Any Tolkien fans here?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23373
Printed Date: August 09 2025 at 05:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Any Tolkien fans here?
Posted By: Raff
Subject: Any Tolkien fans here?
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 14:33
|
I was just curious to know where there are any Tolkien fans in this forum, as I've seen quite a few Tolkien-inspired nicknames (Mithrandir, Varda, MorgothSunshine, etc.). I've been a Tolkien fan for over 20 years, although I lean more towards the serious, scholarly treatment of his works than towards RPGs or such. As a matter of fact, I've also written a few essays and articles on aspects of Tolkien's work, some of which will be published shortly (in English). I've also been a member of the Tolkien Society for over 4 years.
Are there any other people who love the work of the Professor, as we call him? I would also be interested to hear from any illustrators of Tolkien's works on behalf of a friend of mine.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 14:40
|
Big fan, I've read the trilogy and the hobbit 12 + times each since the mid 70's - I guess about once every three years or so (on average).
My reading is strictly for enjoyment, he is really a very good writer. ------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: glass house
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 14:58
| The first time I read Tolkien's books I was about 15. Since then a huge fan. |
Posted By: bsurmano
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 14:58
|
I haven't read all Tolkien's work, but I've LISTENED TO the music inspired by his writing - Bo Hansson's 'Lord Of The Rings' almost 34 years ago, long before all the recent Hollywood noise.The music is, as wel as writing , admirable. ------------- 'Sundown,yellow moon, I replay the past I know every scene by heart, they all went by so fast..... Either I'm too sensitive or else I'm gettin' soft.' Bob Dylan |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 15:03
|
I have read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy an average of once a year since 5th grade - and that was over 30 years ago! I also own all of Tolkien's other works, both those he wrote and those written and/or edited by his son, Chris. I have read the Silmarillion at least three times, and most of the "offshot" books (Farmer Giles of Ham et al) multiple times as well. I, too, prefer a more "scholarly" approach to discussing his works, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun!
Peace.
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 15:26
I liked the Hobbit a lot. 
But Lord of the Rings...
 . Let me tell you that I can't get past In the House of Tom Bombadil. Everytime I try to read it (which was at least three times before I gave up), I fell asleep.
Anyway, I've seen the movies, liked them, and have no real desire to read the books anymore. I like newer sci-fi/fantasy more.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 15:32
|
^ now I know why your username is stonebeard (and not treebeard). BTW: If you liked the Hobbit, you should try again and read a little bit beyond Bombadil. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:21
| I love Tolkien, his world has such detail an a sens of history that I have never encountered before or since in a book/series. I enjoyed TLOTR and The Hobbit but I prefered The Silmarillion the most of his wroks. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:24
|
I enjoyed The Hobbit as well, but that was when I was 13 or 14. I've tried on numerous occasions to read The Lord of the Rings, but, like Stonebeard, I seem to get to a certain point in "The Fellowship of the Ring" and give up. I have no desire to see the films either. I think I'll stick to the Forgotten Realms myself. Planescape is such a better world and the potential for great fan-fi literature in the Planescape setting is much greater, in my opinion. However, one day I shall try and finish LotR. -------------   
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:34
| ^You should give the films a try as well James. Like all book adaptations I dont think the film matches it but the trilogy was better than most films that I've seen out of Hollywood in the last 6 years. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:36
|
Except they didn't include Tom Bombadil and he's an integral part of the story (of sorts). Apparently other bits were changed too. Besides, I'd rather see CGI Hobbits than some dude who's 2 foot too tall! -------------
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:41
|
Tom Bombadil's isnt actually that integral to the story line since the film skips ahead of the journy through the Old Forest. They've cut a bit out of the ending as well. Those are about the only major changes made. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:43
|
But Tom Bombadil is a mysterious character and he was the one who parted the river (or was it the sea?), to enable them to escape from the Black Riders (or whatever they're called!). He's a very powerful character. I must admit though, any singing parts would have just been intolerable! -------------
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:47
No no, Tom Bombadil saves them from Old Man Willow and the Barrow Whites, the river surge was created by Elrond witha little help from Gandalf (jeez, I sound like a Tolkien freak  ). |
Geck0 wrote:Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:53
|
Ah, but still my point sticks, he is still an important character! Is this explained in the film, is Tom Bombadil even mentioned? -------------
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 16:57
No he's never mentioned in the film, and though he gives an interesting incite into the earlier ages of Middle Earth I dont think his charector is that important to the journy of the Ring. |
Posted By: Zoso
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 18:30
|
The Hobbit is most likely my favorite book ever.
-------------  |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 22:23
|
Sleeper: You say "Tom Bombadil isn't actually that integral to the story line since the film skips ahead of the journey through the Let me get this straight: a character and episode that is included in, and important to, the original, written book “isn’t actually that integral to the story line" because the film based on that book omits them? Isn't that just a tad backward? I am not the only one who was miffed by what Jackson omitted and added, not least because he swore that he “understood the fans,” and that the films would therefore be “accurate” and “true to the books.” Poppycock. Even Bakshi’s film (which admittedly only got halfway through the trilogy) was more accurate than Bombadil, Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wights are gone. Arwen was not the one who came to get Frodo after he was stabbed at Weathertop; it was Haldir (in Bakshi’s film, it was Legolas). Nor was it Arwen who caused the river to rise against the Black Riders; as you note, it was Elrond and Gandalf. This is significant because it shows the power that Elrond and Gandalf have over enormous distances. Indeed, this scene is egregious for an even more critical reason. In the book (and Bakshi’s film), Frodo, in a near-coma, crosses the ford himself and then stops on the riverbank and forces himself out of the coma to “challenge” the Black Riders himself. This is incredibly significant, since it shows that, even near death, Frodo had the strength to resist the Riders and the “pull” of the Ring. Nor was Narsil (“the sword that was broken”) at Rivendell, nor did Boromir ever handle it; it was revealed by Aragorn – in his possession, where it belongs – at the Council of Elrond at the same time that Frodo revealed the Ring. And almost the entire segment in Lothlorien was different from the book. And, of course, the entire love story between Aragorn and Arwen was actually in an appendix to LOTR, and was “imported” into the story by However, along with the omission of Bombadil, perhaps the most annoying omission was that of the entire “Scouring of the Shire” segment, in which the hobbits return to The Shire to confront a badly weakened Saruman and Grima Wormtongue. This is also an extremely significant segment, as it shows the effect of the hobbits’ journey – leaving as cocky, stupid-courageous youngsters (in hobbit years), and returning as triumphant, battle-tried, true-courageous, even somewhat jaded, heroes. “They’ve cut out a bit of the ending?...” Surely you jest: the omission of this segment is inexcusable. Those are just a few of the many (not “about the only”) changes made by Ultimately, Peace. |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 22:33
my favorite Tolkien book |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: May 15 2006 at 22:47
|
I've read the Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy not too logg ago, and they're marvelous I think I need to re-read the trilogy again to let it sink in, though. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Mongo
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 02:53
|
Actually it was Glorfindel that met the boys on the way to Rivendell. The Faramir changes really bugs me from the movie. ------------- "The options are ever fewer on the ground these days" Fish |
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 02:55
| I like The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 07:10
|
Maani: I still maintain that to the actual journey of the ring from the Shire to Mount Doom, the trip through the Old Forest, meeting Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Whites was not hugely important in the advancing of the main story. Granted it was a shame to have it cut from the film but was it completely necassery to include considering that between entering the Old Forest and reaching Bree they were still being persued by the Nazgul and hopeing to meet Gandalf. I find that Tom's importance to the book is that he helps develope the sense of history that Middle Earth has through the hints that he was around before the First age of Middle Earth and the comeing of the Elves. I dont think this would have been too important. When I said earlier that Peter Jackson only changed a few things and cut a bit out of the end was a silly thing to say, they clearly did a hell of a lot more than that. I was also very dissapointed when they missed out the "Scouring of the Shire", this was something I was looking forward to. The change from Glorfindal to Arwen at the river crossing scene made sense to me as I dont think Jackson would have wanted to explain why he was so strong, being an Elf of the first age that had been slain and then returned to Middle Earth. This film contained many changes, most minor, some huge changes, and for the most part I didnt mind too much what they did (thank god they decided not to include the Aragorne fighting Sauron scene infront of the black gate ) |
Posted By: Tomodachi
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 09:01
 I'm a huge Tolkien fan, I read The Hobbit and LOTR for the first time at the age of 12 and immediately fell in love. About two years later I read The Silmarillion and I was blown away. Since then I have read LOTR about 8 times and Silmarillion 5-6 times; it's incredible how I can find new joy in them with every reading: I think they are a sort of literary equivalent of progressive music  On the other side, I HATE the movies: they almost completely lost the spirit of the book IMO, the changes to the plot are irritating and the pseudo-humor is hateful  I also agree with GhostRider: Tolkien opus is a great subject for such interesting and fascinating literary studies, in particular from the philological and mythological point of view. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tristan Mulders
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 09:23
|
I've read The Silmarillion a few times (in English) and also The Hobbit once... didn't get through part one of LOTR though (although I liked the films )
------------- Interested in my reviews? You can find them http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=784 - HERE "...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..." |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 09:47
| I've read The Silmarillion, LOTR and The Hobbit. All of them are great. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 10:48
I hate to disagree, but of the three books , it is definitely the Fellowship Of The Ring one I have most affinity with and the suppression of Bombadil in the movies is simply scandalous>> so much so, that once I heard of this omission, Idecided to boycott the films , and I will keep that boycott although not for that sole reason. I simply never wanted anyone to portray Gollum in any other way , than I had while reading the books
I started reading the trilogy at age 17 and finished at 19 (including The Hobbit), and I must say that the book did help me refine my English quite a bit. Although I was highly impressed with the book until roughly half of The Two Towers, I slowly started losing interest and I admit to have skipped entire pages (or at least read diagonally) of Return Of The King.
While I still think it is a master of the genre, I have never returned to it and I do not hold this story that highly . I am a minority among friends, though as some have read it four or five times and seen the movies at leasqt that many times let alone the entire nights of debate between them and my flirting with their neglected spouses
 >> life is too short for wasting it by re-reading it. As a matter of fact , such fanboyism is pushing me to say today that Tolkien's LOR trilogy and its (TH) intro about its Middle Earth/Mordor World is way over-rated and all progheads should listen to another trilogy (RGI) and its intro (CA) from the best fantasy writer Daevid Allen's tribulation of the GonG planet.
RGI = Radio Gnome Invisble and CE = Camembert Electrique ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 13:09
Sean, using that same logic would lead me to conclude that you should only listen to an album once. Ridiculous
It always amazes me that people dismiss (or assume) things based on cursory knowledge, limited exposure, or disinterest. You have only read the story once - and not fully at that.
If I were you the fact that so many people hold the story (stories) so highly would personally lead me to refrain from posting any negative comments - ESPECIALLY AS YOU ARE UNIFORMED IN THE SUBJECT. It is the same as me lambasting an album after a quick listen, or because I don't like the artist or genre.
In the prog world I find many people enjoy an album more after the sixth listen than the first - perhaps the same is true for a work such as the LOTR trilogy. Waste time by re-reading it - what an immature comment - Sean, you're old enough to know better - do you actually read books?
As always, you are entitled to your opinion (as we all are).
But please do not make yourself look unintelligent by spouting off such uninspired thoughts without thinking first. ------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 13:37
If Sean found LOTR to be tough going for whatever reason then I doubt he would want to go back to it. I couldnt compare books and music like this, an album finishes much quicker than it would take to read a book, you get more time to absorbe whats on the page. For this reason if I found a book that I wasnt enjoying reading, I wouldnt bother finishing it, there just wouldnt be any point. |
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 14:37
|
^ Sleeper, I agree completely.
However, at the same time I wouldn't make statements that the book was "over-rated" when I haven't even really read it completely.
There are books that I have given up on even after reading one or two hundred pages, just not my thing.
But when we are talking a book that is considered a masterpiece by so many I would simply say that I read it once and it doesn't do it for me.
While I find Shakespeare difficult to read I still can appreciate that scholars (and others) classify his writings at the top of the literary scale. 'Not my cup of tea', OK - 'way over-rated', not an intelligent comment.
IMHO...
------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: man@arms
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 14:52
| I loved the Hobbit, but couldn't really get into LOTR. I got through most of the 'Two Towers' and quit. That was about 10 years ago and ever since I have wanted to go back to the trilogy and reread it, but somehow never got around to it. Never saw the films, but hear they are good, just not entirely faithful to the books. Maybe someday I will give LOTR another try. |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 14:56
The way Peter Jackson explained it was just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. He was very sorry to cut this scene and the scouring scene but he was right in a film they are not necessary. He paid tribute to it in the directors cut of the Two Towers in a scene in Fangorn where Treebeard rescues Merry and Pippen from a tree as well as paying tribute to the scouring of the shire in mirror of Gladriel sceen from the Fellowship. He was already getting pressure form the studio as to the lengths of the films. The length also has to do with how many times a theater can run it in a day and still break even or make a profit as well how long an audience can sit through it.
Obviously not one person that has read the books extensively will agree with Peter Jackson's vision of it. I thought he did a pretty good job remaining faithful to such things as the costumes and set building. The enormous amount of detail that was spent was incredible in this a commercial vessel. As for the Hollywood comments here the Studio who distributed this film and put up the initial 150 million dollars were Hollywood but everything else was produced in New Zealand. All in all this could have been a huge disaster and I think it turned out pretty good. ------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 15:02
|
Tried it, but it was a lot of pomp and a lot of boring descriptions of how that other rock that is totally unimportant to the story looked. I'd read something like Salvatore over Tolkien. EDIT: oh yeah, lurking around this LotR forum got me my wife.  ------------- Epic. |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 15:19
|
Silmarillion is an extraordinary work and by far my favourite one
of course i love the other two famous ones
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 17:31
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all & in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 19:29
|
JrKASperov: I have the Drizzt Do'Urden books to plow through. Well, all but the last three (or 4?), but I'll buy them once I've read the rest. I so much prefer the Forgotten Realms setting to be fair and as for the Planescape setting, that is so unique, i cannot understand why people don't know more about it... You should read: Fire and Dust by James Alan Gardener. You can read it for free on the Internet (as it was never published) - I really enjoyed it and I believe it probably didn't get published, due to peoples lack of knowledge about Planescape. Having said that, none of this would have been possible without LotR or The Hobbit. -------------
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 19:45
|
Mongo and Sleeper:
Thank you for correcting me re Glorfindel; don't know how I confused him with Haldir! Also, I had forgotten the changes to the Faramir scenes. Another bummer.
Peace.
[P.S. Sleeper: I don't understand your comment re the "Glorfindel to Arwen" comment.]
|
Posted By: Abecedarian
Date Posted: May 16 2006 at 20:54
|
I'm actually in the process of reading Tolkien's trilogy now, though I would hardly call myself a fan. I enjoyed the films and though his writing does irk me some, I find generally well written and filled chapter-by-chapter with thorough discriptive passages of his creation, Middle-earth, and for that I commend him.
My biggest issue with his writing would have to lie with his dialogue: I suppose that would come from reading his material and seeing many of his characters weren't equipped with as great a voice like others (e.g., Gandalf, Elrond and Legolas are all examples of creative voices to distinguish themselves from subsequent characters); but don't get me wrong, because most of them did have a voice, it just wasn't as developed or sought through. It would have been greater to have him emphasize and allow his characters to flourish than merely speak with exclamatory urgency through most of the scenes.
But that's my opinion. I still enjoy his literature and I thought, in all, that he was a gifted writer and I wish he wasn't dead . . . oh, well. Such is life. ------------- "We'd be fools not to ride this strange torpedo to the end." - Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 02:19
|
many years ago i read "the hobbit" and "lord of the rings" and i saw all the films which brought them to life again, though the film characterizations were nothing like i imagined, that is up to the director, but i enjoyed them nevertheless. the battle scenes were fantastic. a friend of mine is going to NZ soon the see the tour where they did the filming. -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: RaphaelT
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 04:13
|
According to Edward Macan's Rockin' The Classics (don't know whether you are familiar with that book or whether it was widely discussed on PA already, I think it is a very good general book about prog) Tolkien books were a must for prog musicians.
Which is quite interesting IMHO, since first generation of prog were people, who were the first generation to be raised with Lord Of The Rings (Hobbit from late 30s was a very popular child book, which was cause for publisher to ask Professor to write LOTR, or "The New Hobbit", but it could not be as rich and influential as LOTR) - so perhaps the rich fantasy world, the english mythology helped in creation of a new, rich, imaginery style of music, which we all here call prog. ------------- yet you still have time! |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:02
I'll have to get back to you on this one maani, I dont have the book with me and it will be about a week before I can read that chapter again. I'm pretty certain I know what I'm on about but I'd rather read the chapter and get the details than work from just my memory. |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:11
|
I believe Silmarillion is more fascinating as it contains Genesis of the Gods, Elves etc...
and also many many different stories that all combine in one
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:20
Thanks Sleeper, I'll hire you as my lawyer next time >> I could not worded it better myself
Firepuck:
Uninformed >> Moi??
 I read the damn thing and as I say was not that impressed with it and I state that I regard it highly in the Fantasy genre (a genre I am generally no fan of anyway) >> I give a sound advice about the first book and the untolerable cuts in the film >> obviously you are irked by this and you are being needlessly aggressive because someone did give an opinion opposite of yours (and actually this opinion was also someone else's) So you might want to read the post fully before letting your absolute fanboyism get the better of you , because the unintelligent post was your not mine.
 My post was well thought-out and as far as my English allows, reasonably well written. I though this post because in a debate, if every agrees and lauds a thing, than every body is content and the conversation goes nowhere quickly except in those useless an,d endless conversation you probably engage > say, was it your wife I picked up that famous night
 (do you even have a partner )? or maybe she left you because of your unreasonable love of TLOR. Furthermore Listen to RGI trilogy >> it takes less than four hours to listen to it where yours takes four months >> my life is too short for this because I have things to do in mine >> obviously not you
much more enjoyable and full of humour >> something you clearly lack!!!! Feel stupid, now?
Well you should!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:42
Thank you, Zbigniew, for referring to that book (I'm going to look at the thread on it in a second). I have read it and found it very interesting, even though it contains a lot of detailed information on musical structure that I, as a non-musician, have occasionally found hard to understand. BTW, I remember that remark about Tolkien and his importance for the first prog generation.
That said, I think everybody here has got the right not to like Tolkien's work or to find it boring. I used the word "fan" in the object because I could not think of a better term (it's also quite short), but I am the first who is not too keen on the excesses of "fandom". As I stated from the very beginning, my interest in Tolkien is mainly literary, and encompasses other forms of fantastic writing, such as mythology, fairytales (which will be the object of my Ph.D. dissertation), Gothic, ghost stories, etc. This is probably one of the reasons why I love prog (though I hate the airy-fairy stereotyping of prog fans by the music press).
As to the films, I've got all three extended versions and have seen them quite a few times, though I recognise their shortcomings. BTW, Maani's analysis of them was as usual spot-on. They're on the whole very enjoyable as movies, but the book is something else entirely.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 19 2006 at 08:00
|
Did not mean to kill you thread Raphaella (no reply in a few days now)
So I will try to revive it ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Antennas
Date Posted: May 19 2006 at 19:49
Glad to read I'm not the only one who considers PJ's 'adaptations' to be abominations.
Love, love, love the Book - completely disgusted with the movies, due to needless plot changes, various cases of character murder (Whimp!Frodo! Evil!Faramir!), and indeed - changing a lot of the main characters into cheap 'comic relief'.
Heh. I'll rest my case for now, or I may well go on for another hour on this particular subject...
 PS: I happen to BE a Tolkien illustrator - PM me if you want to know more! ------------- 
Jesus never managed to figure out the theremin either |
Posted By: Under
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 07:05
I partly agree. I am a huge fan of the Tolkien books. But I like the movies as well.
Watching the movies I stopped thinking that I am watching the books. They are different.
Of course I regret the fact that my hero from the books Faramir, is depreciated to a big loser who cannot see what is happening and cannot make choices. But hey, I still think the movies are quit nice to watch. I think Peter Jackson has done great. He may have commercialised a bit, but he could not have been aware the movies would be such a suuces that he could have used the original story.
There are great websites bytheway that have put all differences between the books and the mvies in every detail.
Now let us wait for the movie of the Silmarillion.....
|
Posted By: Antennas
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 15:44
Well, in fact, I *adored* PJ's adaptation of Fellowship of the Ring. Though there were some abominational changes made in this film as well - remember Glorfindel!Arwen, for instance?
- I think it caught the overall atmosphere of the book pretty well. But whatever happened to PJ when he put together its two follow-ups? Overdosed on pot?  But okay, I'll give him some credits nevertheless. The locations, costumes, photography, in general: all technicalities were carried out wonderfully.
A movie on the Silmarillion will be quite a hard egg to crack, I think. I wonder who'll have the guts to take on on that one! -------------
Jesus never managed to figure out the theremin either |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 16:13
No one I hope, even the meat of that story covers a 1000 years of Middle Earths history, and it occasionally goes back and forth. I dont think it would make a good film, two messy to work on the big screen. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: May 23 2006 at 07:06
|
The Fellowship of the Ring was OK on the screen, but things went downhill in the folowing parts of the Trilogy. Technically always great, but that's not everything.
I hardly believe in the possibility of a proper adaptation of The Silmarillion.
|
Posted By: fogwalker
Date Posted: May 23 2006 at 15:33
|
I fondly remember the pleasure I derived from reading the Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarillion many times over during my teens. I don't think anyone else has ever created a world from scratch the way he did.
I don't think I could read it now though. For better or for worse, I've lost that childlike abiility to suspend disbelief in the face of imaginary worlds.
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: May 24 2006 at 02:40
|
That's a very beautiful thing that you said, Fogwalker. Very insightful and interesting from the point of view of somebody who, like me, studies and researches all kinds of non-realistic (i.e. fantastic) literature. It's a pity that you lost that ability, but it's something that happens, even when we don't want it to. It's never happened to me, fortunately - even if I'm definitely an adult, I'm still quite capable of getting caught in an imaginary world and then go back to everyday reality. |
Posted By: fogwalker
Date Posted: May 24 2006 at 16:50
Well, thanks. I may have given the impression that I reget not being able to enjoy Tolkien any more. This isn't really true. I think that fantasy speaks best to adolescents and young adults, whose minds are more of a "clean slate" and hence more amenable to flights as fancy. In getting older and more experienced, I have become far more"main-stream" in my literary tastes, as I find that what I want from fiction is something that talks to me as a mature, experienced adult, and which offers some insights on the human condition, and I'm afraid that Tolkien (or any other "non-realistic") literature doesn't really do that.
|
Posted By: Under
Date Posted: May 28 2006 at 16:21
The story of Luthien and Beren could be a commercial succesfull love story featuring Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks (again) or Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts (again) or perhaps a mix of any of these 4 people.
|
Posted By: Swanhild
Date Posted: October 15 2006 at 11:02
|
I've been quite a Tolkien fan for 7 years now; have read all of his M-E books, going from the Hobbit/LotR/Silm to the HoME series (8 volumes till now), along with some other non-fictional stuff of his as well. I have written a fair amount of posts and Internet articles on the subject, but after those years I am glad I can enjoy the books without feeling that urge for writing/speaking about the subject to other people, be them on or offline. I think I will never cease to enjoy the books, but by now things have calmed down for me, and this is all for the best.
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: October 15 2006 at 12:18
|
Hey, check this nice site:
http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/iso/Tolkien/verses.html - http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/iso/Tolkien/verses.html It contains translations of The Ring Verses to many different languages (even to Klingon language from Star Trek). ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: October 15 2006 at 17:51
| I love it! Not a die-hard fan, but I extremely enjoy the whole of Tolkien mythology. Of course, many proggers (and non-proggers, Led Zeppelin!) were inspired by this genius. |
Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 03:31
|
I’m a very large fan. The movies made me kinda’ angry though, the books are so much better! The movies take away all the subtlety of the characters. I also like his other works like Farmer Giles of Ham and Rover Random. The Hobbit is perhaps my favourite book by anyone, giving Dune great competition. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 15:10
Hey, how do you like this?
 ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 16:01
I am a hufe fan. So far I have read LOTR, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and many of the books editd by Christopher Tolkien. I have The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Silmarillion on CD being read aloud. I also have a CD on which one track is J.R.R. Tolkien reading the Riddles in the Dark chapter from The Hobbit. His son reads parts from the Silmarillion on this also. So I am more than a Tolkien reader, I am a fanatic of the upmost! I also forgot to mention my Tolkien Riddle Book, and the encyclopedia of Middle-Earth and the maps of Middle-Earth. And much much more ... 
|
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 17:30
| I've read The Hobbit, the trilogy, and The Simarillion, though I have a hard time with the latter. LOTR is without question a classic of literature. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 11 2006 at 18:55
|
i have seen the movie trilogy these days and i was heavily disappointed. i might never feel the need to try getting into the books. maybe if they'll get translated in my own native lg. but still...
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|