I did a quick search of the forum and didn't really find a LOTR discussion. Makes sense since the LOTR films came before this site was "big".
It goes without saying, I am such a huge LOTR & Tolkien universe fan and I daresay, a nerd. In my mind, Tolkien is a genius akin to Michelangelo, Leonardo & Shakespeare. People throw around the term "unbelievable" too much, but it is truly unbelievable how one single human being can make up such a complete universe, and utterly unique as well.
CGP did a couple of great videos that do a very quick rundown of Tolkien universe theory and mythology. I think it's a good way to introduce casual Tolkien fans into the more complex stuff.
This video explains very briefly the chief storylines of the Universe.
This video gives a good run down of the LOTR saga itself.
I think ol Jackson did a very good job of the LOTR film, all things considered. It is next to impossible to truly bring forth the fantasy to screen, but he did very well. Sadly, the Hobbit is not well done by any stretch, save for cool effects.
I think Jackson tried to make Tolkien's work more inclusive or accessible in today's world, by having a strong female role in the Hobbit, and it was an utter disaster. It drives me mental when people accuse Tolkien or his work of being sexist or racist, because he was the exact opposite. Consider Galadriel - one of the most powerful physical beings. Additionally, Arwen has an extremely important role. Eowyn on the field of battle slew the Witch-king when no other warrior could. Many of the Valar themselves are female.
Since this is a discussion thread, a few points to ponder:
Is Tolkien's work 'inclusive' enough for today?
How early do you introduce your kids to Hobbit, LOTR, or other works of Tolkien?
Do you think LOTR and Hobbit are rubbish? Why?
How much of Tolkiens literature have you personally read?
Do you like Middle Earth video games?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
I consider myself a fan but not approaching nerd status like those I've gone to school with.
I've read the trilogy and the Hobbit two or three times, watched the Jackson LOTR films countless times and am waiting for the extended edition of 5 Armies to be released so I can have a 6 film viewing marathon!
1. If by inclusive do you mean is there something for everyone - then no, not at all. But is any book truly inclusive that way? It satisfies what the genre and plot needs. Jackson does well in correcting a lot of that though.
2. I don't have kids but I read the Hobbit in school in grade 5 and the trilogy in Junior High. Seems about right.
3. No, but that kind of thing is my bag. If it's not your thing, it's just not your thing.
It's a product of the time it was written in, but it's not terrible in terms of inclusivity. There are strong female characters as you mentioned, though the main characters are all male (I heard Eowyn was added when his daughter became old enough to ask why there weren't any women heroes).
I think the Hobbit at least can be introduced fairly young. I read the Lord of the Rings in grade 3 but that's probably toward the young side. I've also read the Silmarillion and a couple of the lost tales compilations but haven't tried to go through all the posthumous publications.
I disagree with the "cool effects" being a good part of the Hobbit movies - I think they would have been better if there was a lot less CGI and the extended action sequences were chopped down.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
I read the LOTR trilogy after seeing the FOTR movie, finishing before the other movies were released. I loved the books and was disappointed in the later 2 movies and the content left out of FOTR. There is an amazing depth in the material and mythology that Tolkien created. The amount that he fleshed out this world is incredible.
While I read the Hobbit after the LOTR books, I introduced it to my son when he was about 7 since it was pretty self-contained and didn't use as much made-up language that I think would have tripped up the flow of reading it, compared to the LOTR books. I am not sure if the order of the reading has much impact. He is almost done the Harry Potter books, so might visit LOTR next.
My only complaint is the way the LOTR is organized between the two parties of say, Frodo/Sam/Gollum and Aragorn/et al. I haven't read it in a while, but if I recall correctly you read from one party's perspective for the first half of the book, and then the others for the next half.
I haven't read the Silmarillian, tried at one point but couldn't get into it. I will try again at some point though.
I actually just finished watching LOTR (1st time on BluRay / extended).
These movies are amazing, it's been a few years since I've seen them.
There was something I noticed tonight in ROTK. When Frodo gets punctured by Shelob, it seems to go through his Mithril shirt. Shouldn't it have protected him?
(did they explain this in the book? / I haven't read them in 20 years).
There was something I noticed tonight in ROTK. When Frodo gets punctured by Shelob, it seems to go through his Mithril shirt. Shouldn't it have that protected him?
(did they explain this in the book? / I haven't read them in 20 years).
The mithril shirt was amazingly strong but not impenetrable. In the first book/movie he was stabbed by the Nazgul on Weathertop and the blade went through. I haven't read the books in a few years, I think in the book Shelob stung him in the back of the neck but I could be remembering wrong.
As for the movies I thought that trying to tell the LOTR story properly in 3 movies wasn't possible. I remember going to the theater when it first came out, they took a few liberties with the story early on but still did a great job with the back story and Bilbo's party but then was shocked that they cut out a huge portion of the first book. The time between when the left the Shire and they arrived at Bree was about 2 minutes in the movie as opposed to 1/2 a book. They spent way too much time on the massive battle sequences in all of the movies and dragged on the ending. Overall it was still very well done but any fan really needs to read the books.
As for the Hobbit it could have been told in 1 movie, maximum 2.
The mithril shirt was amazingly strong but not impenetrable. In the first book/movie he was stabbed by the Nazgul on Weathertop and the blade went through. I haven't read the books in a few years, I think in the book Shelob stung him in the back of the neck but I could be remembering wrong.
Didn't he get the mithril in Rivendell, after Weathertop?
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Too much time wasted in the movies on battles and aerial shots. We get it, New Zealand is beautiful, and you can cgi in hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
Didn't he get the mithril in Rivendell, after Weathertop?
Oops, ya it's been a few years I guess
Edit: I was thinking of when they were saying that without the mithril he wouldn't have survived such a blow and the shirt was a princely gift worth more than the whole Shire. Now that I think about it that was in Moria when he was stabbed by the troll.
Our parents read us the Hobbit and got us started on LOTR, where we took over for ourselves around grade 5. I love the books. I know the basics in the mythology behind the Silmarillion, but have never read it. All that said, I could probably go back and do a lot of re-reading as it's been a while.
Fabulous books of course. It is important to remember when comparing the two, that The Hobbit was originally styled as a children's book (can you imagine children having the patience for that book now?) so that's why there is a significant difference between the two. As for LOTR, it was the most published book (and most languages as well, I believe) after the Bible in the 20th century, so that goes to show it's cultural significance worldwide. And of course it's success and the love others found in it, started the whole modern fantasy fiction craze, and many of the authors we enjoy today. Tolkien created many of his races and beasts, like orcs I believe, many of which have become staples in books and games today.
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
The thing I most loved about Jackson's LOTR was that it pretty much matched what I pictured in my head, especially Fellowship.
Also, it was mentioned how a lot of the early FOTR stuff was removed and I was overjoyed because that was the stuff I got bored with. Endless songs and Tom Bombadil stuff lol
The Following User Says Thank You to craigwd For This Useful Post:
I never read any of the books so I can't comment on them from a literary point of view.
I am not really a fan of the films though. I haven't made it through the 1st one without falling asleep. I tried watching The Hobbit but ended up surfing on the tablet while it was one. Aside from the top notch special effects, I found the dialogue really bad and the story pretty dull. I think if I read the books, I might have appreciated them more, but as someone that knew pretty much nothing about LotR before watching any of the films, they just didn't do it for me.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I find the books to be poorly written. They are all over the place and focus on world building at the expense of the plot.
Tolkein's world he created was fantastic and is unmatched by his modern competitors who still borrow heavily from the norms he created.
But as books they aren't great. The plot device is a maguffern. I love the world but the books and stories are good but not great.
Interesting. Many literary critics consider it one of, if not the, best "book" written in the 20th century.
When I think of Jackson I think of the criticism that Vigio Mortensen gave him, which is that Jackson stopped directing and became more of a special effects expert and CGI creator.
Put me in the category of loving all the movies, but consider the first two the best, then the third, followed by the hobbit series. Things I wish he had done better:
I don't like that Dwarves are pansies in a lot of the fight scenes. I really wish they had done the scene of Gimli jumping the wall better, with him being the equivalent of a honey badger tearing through orcs.
I also wish that we had seen more of Beorn during the Battle of Five Armies. That could have been epic.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to killer_carlson For This Useful Post:
I find the books to be poorly written. They are all over the place and focus on world building at the expense of the plot.
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.
Anyway. This thread clearly needs this:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Interesting. Many literary critics consider it one of, if not the, best "book" written in the 20th century.
When I think of Jackson I think of the criticism that Vigio Mortensen gave him, which is that Jackson stopped directing and became more of a special effects expert and CGI creator.
Put me in the category of loving all the movies, but consider the first two the best, then the third, followed by the hobbit series. Things I wish he had done better:
I don't like that Dwarves are pansies in a lot of the fight scenes. I really wish they had done the scene of Gimli jumping the wall better, with him being the equivalent of a honey badger tearing through orcs.
I also wish that we had seen more of Beorn during the Battle of Five Armies. That could have been epic.
I agree mainly with Mortensen on the point that the movies went downhill after the first. TT and ROTK were disappointments after FOTR. FOTR was a beautiful movie; it inspired me to read the books and learn more about the mythology, which was beautiful as well. I am certainly glad that Tolkien had created this huge background of everything. There was no fan-fiction type garbage to wade through like with Star Wars.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
I thought the third was largely okay, even though Pellenor was really over the top. It was a big challenge to make the dead men of Dunharrow not look cheesy, and they didn't manage to meet it. But it was miles better than the embarrassment that was Helm's Deep in TT; I was very close to throwing popcorn at the screen.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Lord of the Rings & Tolkien Appreciaton
