BTW, there's a lot more psychological drama going on in the books -- for instance, the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman is actually in "The Two Towers" where Saruman finally outs himself as a partner with Sauron. The build up to that confrontation is hand wringing suspense. I'm not sure I would even tackle reading the books until a few years out from seeing the films.
wandeljw wrote:Lightwizard,
I can always borrow his books and attempt to read the trilogy again.
have you read The Hobbit? it might be an idea to start with that as it gives the beginning of the story and introduces some of the characters and the trilogy may be easier to get into after that (it is much lighter reading).
If one has seen the films but not really that interested in reading fantasy novels, "The Hobbit" might be very lightweight. It was written as a children's story by Tolkien's admission. It is charming and childlike (not childish) and does work as a preface to LOTR. Every fantasy seems to have a advesary which is the antithesis of evil and the good wins over the evil. I don't completly agree than Tolkien didn't have some parables to the real world but the absence of any kind of religiousity in the books is indeed puzzling. Was LOTR meant to say that before the advent of Christianity, there was a moral sense of right and wrong? Interesting to ponder.
(Or, at any time, there is a sense of right and wrong with or without Christianity, including the teachings of other religions?)
Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. I believe he was as devout as his intellectualism would allow. If you read The Silmarillion, which gives the background to the creation of Middle Earth and all the early stories, you can see that, in some sense, he is trying to reconcile the Pagan myths (mainly Greek, Roman and Norse) with the stories of saints and Old Testament heroes. But that's waaay off-topic of the movies.
I've tried to plow through "The Silmarillion" but I find that tough going. Of course, there is a cross-over of mythology to the stories in the Bible and especially Noah's flood, the Exodus and the theme of a chosen one. Is Frodo a saviour, Christ figure? Did he want to portray the pre-history mankind, inparticular, in the book as godless and taking over Earth as a flawed creation? Middle Earth is suppose to exist more than 15,000 years ago and by the typography could be parts of Britain and Western Europe with no channel in between. Well, other than none of the arrangements of mountain ranges match up with anything on a real map, Mordor could still stand out as Germany. There are traces of German mythology in LOTR which is the inspiration for most of Wagner's operas, thus we have a Ring of the Nibelung. The Arthurian legend has enough scope, as well as other Irish and Scottish legends, to go back to and I always though it was rather presumptuous that Tolkien claimed he was creating a distinctly British mythology where none (or little) existed.
I agree that that's presumtuous. There is plenty of British mythology if you go look for it. The problem is that so much continental German mythology has gotten mixed in with the purely Celtic strain, due to the Anglo-Saxon conquest in the 5th Century. Just look at the Knights of the Red Branch in the Book of Ulster -- Concobar, Cuchulain, Queen Medb, etc. etc. And the Druids probably had a full-blown pantheon of which we know but bits and snatches.
I guess "The Faerie Queen" isn't also a minor fantasy loaded with mythology nor "The Canterbury Tales."
Incidentally, I'm glad nobody had their blue pencil sharpened. I've never posted with so many typos -- must have been because I had to get up at 4:00 to take my nephew to work and one cup of coffee didn't work.
When typing fingers outrace the old grey cells (as a certain Agatha Christie detective would say) all sorts of crazy misspellings can ensue.
If you couldn't read LOTR, you'll NEVER get through the Silmarillion. That book is tedious and dull, and that's from the mouth of a Tolkien fiend. I loved the Lord of the Rings books, and found that the movies were very accurate to them. That's very important, since the books are really classics. I liked the movies a lot, although they were hyped up a little too much, I think.
I agree -- the "Silmarillion" is a bit more than we need to know. I loved the fact that Time Warner got totally behind promoting these films. It could be perceived as crass commercialism but that's the good old USA. I am still fascinated to see what Jackson can do with yet another remake of "King Kong." If he can just get the astmosphere right which is where the Jeff Bridges remake fell flat.
King Kong should definitely be interesting. However, I bet it'll lose popularity when it comes out that the giant ape needs to defeat the Dark Lord Sauron.
The scenery, plots, and characters were very close to the book (with the exception of Frodo, who was whiney and inept in the movie version imo).
However, there was a HUGE split between the two in the FEEL of the story. This is because they cut all of the dialogue and drudgery out of the book that made it feel like a real world. In the movie, it was just action scene after action scene. There was less character development in the approx 12 hours of the series than there is in a typical 90 min comedy! That irked me. I wanted the movies to have the same lazy, long, feel to them...the feeling of living with these characters who had actual lives...it made the suspense so much greater when real action came up. In the movie, I just got bored of all the constant action :/
As much as the admirers of the LOTR books would like to see a movie like this (a long running series like "Carnivale," for instance) and Jackson did add in some of the more profiling character contemplative scenes in the extended versions, we've discussed this before. A movie of the length to capture the real world of Middle Earth would be twice the length. Could Jackson have done it as the original books which were actually suppose to be six volumes? I strongly doubt that but it would have been nice. That he accomplised what he did is amazing to me and partically as thanks to New Line who encouraged the making of three films instead of the original two Jackson was trying to sell.
I agree that it is easy to see echoes of an old England in the Shires and the cloud of war with Germany in the LOTR but Tolkein was adamant that it was not an allegory in any sense at all.
That is deja vu -- because we've gone through this discussion before with the same anecdotes popping up.
Quote:As much as the admirers of the LOTR books would like to see a movie like this (a long running series like "Carnivale," for instance) and Jackson did add in some of the more profiling character contemplative scenes in the extended versions, we've discussed this before. A movie of the length to capture the real world of Middle Earth would be twice the length. Could Jackson have done it as the original books which were actually suppose to be six volumes? I strongly doubt that but it would have been nice. That he accomplised what he did is amazing to me and partically as thanks to New Line who encouraged the making of three films instead of the original two Jackson was trying to sell.
You're absolutely right. There's no practical way the whole story could be put into a feature film.
However, it could be done in a TV series like Band of Brothers....if TV series were well-funded enough for these kinds of special effects, which they're not.
In any case, it wouldn't be twice as long...it would be more like 20 times as long.
Yes, All of the Lord of the Rings films are overrated, the first two were boring as hell and i didnt bother to see the third, but people tell me its the best one. But there also the people that say the lord of the rings are the greatest movies
Are you sure fantasy isn't your cup-of-tea? The films garndered over 95% favorable critical response and nearly that much in approval by the Tolkien aficianados. This is the first time I've heard the characterized as "boring." Many fans actually liked the first part better than the subsequent Part II and III.
Just as a curiosity, what films are not "boring?"
