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

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.

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.

Thank You. :)

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

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?

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fafnir

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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.

If I may link to a past post....

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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

---

Wrong on both accounts.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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/blog...the-rings.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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/052...F8&me=&seller=

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

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.