The Lord of the Rings

[Mort-Hog]

I'm posting on this thread. I'd better make sure I wash thoroughly afterwards.

 

There is a lot more to Tolkien than simply The Lord of the Rings. LOTR acts more like an introduction to an introduction to the history of Arda. With this in mind, you must understand that the LOTR is not just about Frodo and the ring, and the fellowship, but of much greater and larger things. LOTR only hints at such events, mostly through songs (such as Aragorn's song for Beren and Luthien, at Weathertop I think). So you cannot expect the book to concentrate more on the characters, because that would ignore the larger scale events. You may think that Tolkien 'drones on' about certain things (most noteably the landscape, usually) but this is because those things probably have a greater significance and a deeper importance to events outside of the story at hand. The Dead Marshes, the Barrow Downs, Lothlorien; these are all scenes that may not be particularly significant to the tale of the War of the Ring, but are all scenes of extremely important historical events. These events are not explained in LOTR and you will have to read other works of Tolkien to understand them.

 

What you must also understand that Tolkien was a professor of English Language. He was a linguist. Tolkien's extraordinary use of language is something that has never been equaled, and rarely attempted, by other authors. Language is the most important element of the works of Tolkien, the different linguistic styles are very important in portraying the different characters; Tolkien himself acted merely as a 'translater' of the works. LOTR was originally written by Frodo (with help from Bilbo and possibly Sam), but the hobbits would not have spoken English. Tolkien translated the language that the hobbits spoke (whatever that was) into modern day english, calling it Common Speech. Characters that speak the same Common Speech would have spoken the same language as the hobbits. However, as the hobbits travel geographically, they also travel lingustically! The language of Men is different to the language of the hobbits, often confusing, but the general meaning is understandable; and so Tolkien would translate this into the modern day linguistic equivilant, Anglo-Saxon English. The hobbits would not have known any Elvish at all so that was left untranslated. The reader travels with the hobbits on the same linguistic journey!

Of course, the use of language is significant on much smaller scales too, and you can analyse intensely all of the songs and poems throughout his works separately.

 

 

If you do start to read the works of Tolkien, you must realise that it is not like reading a story book. You do not read Tolkien. You study Tolkien. Tolkien did not write a story, he wrote a mythology, and so you must study the works as you would a history text book.

If you don't like it, go read some other book. Tolkien didn't write it for you.

 

 

As for the films...

I had various niggles with the cinematic version of The Fellowship of the Ring, but those were all cleared up with the Extended version. That version flowed much better, and generated an atmosphere more like that in the book.

The extremely liberal interpretations in The Two Towers did annoy me. Cutting events out is understandable, but adding in totally new events in messses it all up unnecessarily. I haven't seen the Extended version yet, but I look forward to it. I don't think I'll be much happier with The Two Towers though.

The Return of the King was amazing. By far the best adaptation of them all. Pretty much all of the events were there, and although a lot of them were swapped around and the timescale was altered somewhat, it worked fantastically well. The cutting of the Scouring of the Shire was a very wise decision, as that simply...wouldn't work, in the film. One thing I especially loved about ROTK was how there was continuosly mentions of things far more complicated than the storyline at hand that were never explained; this would make the viewer think 'what??' and want to read the books. Like calling Gandalf "Mithrandir" without explaining what it means or why he is called that, or Eowyn saying 'I am no man!' before slaying the Lord of the Nazgul after he said 'I can be slain by no man!'. That sort of not explaining everything fully is something I like, and usually find in Japanese films. American films usually like to explain everything and tie up all the strings.

 

 

All in all, I'd say it was a fair adaptation. Although I've only heard the first few episodes, I currently prefer the radio show but only because it has more of the songs and poems. But Tolkien only really works as a written piece.

[Gabez]

Not particularly true. There are a lot of other authors from the same era with much different styles of writing - C.S. Lewis is the obvious one, and I was a big fan of Narnia. Besides, I have read and enjoyed the books, but some chapters were a little less motivating than others.

Lewis is the perfect example. Okay, so he doesn't go into the same amount of so-called "boring" details, but the style is simmilar. It's like a favourite uncle is recalling a story or something. Since you were talking about style, I reffered to other authors. If you weren't talking about style or still think that Lewis is different enough then ditto.

 

To put it in a brief and no doubt irritating manner, Fellowship set the scene, told the story of the ring and how the fellowship was formed. Then, the mission was made - "throw ring in hole". Other two films? Mission Accomplished! (With bonus war!)

A lot more happened in the other two films than just "missions accomplished". What's more you make no comment on how the story develops and how the characters develop - just because the "mission" doesn't change it doesn't mean the plot doesn't change.

 

The cuts and changes were only "huge" to the most ardous Tolkien fanboys. Of course they changed some things, but it was definitely the book on the screen.

Rubbish. The changes were dramatic, although they did keep to the "spirit" of the books - otherwise why would you want to do a movie of the books, eh?

 

Now you're stating your opinion as if it's fact. Not that I would ever call you on that, that would be childish. Anyway, yes, Star Wars is just entertaining, but Lord of the Rings is too, only in a pretentious kind of way. You can derive just as much thoughtful discussion from one film as you can the other. Besides, the main reason for going to the cinema in the first place is to be entertained - particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings.

I was aware of my condradictioness, which is why I added in "they don't make ME think". I'm sorry for any confusion caused. But it's hard to argue that Indy saving the day again really changes the way you look at life.

 

The main reason for going to see a film is that there isn't one. I go to be entertained, yes, but also to be thought-provoked, and moved, and enlightened. Besides LOTR is more than just a movie - it's a whole other world. "particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings. " - are you suggesting that it's just a brain-dead action movie? Bah.

 

"You can derive just as much thoughtful discussion from one film as you can the other" Perhaps, but some films give more opportunity for "thoughtful discussion" than others. Try having an intelligent discussion about Spice World or whatever it was called ¬¬

 

And no need to call me childish for pointing out an offensive part of your "reasoning". >:

 

There's also a difference between liking a movie, and complete insanity. Yes, I have my criticisms, and yes, I'm glad that they annoy you, and Tolkein geeks in general >: Let's just leave it at "not my cup of tea".

If you had just left all your posts to your last sentence then I might have "just left it at that", but you didn't, so I won't.

 

They don't annoy me per say; this is just a discussion after all. ;

[elTee]

I agree with pretty much everything Gabez has said. The books are the books, and no book can translate perfectly to screen. The movies, as they are, are some of my favourites - extremely well made with incredible production values. Its a summer blockbuster kinda movie, but it has characterisation, emotion and a realism to it. I just can't wait untill the Return of the King extended DVD comes out (in, like a year ) so I can watch the entire movie as one ten hour epic

 

Oh, Joshi - the Saruman scenes will be on the DVD, Christopher Lee really didn't like that he wasn't in the third movie, so Peter Jackson told him the scenes would definately appear on the DVD. It'll make the scene make more sense, as well - Empire claim its 7 minutes long, as well.

[Remi]

Originally posted by Gabez

(On edit:) I pressume you mean http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540652/ - please. That's hardly going to spoil perfection.

 

That's just a sidebar in the full article, but that's obviously enough to debunk that the little action movie series, with midgets in shorts and no shoes is perfect. ;-*

[Gabez]

The Remzo's movie standards are much higher than the Gabzo's. :~~~~~~~

[scabb]

Originally posted by Gabez

A lot more happened in the other two films than just "missions accomplished". What's more you make no comment on how the story develops and how the characters develop - just because the "mission" doesn't change it doesn't mean the plot doesn't change.

Character Development is an interesting point, actually - the only significant changes in character occurred in the hobbits. Frodo was consumed, Sam showed his loyalty, and Merry & Pippin grew up, I suppose. The others were all clichéd arch-types that were never fully explored. That was kind of Mort's point though, the Lord of the Rings is only one tale in an entire mythology, written to tell you exactly what happened rather than tell you a story.

 

Originally posted by Gabez

But it's hard to argue that Indy saving the day again really changes the way you look at life.

Indy being the exception to the other two examples I gave.

 

Originally posted by Gabez

Besides LOTR is more than just a movie - it's a whole other world. "particularly to see a film like Lord of the Rings. " - are you suggesting that it's just a brain-dead action movie?

I suppose that's the main reason why people go and see LotR - it is a whole other world. I'm not saying it's brain-dead, but I wouldn't call it awe inspiring or thought-provoking either. I would say that it's well-made, and definitely some sort of landmark in terms of making an entire world into a reality.

[Mort-Hog]

Character Development is an interesting point, actually - the only significant changes in character occurred in the hobbits. Frodo was consumed, Sam showed his loyalty, and Merry & Pippin grew up, I suppose. The others were all clichéd arch-types that were never fully explored. That was kind of Mort's point though, the Lord of the Rings is only one tale in an entire mythology, written to tell you exactly what happened rather than tell you a story.

 

The reason that LOTR is very hobbit-centred is that it is written by hobbits. Although Frodo was certainly more knowledgeable than most hobbits, he wouldn't have a lot of experience in the ways of Men or dwarves and even less experience in the ways of elves. Plus Frodo probably cared more about the hobbits' tale, Frodo didn't have a whole lot of interaction with Legolas or Gimli. The Silmarillion, on the other hand, is written by various first-age elves, and centres muchly around the Elves' tales and events of that era. Elves tend to be quite snobbish.

[Gabez]

Originally posted by scabb

Character Development is an interesting point, actually - the only significant changes in character occurred in the hobbits. Frodo was consumed, Sam showed his loyalty, and Merry & Pippin grew up, I suppose. The others were all clichéd arch-types that were never fully explored. That was kind of Mort's point though, the Lord of the Rings is only one tale in an entire mythology, written to tell you exactly what happened rather than tell you a story.

The only "clichéd arch-type" is you. What about Legolas and Gimli's unlikely friendship breaking old barriers of race and historical differences? The development of the Aragon/Arwen/Eowyn love story (or whatever her name is); Smeagle turning more into Gollum throughout the films as they get nearer to Mordor; Gandalf becoming a "father figure"; I could go on... But Mort makes a good point too, it's not all about the characters. Besides you'd expect the main four characters to develop the most in any story.

Indy being the exception to the other two examples I gave.

Okay, so Indy's "an exception", but Star Wars is just as bad (I've never seen the Godfather so I can't comment on it). The only real character developement seems to be Luke becoming a Jedi - not that I'm bashing it because of that, but this seems to be your criticism against LOTR and yet it's even worse in Star Wars.

 

To be honest, whilst Star Wars is a very watchable movie, it's just a mesh of different genres stuck together with an interesting story. It's good, but I wouldn't say that it was great.

 

I'm not saying it's brain-dead, but I wouldn't call it awe inspiring or thought-provoking either.

Fair enough I guess, although I know I would definitely call it all those things and so much more.

[Joshi]

Luckily for me, I wrote TBC on the end of my post - thus, my review hadn't yet ended (I had to go to a family get together with -get this- people who aren't even my family)

 

So I continue...

 

I'm not going to quote all of Gabez's post in little segments, what I have to say goes to everyone who thinks in the same way as Gabez about the film and story (not saying the way he thinks is bad or not)

 

First of all yes, I did say a lot of things to be fact when I shouldn't have and as most of you know, don't normally do. So now to break it down into what my opinion is and what I actually do believe to be fact.

 

For instance, I do believe it is fact that The Lord of the Rings book are very descriptive, probably why it lent itself so well to film as Jackson was able to capture Middle Earth so well. And I'm not saying that all of that description was bad, it is nice to know the details and history of places. I read Tolkien, and get a very clear view of what he is trying to depict, but it is also true that my generation has the attention span of a sparrow. Now we are all different, I was able to read through lord of the rings fully without having to go back and look things up and it was a great story (not as great as everyone says (in my opinion)) but I think it would have been better if the description was moulded around the story instead of having the story taken away from us for a page or two so we can read all of this description. Professor Tolkien was a master story teller and a slightly unique one at that, but some people may not like his style and some people might.

 

The Lord of the Rings book end perfectly, I loved it and I put down my book with a feeling of content. The film on the other hand could have ended slightly better. When reading a book, you want to make sure everything turns out all right. There’s very little chance of another author turning up and producing a couple of spin-offs or god awful sequels for books. Film on the other hand doesn’t actually have to be like that. In my opinion, the best place for it to have ended would have been when Frodo wakes up, everyone comes in to hug him, and he and Sam share a nice smile. I'm not going to go into homosexual tendencies or anything, in my opinion, Tolkien had a very clear view about what friendship should be and that the love between friends should be the same as the love between a husband and wife. This of course isn't the case, but Tolkien thought it should be which explains the relationship Sam had with Frodo.

 

I do agree that the films did focus more on story and character progression than it did on battles and of course the books focussed a lot less on the battles simply because the battles were a thing that happened, there generally wasn't a lot of character progression or story going on between them so Tolkien does not right "And then, Legolas shoots another orc with a bow, very dramatically", but instead, focuses more on what the characters are doing, what they are feeling, what's going on and the other important things of a story, which is why the books were so great. An epic film on the other hand has to have a balance, it has to have the battle scenes the readers as well as those who haven't yet read the books are expecting. And I think Jackson had the perfect balance (which is why they were three hours + long each, he told as much of the story as needed to be told) as we could see the progression in each character, the hobbits, Aragorn, Arwin, Eowin and so on.

 

I would have so say, if nothing more, they are as good as Star Wars and Indy simply because it had a sound story (it needed to be tweaked a little, but I think, even the dedicated Tolkien fans would have hated the entire book no film a lot of things, I think, were irrelevant to the story, as said before). I couldn't really say about the Godfather movies as I simply haven't seen them yet.

 

Now I am well aware of the Silmarllian, but have not read it. A friend of mine has though, and said it was very repetitive of Lord of the Rings. Now I'm not saying Tolkien should have take all description out of the saga as yes, it would be very flat, but a lot of it did leave Tolkien very restricted story wise. This may have made for a better story, it may have made for a worse one, I’m not sure, but I generally don't like the idea of starting out with a map and constructing the city over it. The Hobbit had the exact same depth as lord of the rings (maybe slightly less as it was only intended to be the lone book) and yet much less description and history. I simply thing Tolkien tried to hard on the Lord of the Rings. I think it is also I my nature to have my own view of what is happening and how things look. I like to read a book and have things left to my imagination as apposed to being told what these things look like. (it is true one can not read the books after watching the film and enjoy it as much if you haven't read it before hand).

 

Finally, I did love the film (all of them, although I think the second ones enriched the first one immensely, but that was because it was simply one big film) and it will be a hallmark for great films in the future. As any film does as well as any story, it has its flaws, and having read too many film magazines for my own good, I have developed a very critical view of things. Saying that, The Lord of the rings is the first film I’ve seen in a long time where I didn't pick out a single flaw whilst actually watching, but instead whilst thinking about it later, at which point I did still love it, if only because it was a natural tear jerker at a lot of points during the film. I welled up when Sam spoke about the promise to Gandalf at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, I had tears in my eyes with Sam's 'Good in this world' speech at the end of The Two Towers, but Return of the King had it in full flow. I didn't weep openly, but the tears were certainly running down cheeks at some points (at which point I curse myself for not listening to Wood, when on the TTT audio commentary, he tells us to take a box of tissues to the cinema to watch ROTK).

 

So, in conclusion (the reason I wanted to continue this was because I want to get the bad out in front, and then end on the good) it is a milestone in cinematic history - fact. If I could, I'd give it five stars.

 

So I do

*****

[scabb]

Originally posted by Gabez

What about Legolas and Gimli's unlikely friendship breaking old barriers of race and historical differences? The development of the Aragon/Arwen/Eowyn love story (or whatever her name is); Smeagle turning more into Gollum throughout the films as they get nearer to Mordor

Smeagol, yes. The others, nah. The Elf/Dwarf relationship was pretty much sussed at the end of the first film, and the whole love-triangle was only really touched upon. But, I suppose it's not really important. As for Star Wars.. well, Luke matures, Solo learns all about empathy, and we find Vader aint all bad. Now I feel all dirty.

 

At the end of the day, I liked the Lord of the Rings films. I like Tolkeins middle-earth. I just don't think the films were "all that and a bag of chips" and don't agree with the people running round branding it perfect. Not really my cup of tea, maybe. Rest assured, I will never ever bring that opinion onto a forum ever again. :~

[Mort-Hog]

Now I am well aware of the Silmarllian, but have not read it. A friend of mine has though, and said it was very repetitive of Lord of the Rings.

 

Go up to your friend and punch him in the face. Several times. If that is all your friend said of it, then I would strongly doubt whether he has actually read it at all. The Silmarillion doesn't ever mention The War of the Ring, it only goes up to the late Second Age, beginning of the Third Age. Most of the Silmarillion focuses on events either during or before the First Age (of the sun), and the rest is on the Second Age, and the Numenorians.

 

But he may have been talking about the writing style, not the actual story. If so, then punch him in the face a few times, but not as hard. The writing style in the Silmarillion is vageuly similar to that in The Lord of the Rings, but only in such a way that it uses the Anglo-Saxon English style that Tolkien studied. The Silmarillion uses much more complicated sentence formation, and far more archaic words, than to that of The Lord of the Rings.

 

 

Tolkien caters only for a niche audience, and you must appreciate and love the study of the english language in the same way that Professor Tolkien did in order to enjoy the books.

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

Go up to your friend and punch him in the face. Several times.

 

Please note I have already done that repeatedly, but on different matters (he's turned into a royal prick).

 

But when I said that it was repetitive of Lord of the Rings, I meant in desciptions and historical referance. Most of the history of middle earth we learn about in the lord of the rings (not what actually happens in the lord of the rings) had been said in Silmarllian. Basically, what he was saying was that although LOTR was written first (wasn't it?) it seemed that Silmarllian was written as the history of Middle earth, and then LOTR simply picked out the relevent bits to be added as history notes in that story.

 

I know full well that it has nothing to do with the war of the ring.

[Mort-Hog]

Some of the tales in Silmarillion date back to when Tolkien was in the first world war. Tolkien's work wasn't really organised into individual books, as Christopher Tolkien, who's done a lot of work sorting through his documents, would tell you. :-)

But anyway, the songs and poems Lord of the Rings only hint at the greater details. You are never directly told of the Valar, the Ainur, Melkor or even of Ilúvatar, but you are hinted at their existance; all of this is explained in great detail in the Silmarillion. One of the fantastic elements of the Lord of the Rings is how it hints at events much bigger and more significant than that of the storyline, but only hints at it; to know more of this you must read Silmarillion, or the Appendices. Aragorn sings of Beren and Luthien, but never goes into any detail about what that tale actually entails.

[Jedi-Monkey]

You have to admit that the movies werent perfect adaptations of the books.

I havn't read the books myself. (I will at some point - lazy).But my friend who has told me that they left out characters and scenes, and replaced some characters with others. (That elf leader wasnt supposed to die in TTT, a human was).

The missed out what happened to Saruman.

The scene in FOTR where the cave troll attacks in Mines of Morir was about 20 mins long, it was half a page in the book.

Obviously the film makers Hollywooded it up, changing the story a bit, but thats the business side of movie making taking priority. Grr.

I hate business people.

I preferred TTT to ROTK because some scenes were too Hollywooded up. They tried to make it really tense or emotional in parts, but they didn't know when to stop and it became annoying, like the fight on Mt Doom. JUST DIE SOMEONE!

And the half hour ending. Yawn.

[Joshi]

Actually, most of the stuff they missed out was justifyable.

 

The entire Tom Bombadil scene would have slowed down the pace entirely and wasn't really vital to the telling of the story.

And yes, they did miss out the final scene with Saruman, but that's because the entire story of the lord of the rings is about sauron, not sarumon, he is just saurons pawn and isn't really important in comparison to the greater danger of sauron.

 

A lot of things were moved around and changed for the film adaption, but most of it was for pace and story. remember, you can't put the entire book on screen how it is, the book was designed to be a book, not a film. If yuou were to see the actualy book on screen, you probably wouldn't like it as much.

 

And I think it's kind of hypocritical to say that the movies weren't perfect adaptions of the books when you haven't actually read the books. Not everything was the same, but the basic principle of the books was there plain and clear and it managed to deliver it's message perfectly.

[Gabez]

FFS! I meant perfect FOR ME.

 

Originally posted by Joshi

the basic principle of the books was there plain and clear and it managed to deliver it's message perfectly.

- Yes, that sums it up nicely.

 

The reason I think that Lord Of The Rings is better than Star Wars and Indy is because it's a whole lot, er, deeper. And it's better. Obviously.

[Darth Groovy]

Originally posted by Gabez

FFS! I meant perfect FOR ME.

 

- Yes, that sums it up nicely.

 

The reason I think that Lord Of The Rings is better than Star Wars and Indy is because it's a whole lot, er, deeper. And it's better. Obviously.

 

Hmmmphf....

 

*grabs all his collectibles, books, cds, games and movies and walks away*

[Gabez]

Those sorts of things don't add depth to a story, it just shows a franchise selling out.

[Mort-Hog]

I'm getting bored of people saying "The books are -opinion- although I haven't actually read them, my next door neighbour's hairdresser's uncle's second wife's third cousin twice removed has!!". Read the damn book, or shut up.

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

Read the damn book, or shut up.

 

Says the guy who hasn't read the books. Ever tried taking your own advice?

[Remi]

Originally posted by Joshi

Says the guy who hasn't read the books. Ever tried taking your own advice?

 

He has read them.

[Mort-Hog]

Says the guy who hasn't read the books. Ever tried taking your own advice?

 

Wow, that's quite possibly the stupidest reply I could ever imagine. I'm impressed!

[Joshi]

Well, I'm a bit modest, but it really does just come naturally to me.

Nah, I thought you were that other guy, the one who (obviously) hasn't read the books. Oh yeah.

 

Anyway... Just wondering, I want to know, does anyone know anyone out there who hasn't seen the movie or doesn't plan to ever? Only, I think the curiosity value here is huge, the trailers certainly pull people in to something like this and the rest of the publicity (not to mention great reviews and the chance of an oscar, yeah scabb, I know you personally don't think they should get one, but you're not on the commitee so it doesn't really matter what you think) has done wonders.

 

Of course it did the same thing for The Hulk and the Matrix movies, but LOTR was no where near as bad as them (even you scabb have to admit that), at least this gave you most of what you were expecting.

 

But yeah, there is my question, anyone know anyone who isn't plannig to see any of the movies. or anyone on the boards for that matter who feel this way?

[Remi]

I've never watched the movies, and don't really have any plans to watch them either. I never liked the books, so I really have no reason to.

[Skinkie]

I haven't seen the newest one, not sure if/when I'm gonna either.