Tolkien

[hmingbrd]

Thank you!

 

[Radagast]

... any Tolkien fans out there?

What do you think?

-- Radagast

 

[Frankencow]

*Raises a toast

To the Great Scribe of Middle-Earth!

 

[Eponine]

*Raises a toast

To the Great Scribe of Middle-Earth!

Yep, Tolkien fan and proud of it. Read the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and all three LoTR books. (Also saw the movies) Where else do you think my username comes from?

 

[Dcoy]

Hey
Ive been a fan of Tolkiens since I saw the first movie, since then Ive watched the movies more times than I can count, and done alot of artwork on stuff in Middle Earth.
And all I have to say is that I cant wait for the Hobbit in theaters

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Hey
Ive been a fan of Tolkiens since I saw the first movie, since then Ive watched the movies more times than I can count... And all I have to say is that I cant wait for the Hobbit in theaters

This is what stabs a Tolkien reader in the heart, and twists the knife in the wound.

 

[Telrunya]

This is what stabs a Tolkien reader in the heart, and twists the knife in the wound.

I agree completely. If you liked the movies, and they were very good mind you, read the books. They are, oh, so much better.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I agree completely. If you liked the movies, and they were very good mind you, read the books. They are, oh, so much better.

Right. The films are subject to the evils and shortcomings of the medium. They just can't capture what Tolkien provides in writing.

 

[Telrunya]

Right. The films are subject to the evils and shortcomings of the medium. They just can't capture what Tolkien provides in writing.

Everyone speaks of the richness and depth of the story when talking about the movies. The attention to detail in everything, even the props. That is nothing compared to the life work that Tolkin put into his books. That is where the richness and depth come from. The movies can't move you like the books can. In the movie you can't understand what Sam truely went through when he thought Frodo was dead and took the ring. You cant understand the conflict he faced in giving the ring back to Frodo and how he came to truely understand what it meant to be a ring bearer. Thats just one instance. And ofcourse there are the things left out of the movie like the razing of the Shire that was only briefly alluded to in Galadiel's mirror.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

The sins of omission are nothing compared to the blatant bending and twisting of the story. Somehow Faramir was a total jerk, Theoden was possessed and in need of exorcism, the Ents needed to be tricked into marching against Isengard, Frodo was brought to Osgiliath to face Nazgul, elves were at Helm's Deep, the wizards' staves are like the magic wands of Harry Potter, that whole thing with Aragorn and Eowyn, nobles ran around acting like anything but nobles... Jackson's sacrilege was just too much. Tolkien's book seemed to be little more than a sacrifice to the gods of modern film.

 

[Blackmarch]

Yo! I'm a newbie here, any Tolkien fans out there?

Big time one here.

 

[Nienor]

The sins of omission are nothing compared to the blatant bending and twisting of the story. Somehow Faramir was a total jerk, Theoden was possessed and in need of exorcism, the Ents needed to be tricked into marching against Isengard, Frodo was brought to Osgiliath to face Nazgul, elves were at Helm's Deep, the wizards' staves are like the magic wands of Harry Potter, that whole thing with Aragorn and Eowyn, nobles ran around acting like anything but nobles... Jackson's sacrilege was just too much. Tolkien's book seemed to be little more than a sacrifice to the gods of modern film.

I agree with most of those. I also didn't like how frodo pushed gollum in....it seemed to take away gollums last deed and put the focus on frodo
However, I reallly do enjoy the movies, and own all three in EE and the last two in regular. They are good movies and probably some of the best adapted from books. PJ could have ruined them completely like with what happened in Count of Monte Cristo and Starship Troopers. I appreciate that

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I agree with most of those. I also didn't like how frodo pushed gollum in....it seemed to take away gollums last deed and put the focus on frodo
However, I reallly do enjoy the movies, and own all three in EE and the last two in regular. They are good movies and probably some of the best adapted from books. PJ could have ruined them completely like with what happened in Count of Monte Cristo and Starship Troopers. I appreciate that

I guess that depends on how you look at it. I think the movies were ruined by Jackson's trampling of the nobility and other personality traits of most of the characters. Sam was one of the precious few he left alone. He turned Elrond into the rash, irritable, mean ol' dad who needs a lesson of modern tolerance from his rebellious daughter who reminds me of a character from a teen, high school movie, who just needs romance and that solves everything. He transformed the Ents from the wise, non-hasty, and yet consistent ancient creatures to just plain fear-filled and immobile, needing to be tricked into attacking Isengard. Gandalf seems more like an average grumpy old man with nothing better to do than one of the wise, angelic Istari. None of the elves act like elves. Theoden acts like he doesn't even know what a king is, let alone how to be one. Denethor needed to be thrown into the flames by Gandalf. Jackson portrays Boromir as the noble one (more so than the book portrays), while Faramir is acts like some kid! And what was up with Saruman's voice? Everyone treated Saruman as though he were the most repulsive, unbelievable man in Middle-earth. Even some of the omissions, while understandable when considering the medium of film, were heinous. I don't know how anyone can do without the Adamic figure of Tom Bombadil, whose omission is another sign that Jackson doesn't seem to understand the nobility and Christlikeness Tolkien was trying to illustrate. The Scouring of the Shire was too important to leave out, and so were the many songs included in the book. Jackson couldn't portray the effects of time that Tolkien so labored to describe. In the book, you know that the elves are an ancient people, the Firstborn. You can sense their weariness at lingering in Middle-earth despite their westward calling. You can feel the effects of the long journey, and the maturity of the Fellowship as time goes on (another reason why the Scouring should have been there). Now when you ask people about elves, they think of the movies and recall their pretty cloaks, their acrobatics, and those neat ears. If there's any culture in Jackson's portrayal, it's most evident in Fellowship, when they start out their journey.

Sure, Jackson sort of stuck to the story, unlike the film version of The Count of Monte Cristo, but while the story's the same, he's got different characters acting it out. This isn't Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, it's Jackson's.

 

[McDLT]

Wow - I'm a Tolkien fan first!!! His writing style makes it easy for me to follow. I like how he takes his time and gives us lots of details. Some details don't really matter the main story plot but add to the richness and believability of Middle-earth.

I like the movies (still haven't seen RotK - although I got it for Christmas 2004).

I like Tolkien so much I manage a forum for Tolkien fans.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Some details don't really matter the main story plot but add to the richness and believability of Middle-earth.

Depending on which details you're talking about, I may disagree.

I like Tolkien so much I manage a forum for Tolkien fans.

Share!

 

[Nienor]

Sure, Jackson sort of stuck to the story, unlike the film version of The Count of Monte Cristo, but while the story's the same, he's got different characters acting it out. This isn't Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, it's Jackson's.

This is true. ANd I do hate what he did to the ents and Elrond and especially Faramir

 

[McDLT]

Depending on which details you're talking about, I may disagree.

That's the richness, eh? and the fun!

Share!

http://saruman.proboards16.com

The person originally running it gave it to me.

 

[Ellethidhren]

I'm not only a fan, I'm a fanatic. My house now looks like a LOTR museum. I'm even part of a Tolkien group in my State and we have costume events which are so much fun.

My favorite book next to the trilogy is the Silmarillion. I've read the Hobbit too, and am working reading his other works when I get the time.

 

[primate]

I'm not only a fan, I'm a fanatic. My house now looks like a LOTR museum. I'm even part of a Tolkien group in my State and we have costume events which are so much fun.

My favorite book next to the trilogy is the Silmarillion. I've read the Hobbit too, and am working reading his other works when I get the time.

I thought the Silmarillion was the best book as it tied the history of Middle Earth together with the previous ages. I especially enjoyed the creation myth (take no offense).

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I thought the Silmarillion was the best book as it tied the history of Middle Earth together with the previous ages. I especially enjoyed the creation myth (take no offense).

Offense? Tolkien himself said as much. He would have found it a compliment.