings of themes. The LotR books say nothing that hasn't been covered by hundreds, if not thousands, of better writers before Tolkien. Take away the fantasy setting and nobody gives a crap about those themes, and it's the setting and the sweep that the films got right without resorting to pages of labored landscape descriptions. There are simply things that are better suited to novels than to films, and thematic rendering through character and narrative is better suited to literature, while visual conflicts like battles are better suited to film. Again, calculate the battle runtime in LotR and it's probably less in terms of runtime ratio than the battles in The Seven Samurai.

[Eiseabhal]

I'm assuming "extremely average" is a joke!

[WyattGwyon]

There are no enduring themes in isolation, there are enduring renderings of themes. The LotR books say nothing that hasn't been covered by hundreds, if not thousands, of better writers before Tolkien.

Yet, you immediately isolate them and contradict yourself. Could you name one or two writers who have more effectively covered the specific themes I mentioned?


Take away the fantasy setting and nobody gives a crap about those themes,

Once again you isolate theme from setting, contradicting your initial thesis. Of course no one cares about them apart from the novel in which they appear because they form an integrated whole with the setting and other elements. As someone once said: "There are no enduring themes in isolation, there are enduring renderings of themes." LotR renders its themes in a way that seems quite ready to endure.


and it's the setting and the sweep that the films got right without resorting to pages of labored landscape descriptions. There are simply things that are better suited to novels than to films, and thematic rendering through character and narrative is better suited to literature, while visual conflicts like battles are better suited to film.

Thematic rendering through character is just as important in film and equally suitable to the medium.


Again, calculate the battle runtime in LotR and it's probably less in terms of runtime ratio than the battles in The Seven Samurai.

The issue isn't the run time of battles. It is that the extra battles just make the films flabby and add nothing but cheap thrills. The films would have been far better had they used other material from the books (The Scouring of the Shire, especially) rather than asinine redundancies like getting Aragorn lost twice rather than once. The reason they needed to do this?: because they needed a way to make another extra battle seem like it had some point and weight within the plot of the film—an objective at which they failed, by the way. The battle in Osgiliath was equally pointless and redundant and done at the expense of more important business.

[JCamilo]

Perhaps not the only reason in all cases, but take away the technical values and many of these films are extremely average in most other ways.

Perhaps? It is amazing. You once more make a ridiculous claim and instead of acknowledging it you keep digging deeper, trying to justify such “silly”kind of claims. Not only you said that when I was specifically talking about the technical aspects of LoTR being the only awesome part of the movie and how special effects do fade with time, as you clearly made the silly claim.

Then you made it worst. How in the name of hell will any of those movies get any worst? How someone can make this claim? Your argument is based on some ridiculous hypothetical non-sense. Good. Kaput.


Does anyone really watch GwtW for the extraordinary acting? It's neither Leigh's or Gable's best performance, as both are overwrought--melodrama acting to match the melodrama production

I dare you to find any critical to basis Vivien Leigh acting anything but near perfection. It is considerable hard, as she one of the best actress of XX century. And who cares – what kind of argument is this – if it is her 2th, 3th best acting ever? Still a great acting. Of course I didn’t claim GwTW is only watched due her performance – the movie is filled with dialogues that are remarkable, Scarlett and Rthett are quintessenscial pair of Hollywood. The story is good enough, the cast is filled with quality. The characters are charismatic. 10 years after, the technical aspects of GwTW were already a bit irrelevant, yet, the movie popularity just keep on. There is absolutely ridiculous to claim, people keep watching this movie because the technical aspect. The interest is another.


OK, so there's a lot of philosophical and cinematic interest in 2001, but take away its revolutionary depiction of space and future technology, the SFX showcase that is Beyond the Infinite, and you don't have much else; the best acting is done by a robot!

This is even more non-sense. The space is just a scenary for the story and Kubrick directing. It is not fundamental at all. Hence we still watch the movie and do not mind there are mistakes caused by the impact of Moon travel 1 year after it. You just do not need to remake 2001, all is told there. It is not the f/x that made the waltz in the space, it is Kubrick proper direction, music use and all else. Plus, it is ironic you try to attack HAL, considering with red lamp the script and direction of Kubrick just gave us an non-human character that is more remarkable than even the ‘so praised’ Gollum.

Trying to reduce 2001 to technical aspects is certainly a great way to show I do not know the art of filmmaking.


Similar with Blade Runner, but it even lacks 2001's philosophical intelligence. Take away the neo-noir/cyberpunk setting and what else of worth is there?

You must be really desperate to try to prove yourself right about your silly claim to go down to this level. What is this “Philosophy intelligence?”?Philip K.Dick is a metaphysical writer, Arthur Clarke has a scientific-realistic approach. One is proposing a model for evolution (not just living evolution), which is ultimately a ID model. The other is asking what consists of being human and having a soul, which also is a ID model. I have no idea how you can measure the intelligence of either. But the most amazing part of the argument is that it is irrelevant if it is less or more intelligent than 2001. It can be, but this would not deny the fact that the movie status is also because the metaphysical theme of the story, which is portrayed greatly. It is good also to know, this story also survives without images, so claiming there is nothing beyond this is a bit silly. Mostly, anyone who know the movie story, also knows it was a failure and the video renting made it a cult, mostly because of the ambiguity of the characters and the stories and not the special effects (hardly true astonishing when compared the blockbusters of the time). The cyberpunk-noir helped, but that is hardly a technical achievement (how they did it is a technical achievement, constructing a storyline on those settings nope).

But yes, Blade Runner IS NOTHING but a cyberpunk setting. Kaput.


Star Wars has a great narrative? It has the same narrative as all "epic journey" stories! Little nobody discovers he has a secret past and a grand, unknown destiny and sets out to fulfill it. The new Star Wars did not have "superior F/X" if we're talking about historical context. Few films were as innovative in their time as the original Star Wars.

The same narrative? Oh, don’t tell me! How this make it not have a decent structure for the narrative? (I advise you to quote me correctly. If I wanted to claim a great narrative, I would have said it.). So, what if it has the same narrative of several traditional narratives? Since when this is remotely relevant? Or a way to measure quality? Stars Wars do have a decent structure for their narrative: the movie script is very basic, but unlike the new Star wars, there is no pace breaking due poor written romantic dialogues or for videgame scenes. It works more like a old tv series, with short cuttings and giving room for the characters to get the audience identification.

And I am not talking about historial context and the new star wars has poorer special effects. They obviously survive on the account that was beyond their first impact (the fanboys often love the characters, be then LoTR, trekkies, warsies, potters, etc). And I will just pretend you didn’t said one more irrelevant line, trying to create impact… The first sound movie, the first 3-d movie, the first outside shooting movie, the first colored movie… Yes, so what.


Says the person that think standards for acting and narrative apply universally; you'd be laughed at by any legitimate film critic. Everything is contextual.

Pffft...

So let’s see what this not legitimate film critic is doing here.

“Performances tend to get lost in productions like this. I particularly noticed how easily Cruise got buried in the role of Jack.

Here is the talented young actor from "Risky Business," where he came across as a genuine individual, and this time he's so overwhelmed by sets and special effects that his character could be played by anybody.”

What is Robert Ebert afraid of the laugh when he compares the acting in a teen comedy with a fantasy movie (Legend)? No, he does not. You know why? Because you seems to not realize that when a critic is giving a nod to a genre movie acting, be it horror, western, gangster, comedy he is already downgrounding it. It is a bit when we say: Conan Doyle is a great writer of detective stories. It is implied the standard, which he cannot achieve. He applies the standards, he does not deny it. It exists, after all, genre does not “really” exist. When Jack Nicholson and Stanley Kubrick go to play with horror genre, they do not forget home their talent just to make fair with Tobe Hopper and Peter Cushing.

Of course, if LoTR acting was the only criticism I made, I would be exaggerating. It is not.

As Narrative – I said dialogues, it is not the same (narratives do have standards universal values, as any kid know, you can tell how good was Candide, Lolita or Dom Quixote despite their different genres), and sorry, bad dialogues are bad in any genre.


The art of film is images in time, so to say that a "set of pictures" can't make for a great film is just ignorance. Kiarostami's Five? Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi? Hell, Malick's Days of Heaven is a masterpiece solely because of the stunning "set of pictures" it has. The preeminence of "story" and "characters" is nothing but an unjustified bias. There are plenty of masterpieces where the story, characters, and acting are slight to non-existent.

While some people do claim Five is more than a set of pictures, Koyaanisqatsi is certainly more than this (the music of the movie is almost as famous and hailed as the movie alone), I should be more obvious to mention movies like LoTR, with the primary function of a narrative. But your mention of Malick seems more a copy-paste of their critics. I don’t call it a masterpiece, but saying Days of Heaven does not have a good directing, a decent script, that the photography of the movie is not just to show a pretty scenery, but to set the tone of the movie, there is good acting, is just way off. It is even funny, considering the higher status of the movie now is exactly because people found qualities beyond Malick usual stunning movies.


No, I specifically said you'd have to go back to Lang to get a similar "epic sweep." I was specifically thinking of his 5-hour Die Nibelungen. 2001, Blade Runner, et al. are much shorter and don't cover nearly the breadth of setting or narrative.

Nope, you listed in a single sentence 3 aspects and then in a next one, you said we had to go back to Fritz Lang. Albeit, I was being ironic, because the claim seemed so silly… yet, no idea yet how you were using the word epic.

I was really giving you some credit. You are a Milton fan and all. But you are really using epic only for the movie length. I do not know how pointless it is.

“Hey, I saw a great movie, had 1:30 half.”

“I saw one better. 2 hours and half.”

I do not know what is more ridiculous. Claiming the length of a movie is a good quality somehow or the notion that those movies are the longest movies of all time. I mean, Cleopatra –a crap movie – has alone about 4 hours. It must be the greatest movie of Hollywood, 1 movie, almost the length of the two Niebielung movies of Lang…

Those are not even the longest movies of all time. Imagine claiming it was something never done, since mute movies… Oh, geez.

Really backtrack here too, say you meant epic in the way people claim LoTR is an epic, etc. Not being it is a long movie. It not even kaput.


Who said anything about greatEST? I actually think DeMille is underrated, but that's another subject.

Forget, Epic here means epic themes, etc. Not movie length. You could not understand the irony with this kind of vocabulary.


How do you figure they aren't epic?



You won. I would never figure they were epic because together both movies have 5 hours. How many hours together have Porkys?


I didn't say epic scale alone was enough, but combine that with the great cinematography, and what I consider to be fine direction and writing and that most certainly is. First and foremost it's the epic experience of the films that make them memorable. The new Star Wars my strive towards a similar experience, but they certainly didn't achieve it.

Absolutely. You said the memorable aspects of the movie are stunning productions value and cinematography, the best green capture acting on Gollum and the length of the movie. You say fine direction now (which aspects of fine directing Peter Jackson show? Besides hiring a extremely competent technical team I mean), you already said he dialogue is silly (so you can not know come with fine writing, be coherent, as dialogue is a great part of writing). And you still… have little… I mean… You called me for not knowing about movies for saying LoTR main marks are technical and surprise, when I asked about them, you named cinematograph and the amazing use of new tech to produce a animated character… and length… It is a bit ridiculous no? Except for not know length is that relevant, you just agreed with me. Ironic isn’t?


I said Lang's silent films. He scaled down considerably once he got to sound. I love M, so I don't know what your point is.

Again, the irony is lost. Does not work in a world where epic translateS to movie length.

[krishna_lit]

The Hobbit is, i believe, the prequel of LOTR, so it should be different by a little bit, may be it's like the history of the Ring itself. Reading the LOTR series after reading 'The Hobbit' would've bettered the reader's interest I suppose.

[MorpheusSandman]

Yet, you immediately isolate them and contradict yourself. Could you name one or two writers who have more effectively covered the specific themes I mentioned?How did I contradict myself? I said there are memorable renderings of themes and that other writers have rendered those themes better than Tolkien; that's not a contradiction. EG, one could say that God is an "enduring theme" of art, but that would imply that modern Christian rock music is on the same level as Bach and Handel, or that your average church poet is on the level of Donne and Milton, which is absurd. Secondly, as for writers who've rendered the conflict between the thirst for knowledge and the lust for power better, I'd mention Blake, Goethe, Dante, just off the top of my head. If you started a thread about this, I'm sure others could give you plenty more examples.


LotR renders its themes in a way that seems quite ready to endure.That's not what you originally said; you originally said that films miss the enduring themes of the books. My point was that the main attraction of the books is the fantasy setting, not the enduring themes. Nobody reads LotR the first time through and is blown away by its startlingly original and profound ideas and themes, unlike, say, Blake or Dostoevsky or Melville etc. You can't separate Blake from his themes and philosophy because his works are very thoroughly worked out allegories. Tolkien has said he didn't design LotR as any kind of allegory, though I'm sure he knew that people would find them anyway. What interested Tolkien was the mythology, and that's where the focus of the books are.


Thematic rendering through character is just as important in film and equally suitable to the medium.No. Film is infinitely more compressed than literature is, putting more emphasis on what can be suggested through cinematic language. It's why people write entire novels about the themes of 2001, despite its dearth of interesting characters through most of its runtime, and not about most traditional character-driven film dramas.


The films would have been far better had they used other material from the books (The Scouring of the Shire, especially) Funnily enough, I've only seen fans of the books argue this. I thought the scouring of the Shire was a horrible way to end the books. People who like the films or saw them before reading the books hardly ever make these complaints.

[MorpheusSandman]

Perhaps? It is amazing. You once more make a ridiculous claim and instead of acknowledging it you keep digging deeper, trying to justify such “silly”kind of claims.The claim wasn’t silly and I stand by what I said; take away the technical aspects of those films and they are often average, at best, on other standards. Of course special effects technology advances, but that doesn’t mean that people stop appreciating innovation. Most viewers today can’t even recognize the innovations of films like Sunrise, Battleship Potemkin, or Birth of a Nation, but those films are still watched by lovers of cinema. Same thing with the original Star Wars, despite the fact that its effects are quite dated. However, there are people that can appreciate such innovations in context. It doesn’t mean that they’re suddenly appreciating these films for any other reasons.


I dare you to find any critical to basis Vivien Leigh acting anything but near perfection.She is one of the best actressed of the 20th century, undoubtedly, but GwtW was Selznick’s film and he cared about production values more than anything else, and it’s precisely those technical production values that come through loudest in the film. Leigh has much better performances that are largely forgotten because they’re in much more modest films.


What is this “Philosophy intelligence?”?Philip K.Dick is a metaphysical writer, Arthur Clarke has a scientific-realistic approach.This has nothing to do with Ridley Scott’s rendering. Scott is a visualist, not a thinker. Whatever themes there are in BR are leftovers from the novel and was never foremost in Scott’s mind. Look at any of his other sci-fi films for proof of this: Alien is a triumph of production design and shock horror, similar with Prometheus. Hell, even The Duelists is a good example of how Scott’s only real strength is his visual eye. Whatever the philosophy of the novel, it’s completely watered down in the film, essentially reduced to banal questions like “what is it to be human?” and the equally banal suggestion that “memories make us human.” It may appear profound to budding intellectual teenagers, or maybe even adults who are moderately intelligent and have never taken a course in philosophy, but it certainly doesn’t impress anyone beyond that. What survives is the setting, the atmosphere, and both are a part of the technical achievements, the production design, lighting, cinematography, music.


The same narrative? Oh, don’t tell me! How this make it not have a decent structure for the narrative?I guess it would depend on one’s threshold for the completely banal. Star Wars’ narrative is exactly that because it does absolutely nothing new with the age-old hero’s journey. If one doesn’t mind a complete lack of innovation, then I guess one could say it was “decent.” Still, considering the hundreds of works that use the same archetype, what is it, exactly, that sets Star Wars a part and made it memorable?


What is Robert Ebert afraid of the laugh when he compares the acting in a teen comedy with a fantasy movie (Legend)? No, he does not. You know why? Because you seems to not realize that when a critic is giving a nod to a genre movie acting, be it horror, western, gangster, comedy he is already downgrounding it.Ok… it seems like you’re agreeing with me here insofar as real critics take genre standards into account when critiquing any aspect of films. Ebert has admitted before that he does this, quite explicitly when he explained to Siskel why he gave Full Metal Jacket a thumbs down while giving Benji thumbs up. You seem to now be agreeing that the acting in LotR should be critiqued on the standards of other fantasy films, and, if so, I think it’s perfectly fine on that level. It’s certainly better than Star Wars.


bad dialogues are bad in any genre.Star Wars dialogue is bad, still a great film.


While some people do claim Five is more than a set of pictures, Koyaanisqatsi is certainly more than this (the music of the movie is almost as famous and hailed as the movie alone), I should be more obvious to mention movies like LoTR, with the primary function of a narrative. But your mention of Malick seems more a copy-paste of their critics.Again, you seem to miss the point that “collections of pretty pictures” can be a primary draw for great films. It’s not to say that any of these films—Five, Koya, DoH—don’t have other worthwhile qualities, but merely that if you take the “pretty pictures” away they are entirely different films that lose what makes them special. It’s the same with LotR; yes, it has a narrative with characters and dialogue, but it’s the setting, cinematography, production design, epic sweep, etc. that makes them worthwhile and special.


I was really giving you some credit. You are a Milton fan and all. But you are really using epic only for the movie length. I do not know how pointless it is.Let’s not get into another debate about words: the word “epic” has a distinctly different meaning outside of epic poetry that typically refers to length and the overall grandness of concept. There are plenty of films people refer to as “epic” that has nothing to do with being modeled on the Homer/Virgil/Dante/Milton tradition, and considering I was using it in a cinematic concept, I figured you knew I wasn’t referring to its “epic poetry” meaning.


Claiming the length of a movie is a good quality somehow or the notion that those movies are the longest movies of all time.I’m claiming neither, but keep stabbing that strawman. Length can be a virtue if the material makes use of it; LotR does, a film like Satantango does as well. Length becomes an integral part of the experience.


(which aspects of fine directing Peter Jackson show?You think it’s easy managing that size of a crew for that length of time? Most directors would crumble under the pressure.


You called me for not knowing about movies for saying LoTR main marks are technical and surprise, when I asked about them, you named cinematograph and the amazing use of new tech to produce a animated character… and length… It is a bit ridiculous no?What’s ridiculous is that you can’t seem to accept that people can appreciate films for these things and that if one appreciates, eg, the production design and cinematography they may also appreciate the length.

[JCamilo]

Sorry, to make it less epic, because when Ebert is making no distiction on his critic between genres and you go claiming he is, there is no need to keep arguing. You are kaput. But before it: since when "what people can appreciate" is an good argument if a movie is good or not? Since when I am telling people to like or not something? People like Dan Brown too. Of course, not length. That is an inovation. I suppose they will rename the Oscar to "Longest Movie of the year" and make art quality a matter of metric.
Kaput.

[WyattGwyon]

How did I contradict myself? I said there are memorable renderings of themes and that other writers have rendered those themes better than Tolkien; that's not a contradiction. EG, one could say that God is an "enduring theme" of art, but that would imply that modern Christian rock music is on the same level as Bach and Handel, or that your average church poet is on the level of Donne and Milton, which is absurd. Secondly, as for writers who've rendered the conflict between the thirst for knowledge and the lust for power better, I'd mention Blake, Goethe, Dante, just off the top of my head. If you started a thread about this, I'm sure others could give you plenty more examples.

You aren’t specific enough with the themes. Which of these addresses the values of militaristic states versus those founded on respect for learning and knowledge? By the way, I don’t doubt that others have used these themes, and I am sure you would find some if you kept looking—I was mostly just irked that you claimed hundreds, if not thousands, better rendered the same themes, guessing that you would be hard pressed to find even a few.


That's not what you originally said; you originally said that films miss the enduring themes of the books.

When I wrote “LotR renders its themes in a way that seems quite ready to endure,” I was referring to the books, not the films.


My point was that the main attraction of the books is the fantasy setting, not the enduring themes. Nobody reads LotR the first time through and is blown away by its startlingly original and profound ideas and themes, unlike, say, Blake or Dostoevsky or Melville etc.

I suspect most readers are cognizant of the themes the first time through, and I never claimed they are particularly original, let alone startlingly so—only that they are integral to the work and enormously relevant to current events. Sacrificing them for the sake of redundant violence diminishes the films.


You can't separate Blake from his themes and philosophy because his works are very thoroughly worked out allegories. Tolkien has said he didn't design LotR as any kind of allegory, though I'm sure he knew that people would find them anyway. What interested Tolkien was the mythology, and that's where the focus of the books are.

Tolkien was primarily concerned to forestall specific allegorical readings, especially those connecting the war of the ring with WWII. One needn’t read LotR in allegorical terms to find the themes relevant to our times. Yes Tolkien was interested in the mythology, but also the languages, cultures, themes, history, plot and characterizations. It is you who wants to limit the focus because you think it furthers your argument; It is easy to argue against a caricature of the author rather than a balanced appraisal.


No. Film is infinitely more compressed than literature is, putting more emphasis on what can be suggested through cinematic language.

The poor characterization in the films can’t be excused by the medium. Good acting can more than compensate for the compression, and the number of words spoken by Faramir, for example, is not the problem. The problem is that they are the wrong words. The problem isn’t what can be suggested by cinematic language, it’s what is actually said in spoken language—it is called a script.


Funnily enough, I've only seen fans of the books argue this. I thought the scouring of the Shire was a horrible way to end the books. People who like the films or saw them before reading the books hardly ever make these complaints.

No, it was a perfect ending. In case you missed this: the primary perspective of the books is a hobbit’s-eye perspective, and that is where the primary identification of readers is throughout the whole trilogy. The final indignity of returning to a ravaged homeland and having to put it to rights without the help of wizards, elves, and mythical warriors brings things down to a human (well, Hobbit, that is) level. The loss of a handful of hobbits in the scouring is far more affecting than the loss of thousands in the larger war.

By the way, I disagree with JCamilo's too strong disparaging of the films also, but only have energy to answer one of you:-)

[JCamilo]

I do not think you disagree about the movies, you just disagree with me how little I vallue movies because their technical aspect over other aspects such as a script that allows you to deal with themes in a more representative way. I do think if I was a director, I would want Peter Jackson producing it with his crew. However, I would not want him directing my stories. Somehow, it was what saved George Lucas reputation, he quit directing to produce movies. He was much better on that.

[WyattGwyon]

I do not think you disagree about the movies, you just disagree with me how little I vallue movies because their technical aspect over other aspects such as a script that allows you to deal with themes in a more representative way. I do think if I was a director, I would want Peter Jackson producing it with his crew. However, I would not want him directing my stories. Somehow, it was what saved George Lucas reputation, he quit directing to produce movies. He was much better on that.

I think we agree about the shortcomings of the films. They could have been considerably better; but I give Jackson and crew lots of credit for all that was well done, and for taking on the risk of the project to begin with. If I didn't know the books, I would probably have been more satisfied with the films. But it is not because I need or expect them to be faithful to the text. It is because some of the best qualities of the book put in relief what is lacking—and simply overstuffed—in the films.

[JCamilo]

Oh, no doubt. Jackson has all credits for managing the production. It was risk, complicated, he jumped from almost 0 to be a major name in the industry. Today he has the freedom to multiply the movie hobbit and i am sure he was restricted to do so with LoTR before. He didnt fail to produce a movie (or 3).

[MorpheusSandman]

I do not think you disagree about the movies, you just disagree with me how little I vallue movies because their technical aspect over other aspects such as a script that allows you to deal with themes in a more representative way.I think, perhaps, we just value different things in filmmaking, overall. I've had this same debate with people over Titanic before, a film I love because I feel it's a triumph of production design of the type that we haven't seen since Hollywood's Golden Age. Of course it's flimsily propped up by a flaccid love story and trite characterizations and conflict, but I'm really at a point in my life where I'm less concerned about those aspects. I tend to feel that when it comes to depicting characters, narrative, and conflict, film will always lag behind novels and plays. On the other hand, the core strength of film is in the visual aspect, and if a director gets that part right, then I'm not as concerned about the rest.

[MorpheusSandman]

You aren’t specific enough with the themes. Which of these addresses the values of militaristic states versus those founded on respect for learning and knowledge?Goethe's Faust sets up quite clearly the conflict between a life founded on knowledge coming to desire power (state-lead, if not exclusively militaristic) instead and, yes, Faust is an infinitely superior work of literature. Blake repeatedly presents how militaristic states dominate over the desire for knowledge (and creativity) as well, and how both things actually get subsumed and appropriated in such states. Again, that's just off the top of my head; it's not as if one tends to make note of every example they come across unless they're doing research into the subject.


I never claimed they are particularly original, let alone startlingly so—only that they are integral to the work and enormously relevant to current events.Most "enduring themes" in art are eternally relevant to current events because they represent the conflicts that manifest in nearly every generation in one form or another. As for how integral they are to the work, we can agree to disagree on that, but the point I would make is this: there are some works where people are drawn to the themes and ideas regardless of the setting. One can love Melville's depiction of obsession and mysticism in Moby Dick without giving a damn about whaling, eg. However, I don't think the same could be said about LotR, meaning that people would be interested in those themes were it not for their attraction towards the fantasy setting and mythology. People can find "enduring themes" in Saturday Morning Cartoons, but it doesn't mean that they're watched and enjoyed because of those themes.


Yes Tolkien was interested in the mythology, but also the languages, cultures, themes, history, plot and characterizations.Language, culture, history, plot, and characters are subsumed under the overarching interest in the mythology itself; they become what make up the mythology, so of course he was interested in them as well. I didn't mean to be limited by just saying "mythology," because Blake was just as interested in "mythology," the difference being that Blake was overtly allegorical; his mythology was always in service of his themes. In Tolkien, it's the reverse.


The problem isn’t what can be suggested by cinematic language, it’s what is actually said in spoken language—it is called a script. "Dialogue should simply be a sound among other sounds, just something that comes out of the mouths of people whose eyes tell the story in visual terms." - Alfred Hitchcock

"I write scripts to serve as skeletons awaiting the flesh and sinew of images." - Ingmar Bergman

The importance of script and dialogue is vastly overrated in cinema.


No, it was a perfect ending.We'll agree to disagree on that as well.