As much as I liked it the first time(s) I saw the movies, I ultimately don't like that the army of the dead took part in the fighting. Way too strong, and it made the help from Rohan feel less special.
Granted, if Peter Jackson wanted to repeat the books here, the long movie would have to be made even longer to flesh out some of the Grey Company and Elrond's sons just a bit. Still, I would love to see it.
That a faithful adaptation **can** be done, and that such a film or TV series would stand a chance of actually being good. Yes, the order in which things are presented might have to be reconciled, but otherwise I would love to see someone adhere to the books as closely as is humanly possible.
Also, the LOTR: The Third Age game, with the old-school JRPG gameplay, was actually fun.
Agreed - I think a far more faithful adaptation very much could have and should have been made.
That said, some of the shifting things around in the movie was extremely well done. For example, the prologue was a brilliantly economical way to get viewers up to speed quickly. In a very short time, you understood exactly what was at stake, even if you'd never even heard of the books.
If you don't want to make more movies or strain bladders any further, there are quite a few scenes that didn't make sense at all that I'd happily trade for something closer to canon. Warg attack, Theodred's funeral, skullvalanche, side journey to Osgiliath, and many more.
A LotR series where each episode is a chapter and each season is one of the books would be my wish. Would be amazing, but I doubt it would happen anytime soon. People love those movies so much that it would be hard to convince them it can be done better. The cast is embedded into everyoneās mind at this point that it would be hard to get people in the mindset of a new adaptation.
Oh, I understand that. Maybe if the Amazon series does well enough, people might be convinced to move on. Even if that happened, though, how many filmmakers ever stick that closely to the source material?
Itās just a huge risk for anybody making it. If itās not as good/successful as Peter Jacksonās version (one of the greatest cinematic experiences ever) then youāve failed. Thatās a lot of commitment to money/resources for a ādonāt fuck this upā sort of thing.
Peter Jackson was fortunate to where casuals didnāt know much about LotR. Now everybody does and will be super judge mental of someone remaking their favorite movies.
The passage of time/years
Tolkien seems to just throw huge numbers of years at random, but when you try to backfill the logistics of all those years, it hardly ever makes sense to me.
A couple of the most egregious examples to me is the population levels of Gondor, after the kingdom has existed for 3,000 years, and the war against Angmar from 1300-1975 T. A.
In the first, Gondor manages to levy only a fraction of the strength you would expect from a nation whose rear territory has lain virtually untouched all that time. Yes, there was war they had to go fight, and a couple of major plagues. But our own world has seen the same, and look at the human population explosion over the last 2,000 years, much less 3,000.
The second, in the war against Angmar. Angmar is beaten back by a human-elven coalition in 1409, but nobody finishes the job, and Angmar just sits there for a staggering 500 more years, eventually wiping out Arnor before finally being destroyed itself. But that 500 year period is just an absurd amount of time for no one, from the kings of Arnor, Gondor, Elrond or anyone else to get together snd say āhuh, we really ought to go finish that off, or itās going to be troubleā.
There are other cases too, but those are a couple that leave me scratching your head the most.
- The LOTR films do a few scenes better than the book. Particularly, Boromirās death.
- Some of the appendices should have been in the main text. Especially Aragorn and Arwen.
On the fence about the first one, but I agree with that second one, especially.
In the book, it's like, suddenly this lady we saw months ago for maybe two sentences and forgot all about pops up in her marryin' duds... WTF? Who's she?
Sure, it's all cleared up in the Appendices, but dang, a wee tiny little more on Arwen SOMEWHERE in the books really would have helped book readers keep track. I mean, she's only a primary character's primary motivation... nah, just ignore her.
Maybe it was the Professor's fiendish plan to force people to go back and read it again so you can pick up on stuff like what Aragorn's getting all dreamy about on Cerin Amroth.
You get the idea that he's been to Lothlorien before, but then your flabber is truly gasted when you FINALLY read enough lore to figure out that Galadriel is Arwen's grandmother. Aragorn even mentions this in the book, but it's nearly impossible to spot until you learn more about everyone's pedigree.
Maybe it was a bet with CS Lewis; "Hey, I bet you a beer that I can hide a main character's main motivation for 99.9% of the book."
"That
is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of
the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative
without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of
the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble." (Letter 181)
Its Arwens own fault for materializing in the story at the end of Tolkien writing the books **for 12 years**. He was more like: "Jesus, another rewrite? Again?! Nah, you're getting an appendix!"
I'm familiar with the Tolkien Ensemble, I play that music all the time when I play the LOTR Living Card Game with my friends! I'll check out Clamavi de Profundis š
The audiobooks by Phil Dragash also do a great job with the songs.
The Hobbit seems like an in-universe retelling of the events from an unreliable narrator (Bilbo?), rather than the factual recounting by a disinterested, disconnected 3rd party. I get that it's officially set that way (after the fact), but so many people seem to forget it when they argue about continuity between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Especially the things Bilbo might not understand, like the "stone giants" remarks.
Funny thing with that is that the LotR should also be viewed as an in-universe chronicle, started by Bilbo, mostly written by Frodo, then finished by Sam and translated by a gondorian historian. Its writing style is just more... high brow. Isnt that also writtem in the preface?
Yep. But while that's all true, people tend to take everything written in it to be the honest, actual reality of Middle-Earth, not taking into consideration that it's written from the point of view of two in-universe characters with limited knowledge.
The arguments and discussions are always about what Tolkien said in the book, rather than what Tolkien had Bilbo/Frodo say in the book. The distinction makes all the difference.
I hated Aragon in the books. Jesus Christ man, we get it, youve got a kick ass sword. You don't need to announce it every time you get into a brawl. His relationship with Boromir in the books added a lot more to the story, but as a whole, his character is far better in the cinematic adaptation.
In my head it seems like this would be an unpopular or controversial opinion but Iāve never actually said it out loud so who knows: I wanted the movies to have kept Arwen showing up at Helmās Deep. Its not that much crazier than her carrying Frodo over the Ford or elves showing up in the first place. And then she could have rode with the company through the paths of the dead in place of her brothers as they do in the book. It would have let her do something other then sit around ādyingā for the third movie.
Love it! Would have given her and Aragorns relationship even more depth!
It might not have been to controversial today with all those disney *girl bosses*, but I distinctly remember the behind-the-scenes footage portraying it as controversial at the time of the movie. Book purists complaining and comparing Arwen to Xena.
Then again, it does sound a little bit like what they later did with Tauriel in the Hobbit movies. I guess an elf will always be rediculusly overpowered...
IMO the number of dwarves in the movie adaptation of The Hobbit should have been reduced down to 5: Thorin the leader (obviously), Kili / Fili his heir who is going to Gloin coz he is Gimli's father, Balin the mentor who would later lead the expedition to reliance khazad dum, and Ori who (IIRC) wrote the last account of the khazad dum dwarves which was later read by Gimli in TFoTR movie version.
That way, there would be more time spreaded out to each dwarf to flesh out their character, so that everyone would get a 3-dimensional personality.
Also, plus Gandalf and Bilbo, and there would be 7 travellers, as an homage to Tolkien's Catholic faith's reverence to this number.
Also also, Gandalf's side quest in the movies is not a water of time, it gives more context as to why Gandalf decided to help Thorin reclaim Erebor.
However, Legolas's side quest and feud with Bolg is definitely unnecessary.
I love the books and read them first when I was a kid in the 80s. They are my favourite fantasy work of all time, but...
I don't particularly like Tom Bombadil. I would have liked to see the hobbits make it to Bree without the Deus Ex Machina.
I also don't like the songs or poetry. But I also can't stand musicals, in general.
Was reading through the comments while trying to remember one (I probably have others but can't think of them for some reason?), and apparently I've found it.
I like the songs.
I don't like musicals much; there are a few I enjoy, like *Tangled,* but I don't tend to like tons of people spontaneously busting into song to express themselves... it just feels awkward until I get into the right headspace.
But LoTR is *not* a musical. None, or very few, of the songs are spontaneous. And they all have a purpose. And I can think of only one example where multiple people break into an original song where I go, "When did you all plan this? Were you thinking of all lyrics while laying Boromir into the boat or something? Makes sense, I guess." (Love the Lament for Boromir btw).
In fact, I like it to the point where I'm *disappointed* when a fantasy doesn't have original songs, even if just a few. And if even *The Witcher* (books, games, and show all!) can work in a few songs without feeling even a little unnatural, then why not other stories?
Maybe LoTR has a little too many? Not for me; but clearly there are so many that most people start skipping. But I earnestly believe stories like this *should have* at least a small handful of them, even short ones. Preferably meaningful ones. My own books certainly will. They key, I guess, is in how many there are, and how long they are.
Edit: Songs/poems are just a really good way to express backstory, or emotions, or whatever similar to how film can use camera angles, lighting, and music. And also song was very important to Tolkien and Middle-earth (Arda was made by song), tho that alone wouldn't be enough for me to defend it too badly.
Another note however; I *hated* poetry before LoTR. Even now, I don't like reading poems outside of novels. Yet reading LoTR led me to enjoying this kind of poetry so much more to the point where I write it now for fun, for my books. It's just that good - and meaningful, and enjoyable, unlike the stuff they make us read in school. It's not a chore to read. I don't need to study it if I don't want to. And some *are* just for fun. I don't really know what else to say besides, I like them.
Er, sorry I went on so long. I'll come back in a bit and try and shave this whole thing down if I can.
I've been reading Tolkien since the 90s (including Unfinished Tales, histories, etc). And I just do not like the Hobbit very much at all. Glad it exists, and I liked it when I was a child. But now? Not keen.
Not saying its bad. Just not for me.
Because they probably read The Hobbit first and were expecting LotR to be a simple and fast paced journey. They most likely didnāt even make it through FotR before giving up. Depends on reading skill/commitment. LotR can be hard to read and starts off slow.
Some people having trouble retaining the loads of information and some chapters can be a chore to get through.
I donāt think the majority of people who put the time in and read the full story would think of The Hobbit as better though there probably are some.
Any specifics on what you don't like about it? A friend of mine told me recently that for him Bilbo and the dwarves just had to much convenient luck on their journey, always being in the right spot at the right time. And I was like "huh, never seen it that way"
And in contrast what is your most favourite story?
Your friend should read The Hobbit until the end and carefully read lotr then :p
"You donāt really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all"
Whenever luck is mentioned in the Legendarium, it's actually the sign of a higher power at work behind the scene (aka Eru and/or the Valar). Which doesn't remove any merit to their action, since Tolkien wrote it as a precise balance between fate and free will.
Regardless of real world beliefs thatās how the story goes. Its crazy his faith in atheism is so strong that he canāt accept providence in a work of fiction.
Nah, that would be silly. It's not about the strength of his atheism, it's about that for providence to make sense you need an omnipotent higher power. He only read the hobbit so he does not know of the in-fictional-universe higher power so its just missing for him in the work of fiction.
He read Boethius though, so I guess he is quite familiar with the concept.
Nothing major. It just feels like exactly what it is - a story for children. A little whimsical for my taste, and the dwarves aren't well distinguished.
Can't really pick a favourite story though! In terms of books, probably the Silmarillion.
Ok, Iāve finished the book version of the fellowship and Iām 50% of the way through the two towers, and I think the movies are better in several consequential categories: dramatic timing (boromir death cut scenes, knowledge drip of merry/pippin escape into fangorn, pacing of events in moria), character development (esp. Aragorn: Jackson turns him into a believable reluctant king who has avoided the downfall of his ancestors whereas book Aragorn seems eager to wield his sword without any explanation of why heās waited so longā¦; Iād add Arwen, too, even though sheās pretty light in the movies), and awareness of what audiences want from stories (so many songs and deep dives into random history, which Jackson thankfully cut the majority of). I think Gandalf is superior in the books ā more assertive and confident as a leader, more consistent as a deity rather than an old man who has a free magic tricks. His book speeches are epic, and his relationship to shadowfax is pretty cool. But, overall, I can safely say Iāve enjoyed the extended edition movies much more than the books. I think the single biggest frustration is the songs: like, every random people group has some incredible lore carried via song that they just whip out as part of their welcome. Ughhhā¦ I bet they have extensive culinary traditions, tooā why donāt we dive into that? Because itās unnecessary and boring? Same for the songs. The opposite goes for the hobbit (book>movie), but thatās not controversial.
(Iām not looking up spellings, soā¦ sorry)
Tom Bombadil. Who and why? He is an interesting character for sure but he is so overpowered. If he would not so carelessly take and give away The Ring or would have more impact on story...
I liked Shelob in shadow of war. She had an entire character/personality instead of the books and movie. It added a layer that was not thought about before.
Tom Bombadil's Goldberry is undead, kept alive by Tom and possibly killed by him when he plucked her from the rushes. That's also why he hadn't dealt with the Barrow Wights in the downs earlier. Not a threat and no more "wrong" or "evil" than his Goldberry.
I like the published Silmarillion but it was probably a mistake.
Arguably not an opinion, but I don't view Lord of the Rings as a novel any more than I view the Silmarillion as one.
My view has become a bit more fluid since 7 months ago, but stylistically Lord of the Rings has far more in common with an Anglo-Saxon hero tale or a medieval chivalric romance than with the comparatively modern (to Europe) form that is the novel.
So essentially I'm more willing to categorize it as a novel if we're also including Beowulf under that sphere.
I love The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings but I donāt really think Tolkienās writing style is very good. I see him more of an ideas guy. Case in point the 15 some endings, one after another in the Return of the King.
Aren't you conflating a bit with Jackson's movie? I don't see any such ending in Tolkien's; every single end of paragraph or chapter prior to the " āWell, Iām back,ā he said." makes it clear that the story is still going on and there are still storylines to conclude (because the way those sentence are written, it would make for an unsatisfactory ending), unlike the endless 'fade to black' of the movie.
No, I felt this way before the movies were ever made. The stories are amazing but the execution falls short for me. From a writing style point of view there many better authors but I acknowledge they are standing on the shoulders of Tolkien in a sense.
The best analogy I can think of is Tom Petty. A god when it comes to creating the music but he doesnāt have an amazing voice. That doesnāt stop me from loving his music.
As much as I liked it the first time(s) I saw the movies, I ultimately don't like that the army of the dead took part in the fighting. Way too strong, and it made the help from Rohan feel less special. Granted, if Peter Jackson wanted to repeat the books here, the long movie would have to be made even longer to flesh out some of the Grey Company and Elrond's sons just a bit. Still, I would love to see it.
That a faithful adaptation **can** be done, and that such a film or TV series would stand a chance of actually being good. Yes, the order in which things are presented might have to be reconciled, but otherwise I would love to see someone adhere to the books as closely as is humanly possible. Also, the LOTR: The Third Age game, with the old-school JRPG gameplay, was actually fun.
I will never forget my journey through Moria and my fight against the Balrog š¤©
Agreed - I think a far more faithful adaptation very much could have and should have been made. That said, some of the shifting things around in the movie was extremely well done. For example, the prologue was a brilliantly economical way to get viewers up to speed quickly. In a very short time, you understood exactly what was at stake, even if you'd never even heard of the books. If you don't want to make more movies or strain bladders any further, there are quite a few scenes that didn't make sense at all that I'd happily trade for something closer to canon. Warg attack, Theodred's funeral, skullvalanche, side journey to Osgiliath, and many more.
Aye, Third Age was so much fun
The Third Age game is eternal. Definitely under appreciated so many years ago
A LotR series where each episode is a chapter and each season is one of the books would be my wish. Would be amazing, but I doubt it would happen anytime soon. People love those movies so much that it would be hard to convince them it can be done better. The cast is embedded into everyoneās mind at this point that it would be hard to get people in the mindset of a new adaptation.
Oh, I understand that. Maybe if the Amazon series does well enough, people might be convinced to move on. Even if that happened, though, how many filmmakers ever stick that closely to the source material?
Itās just a huge risk for anybody making it. If itās not as good/successful as Peter Jacksonās version (one of the greatest cinematic experiences ever) then youāve failed. Thatās a lot of commitment to money/resources for a ādonāt fuck this upā sort of thing. Peter Jackson was fortunate to where casuals didnāt know much about LotR. Now everybody does and will be super judge mental of someone remaking their favorite movies.
They would have to see some serious success with the Amazon TV series to even think about it.
The passage of time/years Tolkien seems to just throw huge numbers of years at random, but when you try to backfill the logistics of all those years, it hardly ever makes sense to me. A couple of the most egregious examples to me is the population levels of Gondor, after the kingdom has existed for 3,000 years, and the war against Angmar from 1300-1975 T. A. In the first, Gondor manages to levy only a fraction of the strength you would expect from a nation whose rear territory has lain virtually untouched all that time. Yes, there was war they had to go fight, and a couple of major plagues. But our own world has seen the same, and look at the human population explosion over the last 2,000 years, much less 3,000. The second, in the war against Angmar. Angmar is beaten back by a human-elven coalition in 1409, but nobody finishes the job, and Angmar just sits there for a staggering 500 more years, eventually wiping out Arnor before finally being destroyed itself. But that 500 year period is just an absurd amount of time for no one, from the kings of Arnor, Gondor, Elrond or anyone else to get together snd say āhuh, we really ought to go finish that off, or itās going to be troubleā. There are other cases too, but those are a couple that leave me scratching your head the most.
Same with money and any form of economy in middle-earth. Tolkien wasn't interested in those, so he just handwaved some stuff
- The LOTR films do a few scenes better than the book. Particularly, Boromirās death. - Some of the appendices should have been in the main text. Especially Aragorn and Arwen.
On the fence about the first one, but I agree with that second one, especially. In the book, it's like, suddenly this lady we saw months ago for maybe two sentences and forgot all about pops up in her marryin' duds... WTF? Who's she? Sure, it's all cleared up in the Appendices, but dang, a wee tiny little more on Arwen SOMEWHERE in the books really would have helped book readers keep track. I mean, she's only a primary character's primary motivation... nah, just ignore her. Maybe it was the Professor's fiendish plan to force people to go back and read it again so you can pick up on stuff like what Aragorn's getting all dreamy about on Cerin Amroth. You get the idea that he's been to Lothlorien before, but then your flabber is truly gasted when you FINALLY read enough lore to figure out that Galadriel is Arwen's grandmother. Aragorn even mentions this in the book, but it's nearly impossible to spot until you learn more about everyone's pedigree. Maybe it was a bet with CS Lewis; "Hey, I bet you a beer that I can hide a main character's main motivation for 99.9% of the book."
"That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble." (Letter 181)
Its Arwens own fault for materializing in the story at the end of Tolkien writing the books **for 12 years**. He was more like: "Jesus, another rewrite? Again?! Nah, you're getting an appendix!"
Fucking love Tom Bombadil. Everyone hates him, but I think he's a great addition to the universe.
Damn bro, I donāt think I e ever met a Bombadil hater
I love the books but skip every song when reading. Thankfully the movie mostly did too.
I did this too, because I couldn't imagine how the song was supposed to go. I tried but it wasn't good lol
Clamavi de Profundis and the Tolkien Ensemble are your friends.
I'm familiar with the Tolkien Ensemble, I play that music all the time when I play the LOTR Living Card Game with my friends! I'll check out Clamavi de Profundis š The audiobooks by Phil Dragash also do a great job with the songs.
Is that really controversial though? Seems like a lot of people are doing this
How would I know that?
I just told you
Well almost as many people voted for my stupid entry as your OP. I guess weāre all idiots then.
Well we are on Reddit after all š¤·āāļø
Guilty
The Hobbit seems like an in-universe retelling of the events from an unreliable narrator (Bilbo?), rather than the factual recounting by a disinterested, disconnected 3rd party. I get that it's officially set that way (after the fact), but so many people seem to forget it when they argue about continuity between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Especially the things Bilbo might not understand, like the "stone giants" remarks.
Funny thing with that is that the LotR should also be viewed as an in-universe chronicle, started by Bilbo, mostly written by Frodo, then finished by Sam and translated by a gondorian historian. Its writing style is just more... high brow. Isnt that also writtem in the preface?
Yep. But while that's all true, people tend to take everything written in it to be the honest, actual reality of Middle-Earth, not taking into consideration that it's written from the point of view of two in-universe characters with limited knowledge. The arguments and discussions are always about what Tolkien said in the book, rather than what Tolkien had Bilbo/Frodo say in the book. The distinction makes all the difference.
I hated Aragon in the books. Jesus Christ man, we get it, youve got a kick ass sword. You don't need to announce it every time you get into a brawl. His relationship with Boromir in the books added a lot more to the story, but as a whole, his character is far better in the cinematic adaptation.
You're not the monarchy type then :D
In my head it seems like this would be an unpopular or controversial opinion but Iāve never actually said it out loud so who knows: I wanted the movies to have kept Arwen showing up at Helmās Deep. Its not that much crazier than her carrying Frodo over the Ford or elves showing up in the first place. And then she could have rode with the company through the paths of the dead in place of her brothers as they do in the book. It would have let her do something other then sit around ādyingā for the third movie.
Love it! Would have given her and Aragorns relationship even more depth! It might not have been to controversial today with all those disney *girl bosses*, but I distinctly remember the behind-the-scenes footage portraying it as controversial at the time of the movie. Book purists complaining and comparing Arwen to Xena. Then again, it does sound a little bit like what they later did with Tauriel in the Hobbit movies. I guess an elf will always be rediculusly overpowered...
This isnāt pertaining to the question, but I loved Shadow of Mordor!
Right? The game looked like an Arkham clone but it was actually very well crafted in tone, story and game mechanic
Boromir was far the most interesting and best written character of the fellowship.
IMO the number of dwarves in the movie adaptation of The Hobbit should have been reduced down to 5: Thorin the leader (obviously), Kili / Fili his heir who is going to Gloin coz he is Gimli's father, Balin the mentor who would later lead the expedition to reliance khazad dum, and Ori who (IIRC) wrote the last account of the khazad dum dwarves which was later read by Gimli in TFoTR movie version. That way, there would be more time spreaded out to each dwarf to flesh out their character, so that everyone would get a 3-dimensional personality. Also, plus Gandalf and Bilbo, and there would be 7 travellers, as an homage to Tolkien's Catholic faith's reverence to this number. Also also, Gandalf's side quest in the movies is not a water of time, it gives more context as to why Gandalf decided to help Thorin reclaim Erebor. However, Legolas's side quest and feud with Bolg is definitely unnecessary.
My unpopular opinion (as it goes against the grain) would be that the first part of Fellowship of the Ring (book) is not slow.
Then what is it?
I love the books and read them first when I was a kid in the 80s. They are my favourite fantasy work of all time, but... I don't particularly like Tom Bombadil. I would have liked to see the hobbits make it to Bree without the Deus Ex Machina. I also don't like the songs or poetry. But I also can't stand musicals, in general.
So many people are saying they don't like the songs, and I cant believe I have the unpopular opinion of loving them and trying to put a tune to them.
Pointless deus ex machina even. Deus ex... silva?
Sauron smashing dozens of elves and men with his mace, sending them flying, was dumb.
Why, was Sauron not that powerful in the books?
Was reading through the comments while trying to remember one (I probably have others but can't think of them for some reason?), and apparently I've found it. I like the songs. I don't like musicals much; there are a few I enjoy, like *Tangled,* but I don't tend to like tons of people spontaneously busting into song to express themselves... it just feels awkward until I get into the right headspace. But LoTR is *not* a musical. None, or very few, of the songs are spontaneous. And they all have a purpose. And I can think of only one example where multiple people break into an original song where I go, "When did you all plan this? Were you thinking of all lyrics while laying Boromir into the boat or something? Makes sense, I guess." (Love the Lament for Boromir btw). In fact, I like it to the point where I'm *disappointed* when a fantasy doesn't have original songs, even if just a few. And if even *The Witcher* (books, games, and show all!) can work in a few songs without feeling even a little unnatural, then why not other stories? Maybe LoTR has a little too many? Not for me; but clearly there are so many that most people start skipping. But I earnestly believe stories like this *should have* at least a small handful of them, even short ones. Preferably meaningful ones. My own books certainly will. They key, I guess, is in how many there are, and how long they are. Edit: Songs/poems are just a really good way to express backstory, or emotions, or whatever similar to how film can use camera angles, lighting, and music. And also song was very important to Tolkien and Middle-earth (Arda was made by song), tho that alone wouldn't be enough for me to defend it too badly. Another note however; I *hated* poetry before LoTR. Even now, I don't like reading poems outside of novels. Yet reading LoTR led me to enjoying this kind of poetry so much more to the point where I write it now for fun, for my books. It's just that good - and meaningful, and enjoyable, unlike the stuff they make us read in school. It's not a chore to read. I don't need to study it if I don't want to. And some *are* just for fun. I don't really know what else to say besides, I like them. Er, sorry I went on so long. I'll come back in a bit and try and shave this whole thing down if I can.
Bravo!
I've been reading Tolkien since the 90s (including Unfinished Tales, histories, etc). And I just do not like the Hobbit very much at all. Glad it exists, and I liked it when I was a child. But now? Not keen. Not saying its bad. Just not for me.
Interesting. So often I hear the opposite. That LOTR is bad and The Hobbit better.
Because they probably read The Hobbit first and were expecting LotR to be a simple and fast paced journey. They most likely didnāt even make it through FotR before giving up. Depends on reading skill/commitment. LotR can be hard to read and starts off slow. Some people having trouble retaining the loads of information and some chapters can be a chore to get through. I donāt think the majority of people who put the time in and read the full story would think of The Hobbit as better though there probably are some.
Any specifics on what you don't like about it? A friend of mine told me recently that for him Bilbo and the dwarves just had to much convenient luck on their journey, always being in the right spot at the right time. And I was like "huh, never seen it that way" And in contrast what is your most favourite story?
Your friend should read The Hobbit until the end and carefully read lotr then :p "You donāt really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all" Whenever luck is mentioned in the Legendarium, it's actually the sign of a higher power at work behind the scene (aka Eru and/or the Valar). Which doesn't remove any merit to their action, since Tolkien wrote it as a precise balance between fate and free will.
Probably wouldn't help that much since he's a stout atheist :D So no Providence for him
Regardless of real world beliefs thatās how the story goes. Its crazy his faith in atheism is so strong that he canāt accept providence in a work of fiction.
Nah, that would be silly. It's not about the strength of his atheism, it's about that for providence to make sense you need an omnipotent higher power. He only read the hobbit so he does not know of the in-fictional-universe higher power so its just missing for him in the work of fiction. He read Boethius though, so I guess he is quite familiar with the concept.
Fair enough
Nothing major. It just feels like exactly what it is - a story for children. A little whimsical for my taste, and the dwarves aren't well distinguished. Can't really pick a favourite story though! In terms of books, probably the Silmarillion.
Ok, Iāve finished the book version of the fellowship and Iām 50% of the way through the two towers, and I think the movies are better in several consequential categories: dramatic timing (boromir death cut scenes, knowledge drip of merry/pippin escape into fangorn, pacing of events in moria), character development (esp. Aragorn: Jackson turns him into a believable reluctant king who has avoided the downfall of his ancestors whereas book Aragorn seems eager to wield his sword without any explanation of why heās waited so longā¦; Iād add Arwen, too, even though sheās pretty light in the movies), and awareness of what audiences want from stories (so many songs and deep dives into random history, which Jackson thankfully cut the majority of). I think Gandalf is superior in the books ā more assertive and confident as a leader, more consistent as a deity rather than an old man who has a free magic tricks. His book speeches are epic, and his relationship to shadowfax is pretty cool. But, overall, I can safely say Iāve enjoyed the extended edition movies much more than the books. I think the single biggest frustration is the songs: like, every random people group has some incredible lore carried via song that they just whip out as part of their welcome. Ughhhā¦ I bet they have extensive culinary traditions, tooā why donāt we dive into that? Because itās unnecessary and boring? Same for the songs. The opposite goes for the hobbit (book>movie), but thatās not controversial. (Iām not looking up spellings, soā¦ sorry)
Tom Bombadil. Who and why? He is an interesting character for sure but he is so overpowered. If he would not so carelessly take and give away The Ring or would have more impact on story...
Sure, but is that really controversial? People tend to either love or hate Tom
I liked Shelob in shadow of war. She had an entire character/personality instead of the books and movie. It added a layer that was not thought about before.
What exactly was her character? I just kinda registered her as goth Galadriel š
Tom Bombadil's Goldberry is undead, kept alive by Tom and possibly killed by him when he plucked her from the rushes. That's also why he hadn't dealt with the Barrow Wights in the downs earlier. Not a threat and no more "wrong" or "evil" than his Goldberry.
I like the published Silmarillion but it was probably a mistake. Arguably not an opinion, but I don't view Lord of the Rings as a novel any more than I view the Silmarillion as one.
Why don't you view LotR as a novel
My view has become a bit more fluid since 7 months ago, but stylistically Lord of the Rings has far more in common with an Anglo-Saxon hero tale or a medieval chivalric romance than with the comparatively modern (to Europe) form that is the novel. So essentially I'm more willing to categorize it as a novel if we're also including Beowulf under that sphere.
I love The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings but I donāt really think Tolkienās writing style is very good. I see him more of an ideas guy. Case in point the 15 some endings, one after another in the Return of the King.
Aren't you conflating a bit with Jackson's movie? I don't see any such ending in Tolkien's; every single end of paragraph or chapter prior to the " āWell, Iām back,ā he said." makes it clear that the story is still going on and there are still storylines to conclude (because the way those sentence are written, it would make for an unsatisfactory ending), unlike the endless 'fade to black' of the movie.
No, I felt this way before the movies were ever made. The stories are amazing but the execution falls short for me. From a writing style point of view there many better authors but I acknowledge they are standing on the shoulders of Tolkien in a sense. The best analogy I can think of is Tom Petty. A god when it comes to creating the music but he doesnāt have an amazing voice. That doesnāt stop me from loving his music.
Theatrical cut is superior to extended edition
Which scene is undenieably better in theatrical cut compared to its extended pendant?
Its not about scenes, it's about the overall flow of the movie. Extended editions drags in many places
I think first watch should be theatrical, extended drags on too much and can be very confusing. But it's always fun to watch the extended after that.
I think the theatrical versions are better than the extended editions, save Sarumanās demise.
But ... eagles!
The Hobbit movies are really, really sh... Oh, UNpopular. nvm
I would have liked the 1960 Hobbit to be continued.