Lord of the Rings & Tolkien Appreciaton

[Bigtime]

Can we let this thread degenerate into a non-stop debate over Tom Bombadil and his removal from the film?



I love LOTR, I usually re-read the books about once every two years and just can't get enough of it. I'm looking forward to reading my kids The Hobbit and eventually being able to show them the movies.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Fal lal the willow?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Can we let this thread degenerate into a non-stop debate over Tom Bombadil and his removal from the film?



I love LOTR, I usually re-read the books about once every two years and just can't get enough of it. I'm looking forward to reading my kids The Hobbit and eventually being able to show them the movies.

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

Anyway, I would have voted for Tom to be in the movie. Just because some aspect of doesn't move the story along, doesn't mean it wouldn't be interesting.

[Violator]

Just finished The Hobbit a couple weeks ago for the first time its like night and day from the movies but from what i saw in the extended editions a lot of the source material for the movies came from other books and Christopher Tolkien.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, this is a nuanced view... what does "all over the place" mean? And the world building is necessary to give the reader a sense of the world in which the plot occurs - otherwise there's nothing in particular at stake. As a result of the work done to build up the world and its history, the books are an epic, not just a fairy tale. Tolkein isn't the greatest prose writer of the 20th century, but "poorly written" is ludicrous. For one thing, his ability to craft an image in precise detail of things, people, creatures that never existed or ever could is amazing.

And this is where my criticism becomes circular logic. You need the detail to build the world but the level of detail takes away from driving the plot forward. So how do you do the world building and the plot development without one taking away from the other.

A good example might be the birthday party in the hobbit. It's about 40 pages long and I don't think adds to the book or the world. The key elements of that intro could have been woven in better throughout the story. He has quite a few moments like these. Poorly written might not have been the correct term but he certainly needed a good editor to push more of the world out of the main books and into the compendiums.

The Macguffern problem is a little bigger but he might be the early adopter of it so rather than it being a common fantasy trope it could have been new.

[OutOfTheCube]

I was a big fan when I was younger -- read the books in late elementary/early junior high and saw all the movies, went to the midnight openings and such. My enthusiasm for it faded significantly as I moved more towards science-fiction as an interest instead of fantasy. Saw the first Hobbit movie and didn't like it, didn't bother with the other two.

Really liked the Shadow of Mordor game they came out with last year though!

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

I was a big fan when I was younger -- read the books in late elementary/early junior high and saw all the movies, went to the midnight openings and such. My enthusiasm for it faded significantly as I moved more towards science-fiction as an interest instead of fantasy. Saw the first Hobbit movie and didn't like it, didn't bother with the other two.

Really liked the Shadow of Mordor game they came out with last year though!

Shadow of Mordor... so good. I was extremely pleased how they used some of the deeper mythology stuff and tied it into the story line. The enemy ranking system is pure genius. I got the platinum trophy in that game

The Hobbit film I think is just a travesty. I can appreciate adding in a few extra sequences and a director adding his own touch to the story, but what Jackson did was simply bad. For instance, a certain points in the book, Gandalf disappears to tend to some business, and it's not explained in the book itself since it's just a kids book. We can reasonably assume from other sources that Gandalf was consulting with the White Council and doing general badass stuff - so I have no problem with extending the movie to show this.

However, many other things were just bad.

• The 30 minute fight scene between Legolas & Bolg was literally boring and 100% CGI. It was like watching a video game.You can reasonably assume that Legolas was involved in some capacity in the story, but making him a central character was too much.
• Spoiler!

  Fili & Kili
  died defending the King, but in the movie they did not. Tolkien I think specifically made them die in defense of the King to illustrate their unwavering loyalty to him. Jackson missed the mark.
• The barrel scene. Just OMG. How in the hell do the barrels stay afloat in a raging river with no lids and heavy set dwarves in them? Worst sequence in the whole film if you ask me.
• Introducing Thrain for 5 seconds and then killing him off.
• 4 Dwarves staying behind in the main mission? WTF.
• There are other transgressions, but the biggest blunder of them all, and one which is unforgivable: Tauriel and associated love triangle. I was stunned in the theater to say the least. You can reasonably assume there were female elves in the story, but to literally invent a name and make her a central character was basically insulting to Tolkien purists who can appreciate you can't always bring the writings to screen seamlessly. But fabricating something like that jeez. What's more, an elf would never love a dwarf in a million years (see OP on races) so the whole thing is just bizarre. They don't even really develop the love story whatsoever, then at the end of the movie Thraduil goes "it hurts because it was real love", like WTF?!?!

Anyhow, I'm glad to see other appreciate the mythology like I do, and disdain for the Hobbit film.

[CroFlames]

Oh and one more thing. Billy Connolly as Dain Ironfoot was epic

[CaptainCrunch]

I read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy when I was young. I read the Solmarillion when I was a bit older and found that it was almost like the bible of Middle Earth.

when I tried to re-read the books later on, I found myself blip reading things, you know they're walking they're walking they're walking, oh crap now they're singing.

If there was a criticism that I had about the writing it was the pacing, there were points where it just dragged to much. Especially after Mount Doom.

But reading the Silmarillion I for a time was really fascinated by the character of Sauron, and the utter tragedy of the 9 kings who became the Nazgul.

I thought that the villains were much more dimensional and fleshed out characters, which is the usual down fall of the hero concept.

[troutman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-earth_Role_Playing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_On...leplaying_Game

[T-Rich]

Love the LOTR universe, can't get enough of it. The movies are amazing, I'd say Two Towers is my favourite, followed by FOTR, and then ROTK a distant third but still a great movie and overall an amazing trilogy.

The Hobbit is a great book and the movies are terrible and I will refrain from ranting about how bad and all the reasons they were bad. I've heard, maybe from someone on CP in the movie thread, someone made a Tolkien edit of the Hobbit movies where they cut out all the extra stuff Jackson threw in and made a 3.5 hour movie and that it is significantly better. I'd be interested in checking that out.

Shadow of Mordor was a great game, and I played War in the North as a local co-op with my girlfriend and we both loved it. I've heard good things about some of the LOTR themed board games so I need to check those out at some point too.

[Nyah]

I am a massive Tolkien fan, I read The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings when I was young, and have re-read them multiple times since. I have two different collectors editions of the LOTR book sets. I've tried reading The Silmarillion a few times but I've come the the conclusion that I don't have the brain capacity for that one.

The LOTR movies are amazing to me. As such a huge fan of the books I was beyond excited (and a little nervous) when I found out movies were being made, but they completely nailed it for me. I for one didn't care in the least that Tom Bombadil was removed from the story. There is so much to cover after the Hobbits get to Bree that I feel the pace would have been bogged down by the Hobbits staying at his & his wife's house.

As for the Hobbit movies, what a complete & utter disappointment. The fight scenes were way too much and IMO took away from the story. As soon as they announced that 3 movies were being made, I realized this one was going to be all for profit. That being said, aside from Ian McKellen being cast as Gandalf, I thought Martin Freeman was the perfect choice for Bilbo Baggins, and one of my favourite casting choices of both LOTR & the Hobbit.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by Nyah

As for the Hobbit movies, what a complete & utter disappointment. The fight scenes were way too much and IMO took away from the story. As soon as they announced that 3 movies were being made, I realized this one was going to be all for profit. That being said, aside from Ian McKellen being cast as Gandalf, I thought Martin Freeman was the perfect choice for Bilbo Baggins, and one of my favourite casting choices of both LOTR & the Hobbit.

Couldn't agree more. The Hobbit blew chunks as compared to LOTR.

I couldn't get past Legolas and his new eyes. Brutal.
Bard looked more like LOTR Legolas than Legolas did.

[Wormius]

The Hobbit cartoon version is actually a ton more authentic, and can at least let the kids watch.

[AcGold]

I read through the fellowship again after 13 years and I realized just how much esoteric philosophy and knowledge was hidden in the basic plot elements.

The immortality and or anti aging property of the ring of power was tied with evil and lust for power. The true immortality the Elves attained was from connection with nature. Seems like biblical allegory to me. The orcs were fallen Elves and whatnot.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I am a massive Tolkien fan, I read The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings when I was young, and have re-read them multiple times since. I have two different collectors editions of the LOTR book sets. I've tried reading The Silmarillion a few times but I've come the the conclusion that I don't have the brain capacity for that one.

The LOTR movies are amazing to me. As such a huge fan of the books I was beyond excited (and a little nervous) when I found out movies were being made, but they completely nailed it for me. I for one didn't care in the least that Tom Bombadil was removed from the story. There is so much to cover after the Hobbits get to Bree that I feel the pace would have been bogged down by the Hobbits staying at his & his wife's house.

As for the Hobbit movies, what a complete & utter disappointment. The fight scenes were way too much and IMO took away from the story. As soon as they announced that 3 movies were being made, I realized this one was going to be all for profit. That being said, aside from Ian McKellen being cast as Gandalf, I thought Martin Freeman was the perfect choice for Bilbo Baggins, and one of my favourite casting choices of both LOTR & the Hobbit.

A common theme I find. The Silmarillion is difficult to read and follow, there is no debate about that. I think that very fact though demonstrates how intricate and elaborate Tolkiens ideas were. Truly a genius. In the grand scheme of things, LOTR isn't even the main storyline in his universe.

I find that doing some background reading to "warmup" for the Silmarillion is a good idea. There is this great book call "Tolkien Bestiary" by a Canadian author I believe, and it's essentially an encyclopedia of people & races. There are many other books out there that are like an index or complete encyclopedia, but they themselves can be a tough read. I would recommend reading the Bestiary first, then jumping into Silmarillion.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Couldn't agree more. The Hobbit blew chunks as compared to LOTR.

I couldn't get past Legolas and his new eyes. Brutal.
Bard looked more like LOTR Legolas than Legolas did.

Like I said before, despite many of LOTR's (film) shortcomings, Jackson all in all did an excellent job. I love some of the subtleties he added specifically for fans of the books. For instance, in FOTR during the Balrog battle, Gandalf was visibly worn out before we even see the Balrog. That is because Gandalf and the Balrog are both on the same hierarchy of angels (see OP) and they were mind battling before the physical battle happened.

Many of LOTRs shortcomings were simply a function of bringing a book to screen, and I don't blame Jackson for it's many flaws. But the Hobbit? Jeezus. I wanted to puke at the end of the movie lol.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by GGG

And this is where my criticism becomes circular logic. You need the detail to build the world but the level of detail takes away from driving the plot forward. So how do you do the world building and the plot development without one taking away from the other.

A good example might be the birthday party in the hobbit. It's about 40 pages long and I don't think adds to the book or the world. The key elements of that intro could have been woven in better throughout the story. He has quite a few moments like these. Poorly written might not have been the correct term but he certainly needed a good editor to push more of the world out of the main books and into the compendiums.

The Macguffern problem is a little bigger but he might be the early adopter of it so rather than it being a common fantasy trope it could have been new.

I once described a Tolkien as a guy who could take 12 pages to describe a tree, and then you realize, 'oh **** I'm in a forest'

His descriptive style was hard at points. But it was also his strength. He could really build a world.