2 years later, LotR still boring tripe

[Aeschines]

I saw all three of the them in the theater. I wanted to like them; I never hated them; but my overall opinion: Some decent eye candy here and there, but stories poorly told.

There are different ways to like and not to like these movies. For example, big fan of the books loved to see the characters come to life. Or big fan of the books, hated to see beloved characters distorted and poorly presented. Personally, I stopped reading The Two Towers in 1980 at age 9; it was just too boring. I guess I gave up kiddie books at an early age.

I did have some of the LotR toys based on the cartoon, though I never saw the cartoon. Golum, and the Ring Wraith doll was a true work of art.

I knew that the LotR movies would be big on spectacle, but I had hoped that there would be a little more story to them. The politics and relationships in the books are, I think, what help to raise their interest. A lot of that was abandoned in favor of Big Ole Battles.

Pros
*I liked how FotR started out. Frodo's getting the ring, the founding of the Fellowship, and the running from the Ring Wraiths were classic movie stuff.

*The architechtural computer graphics were superb. They looked photographic. Just all-round impressive.

*There was some good acting: Ian McKellan, the guy who played Sam, others. Vigo was OK.

*Galdof vs. the Balrog was excellent visual story-telling.

*Some neato special effects, such as how the world looked to Frodo when he put on the ring. Nice.

Cons
*The Harry Potter syndrome: Books too big and complicated for movies turned into movies. Almost feels like a Readers Digest Condensed version than an organic story. For example, the relationship between Gandolf and the White Wizard was never adequately explained, even though the White Wizard's turning evil was one of the more important aspects of the above-mentioned politics.

*Liv Tyler. Is she cute? Yes. Does she have any talent? No. Was her character in the movies pumped up to feed off her popularity? Yes.

*Battles, battles, battles! To me, TTT and RotK feel like the same movie. There's big awful battle against the Uglies in each, and the whole damn world is at stake. Were these done pretty well? Yeah. Did they tell an interesting story, or help to tell a larger story? Not really.

*RotK: To me, just a mind-numbingly dumb movie. Over-serious, under-explained, depressing, and just plain silly ("You must now get on the boat to Eternity, Mr. Anderson!")

I still don't understand why these films were so mega-popular. I guess it was the sheer spectacle that did it, but it was a spectacle that put me pretty much to sleep.

Your thoughts, two years later?

[Anaamika]

Still love them. More than ever if possible.

[RikWriter]

Still the best live action fantasy movies ever made. Not likely to be surpassed any time soon, either.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

The movies remain favorites of mine. They've given me insight into another person's view of LOTR, and made me look at it from a new perspective. I don't always agree with it, and feel parts should have been done differently, but for me it is still a big plus.

But if you consider LOTR a kiddie book, then frankly I fear we lack common ground to discuss it.

[Anaamika]

Personally, I stopped reading The Two Towers in 1980 at age 9; it was just too boring. I guess I gave up kiddie books at an early age.

I didn't see this before. I'm with QtM; if you thought it was a kiddie book, then we're not even remotely on the same wavelength.

If you didn't appreciate the books and didn't see any magic in them at all, why did you even watch the movies?

[Aeschines]

If you didn't appreciate the books and didn't see any magic in them at all, why did you even watch the movies?Because movies in general are not a great burden to watch. I'll try just about anything and hope for the best. But I found these flicks to be boring, unedifying.

[brownie55]

Because movies in general are not a great burden to watch. I'll try just about anything and hope for the best. But I found these flicks to be boring, unedifying.
There is a word for people who slam popular enterainments hoping to elicit negative responses. I think there were some in the books you mention.

[Lsura]

I tried to read the books, never finished them. Then I tried to watch the movies several times over the last few years - mostly when friends would say "this was so great, I can't believe you haven't seen it!". So I'd rent the first one, try to watch it and get bored enough by it that I'd eventually turn it off.

I've given up trying.

[msmith537]

I guess the obvious response is you are entitled to your opinion.


My opinion is that they are great movies. Especially when compared to the remade crap that's out there now. They truly are epic in every way possible.

That said, they aren't perfect. Some of the comic relief of Gimli and shield surfing of Legolas seemed out of place and innappropriate. The army of the dead had a bit of a deux ex machina feel about it. And in spite of the hotness of Kate Blanchette, Liv Tylor and Miranda Otto, there is definitely an pre-teen asexualness about all the relationships - basically the guys would much rather be off playing with their toys than hanging out with the girls.

It's also a very LONG series of movies. FOTR and TT was on a few weeks ago on TBS and with commercials, they basically lasted the entire day. Go to the gym, watch a scene, get some lunch, watch some more scenes, etc.

But for the most part, they are like Star Wars or The Matrix. No matter what technical flaws they might have, I'm going to get sucked into watching them whenever they are showing.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I don't feel that LotR is a kiddie book. But I also have to say that I have never, quite literally never, come across anyone who first read the book as an adult, say, over the age of 25, who approaches it with the awe and wonder of its true fans.

Though it not kiddie literature, there's something there that only truly speaks to wide-eyed children. I can't quite put my finger on it, although the movie recognized it by turning Frodo from a comfortable middle-aged fixture in his community to a beardless youth stumbling into adventure.

As someone who didn't read the book until the age of 50, I can attest that I've never understood the fanaticism for it. Nor did I drool over the overlong and heavy-handed, if otherwise mostly well-done, movies.

I don't ever slam popular entertainments. I've been immersed in them my entire reading life. (And writing life. And critical life.) The passion for Tolkien, especially for a not-terribly-good novel, just mystifies me. (Please don't try to explain: I've heard it all before, probably since before many of you were born.) Aeschines doesn't speak for me, exactly, but he's not that far off either.

[clairobscur]

I happen to have watched again the long versions of the three movies over christmas. And I enjoyed them a lot (again).

I think Jackson made a very good work. Better than I expected originally. Of course I've some reservations. Like, as you mentionned, way too much time devoted to battle scenes, but I can easily understand why he chose to do so. Generally speaking I loved the first movie more than the second, the second more than the third.

I'm not going to explain now what I liked or disliked exactly, but since you mentionned it, in particular I thought the director had made a poor job of Saruman (the white wizard), oversimplified him, gave him the wrong motivations, downplayed his capacities, hence made him a much less interesting character than he should have been. For instance, he's supposed to arguably be the most charismatic character in middle-earth, so before the release of the third movie I had a great expectation for the speech scene, wondering how they would render the power of his voice......and he fails to convince even the clown they made of the dwarf when he speaks! The blandness of this scene stays as one of my major dissapointments (not that I had not already noticed Saruman's character had been sacrified to create an easy to understand villain since the first scene where he appears in the first movie).




For the fans : after watching it again, what I still regret the most (though the reason why it was discarded is obvious) and is a very unusual complaint : the absence of Radagast the brown (the third wizard appearing in the books).


And, to balance this, what I found was done the best : making the ring itself a "character" of the movie, making apparent its will and its ability to corrupt. Oh! and my personnal best actor award would go to the steward of Gondor.

[Hampshire]

I'm actually in the opposite group. I never read the books and never had an interest in them even though I do like fantasy sci-fi. The first one just sucked me right in. I thought it suceeded on a lot of levels.
When the Two Towers came out I saw it and it still remains my favorite. The battle at Helm's deep was so powerful because you actually felt the dread. As if there was no way out and they were fighting not to win but to just survive. Great stuff. Good vs. evil, man vs. beast.
Still, not ever reading the books I didn't know how the story wrapped when going to see Return of the King. I was a bit disappointed. Not in Peter Jackson's telling of the story, but of Tolkien's story itself. I felt the ghost army was a total cop-out for a plausible win of the battle. Here we had a world of flesh and blood creatures of humans, elfs, dwarves, hobbits, orcs, goblins, etc. and some wizards with some extra powers but still very flesh and blood. Adding some ghosts that can fight in battles just seemed lame. But that's just me. Rest of the movie was good but felt somewhat rushed to wrap up the story and fit everyhing in even with a 3+ hour running time.

[Bryan Ekers]

I found myself getting bored midway through the first one, and downright eye-rollingly contemptful of Sean Bean's extended death scene, so I never bothered with parts two and three.

Life's too short for endless trudging, man.

[clairobscur]

There is a word for people who slam popular enterainments hoping to elicit negative responses. I think there were some in the books you mention.


Why "hoping to elicit negative responses"? There are two very popular movies mentionned in this thread I find completely uninteristing and boring (Star Wars and The Matrix). Should I not say so? Should I only be allowed to criticize "elitist" movies or else risk being accused of trolling?

[Tevildo]

I don't feel that LotR is a kiddie book. But I also have to say that I have never, quite literally never, come across anyone who first read the book as an adult, say, over the age of 25, who approaches it with the awe and wonder of its true fans.
As Terry Pratchett (of all people) once said: "There's something wrong with you if you don't think The Lord of the Rings is the greatest book ever written when your're 15. There's something wrong with you if you still think it is when you're 25."

[fluiddruid]

There is a word for people who slam popular enterainments hoping to elicit negative responses. I think there were some in the books you mention.

brownie55, accusing other posters of trolling is against the rules. If you feel that someone is trolling for responses, report the post to a moderator or e-mail one of us.

[lalaith]

Personally, I stopped reading The Two Towers in 1980 at age 9; it was just too boring. I guess I gave up kiddie books at an early age.

Your thoughts, two years later?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you read them too young? Have you tried reading them since? Sometimes I think this trend of younger and younger kids reading classics that were originally targeted for adults is going too far. The kids can actually be too young to fully appreciate them. I know there were books I read too young and found them boring. Then a few years later I reread them and loved them. I needed that extra maturity.

I first read LoTR in junior high at the same time my oldest brother (senior in high school). I fell in love with them at first read and have averaged reading them once a year since then. (Won't say how many times that's been, but it's a lot.)

As for the movies, they were all right. I could have done without them, but I'm not going to pitch a fit over them either. (At least not at this point in the thread) They might have bothered me more if I had read the books fewer times. After as many rereads of LoTR that I've done, no movie is going to disturb the vision of LoTR that I have in my head, and as far as I'm concerned that's the important one. I do appreciate the fact that they've brought a lot of people to the world of LoTR, now if only those people read the books.

BTW, as a guest on this board I can't search. Has anyone done a previous thread on people who saw the movies first and then read the books? I'd love to hear what their reactions were.

[Wendell Wagner]

I happen to think that the Peter Jackson films aren't very good adaptations of the novel, which I think is great. I'm not interested in discussing this any further though. In several previous threads on this subject, whenever I express this opinion, certain posters feel it necessary to say that not only is my opinion wrong, but I and everyone else who believes so is garbage not worthy of even having an opinion.

[Odesio]

I was over 25 years of age when I read the LOTR books before the movie was released and here's what it did to me. First, I can honestly say that it bored the hell out of me and I couldn't figure out what the hell Tom Bombadil had to do with anything. Second, it ruined every other fantasy book I had ever read and I gave up the genre entirely*. It's a well written book, but like many other popular things, I just can't understand why some people love it so much. That's ok, I do recognize it for a well written book even though it wasn't to my taste.

Marc

*I say mostly because I am determined to finish the Wheel of Time books by Robert Jordan. Yeah, it ain't Shakespeare but I have so much time and money invested that I will finish if it kills me or Jordan.

[clairobscur]

;) As Terry Pratchett (of all people) once said: "There's something wrong with you if you don't think The Lord of the Rings is the greatest book ever written when your're 15. There's something wrong with you if you still think it is when you're 25."


There's no wrong in me.... ;)

[lissener]

I think ROTK approaches masterpiece status as an example of epic filmmaking. I think the trilogy is an accomplished nearly without equal. Not just on a technical level, but on a cinematic, story, again epic level. If the project had gone to Michael Bay, I'd imagine most of the OP's criticism would be valid. With a filmmaker of talent and seriousness like Peter Jackson, the movies achieved grandeur rather than topheavy silliness. It's the greatest overlap between popularity and "quality" that I can think of at the moment.

[The Hamster King]

I guess I gave up kiddie books at an early age.
There's your problem right there. There's a lot going on in LotR, and it's easy to miss if you've decided in advance it's juvenile fluff. You might not like Tolkein's style -- he's not as accessable as most popular authors -- but LotR is as much an adult novel as anything written by Faulkner or Fitzgerald.

The main thing I think that deceives people about LotR is that it's emphatically not a psychological novel. The modern fashion is for "serious fiction" to focus on the internal evolutions of characters rather than their external struggles. Stories of action and event are dismissed as throwaway entertainment. Usually they are.

Tolkein, however, was purposely rejecting the modern fetish for psychological character development. Instead he was attempting to recapture the type of characterization that you find in premodern works like Beowulf or the Iliad. We never learn the subconscious roots of Achilles' brooding, just as we never learn the subconscious roots of Frodo's sacrifice.

This odd approach to character is, I think, one of the reasons that the novels have such power. They read as though they were very, very old -- as though they were rooted in the very bedrock of English culture. This is what Tolkein intended, to reimagine the lost folklore of England. But if you read them expecting Pride & Prejudice, you're going to be very disappointed.

[Larry Mudd]

Some decent eye candy here and there, but stories poorly told. [...] Books too big and complicated for movies turned into movies. Almost feels like a Readers Digest Condensed version than an organic story.I think it was demonstrated to most peoples' satisfaction that the story was not too complicated to be adapted for film -- and moreover, it was done remarkably deftly.

People who have no experience of the books are satisfied and properly oriented in the world, and people who are obsessive about them find very little to complain about. Of course it's an organic story as presented -- there's no iffy pacing, and you don't need Cole's notes to figure out what's going on.

Naturally it's condensed -- it's a different medium. Trying to transliterate a book directly to the screen would yield an unwatchable result.

I think, for a lot of people, Jackson's films were their first exposure to the tale in a compelling way. The books are very obviously the work of an academic with what most people would consider an unhealthy interest in language and oral history. They don't exactly tick along. "Okay... we're going to advance the plot a little bit here, and then, children, we'll have another seventeen pages about what our heroes ate and drank, followed by twelve pages of dirge-like recitations that provide expository extradiegetic analepsis related to the very remote history of our imagined land, with some coy parallels to obscure medieval history of the real world, but which have very little (or more often no) connection to the events in the story, and then perhaps we'll return to the plot for a little bit..." You have to really want to know what happens to Master Frodo if you're going to stick with it.

Of course long, complicated works present a challenge for filmakers to adapt. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried.

I'm very fond of Joseph Strick's Ulysses, for example. Of course it's not a substitute for the novel, which covers a period of nineteen hours or so with several overlapping points of view and would take most people a few days to read through straight. Still, it's a fine film and conveys much of the spirit of Joyce's work -- even if it necessarily contains a very slim percentage of the book's actual content. It's a film. It's two-and-a-half hours long.

Jackson's LOTR does a remarkable job of getting nearly everything that's important to the story up there on the screen, and getting it up there effectively. No easy trick.

It's not just literary adaptations that are necessarily condensed -- that's the whole art of filmic storytelling. Would you complain that Gandhi is the "Reader's Digest Condensed" version? I mean, really -- at the beginning of the movie he's a young lawyer experiencing personal adversity, and three hours later he's an old man that's mobilized an entire nation to shuck off colonial rule through passive resistance. Obviously, they took a "big and complicated story" and omitted a lot of detail -- but the question is, was the story told in a coherent and compelling way?

I don't understand how you can say: Personally, I stopped reading The Two Towers in 1980 at age 9; it was just too boring....and then turn around and say: For example, the relationship between Gandolf and the White Wizard was never adequately explained, even though the White Wizard's turning evil was one of the more important aspects of the above-mentioned politics.How do you propose that this could have been done in an effective way? The only way you could do it would be by adding tons of unwieldy expository dialogue, or perhaps confusing flashbacks. Everyone got that Saruman was an ally that had been corrupted by Sauron after finding and using the Palantir. What extra detail did you want in there, and how do you propose it could have been worked into the script in such a way that the story remained "organic?" Should the characters talk or sing songs about the the past two hundred years and Saruman's rationale for not going in strong against "The Necromancer" when they realized he was Sauron returned? Should this be presented as a flashback? Should his motivations be explained by showing his decades of research on the rings and where they might be? Does it work better dramatically to show him lure Gandalf blithely into a trap, with the audience sharing Gandalf's surprise, or would fifteen or twenty minutes of exposition on his corruption beforehand have made for better storytelling?

[Yookeroo]

Why "hoping to elicit negative responses"? There are two very popular movies mentionned in this thread I find completely uninteristing and boring (Star Wars and The Matrix). Should I not say so? Should I only be allowed to criticize "elitist" movies or else risk being accused of trolling?

I think the problem is the dismissive attitude in the OP, comments like "I guess I gave up kiddie books at an early age." & "I still don't understand why these films were so mega-popular. I guess it was the sheer spectacle that did it...".

[Rodgers01]

Finally, after two years I can start tentatively admitting that I was never that into the LOTR movies. I've always hated raining on people's parades about things they liked, and at the height of the LOTR mania, any disparaging word was seen as a downpour. To make it worse, I was exactly the demographic the movies were supposed to appeal to (I presume): college-aged guy. So I gamely played along as much as was socially expected.

But, frankly, I never really got it. Somehow, I missed reading the books as a kid; I'm not sure why; I read most of the other childhood classics, and I didn't have anything against the LOTR books -- just somehow never got around to it. So I came into the movies not knowing what was going on, and I kept that feeling for most of the length of the trilogy. Maybe I'm a bit thick, but it was just too confusing keeping track of who was doing what and why. And when I would ask friends who had read the books to fill me in they would inevitably get into long, feverish explanations on the history of this group vs that group, the qualities of elves versus dwarves versus hobbits, etc., leading me to belive that you really have to have a grounding in the books to fully appreciate the movies. I suppose a particularly attentive viewer who never read the books could get into it, especially if they were willing to absorb some of the mythology from their friends, but it didn't work that way for me.

Even if all of the required information is included in the movies, it wasn't all included in a cinematic way. There may have been lines of dialogue here and there that should have filled in us LOTR-illiterates, but movies are primarily a visual genre. I eventually got bored by all the battles because I couldn't quite remember who was fighting who and why. (Admittedly, a major part of the reason for this is the way the second and third movies didn't recap everything that had happened so far; if you hadn't seen the preceding movies recently the new one naturally be even more inexplicable.)

An admission: I haven't even seen the complete trilogy. I went to a late night screening of the third movie when it came out; I was bored senseless the whole time and kept praying for it to end. Then, about 2/3 of the way through, the projector broke! I feigned disappointment with the rest of the crowd, but secretly it seemed like my prayer had been answered. I never bothered to see the movie again and find out how the thing turned out, and I actually still don't know!

I liked Peter Jackson even before LOTR; I thought "Heavenly Creatures" was great, and "The Frighteners" wasn't too bad either. The guy can tell a story, but I don't think LOTR was his best work.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I still don't understand why these films were so mega-popular. I guess it was the sheer spectacle that did it, but it was a spectacle that put me pretty much to sleep.

Your thoughts, two years later?

I came in here to defend Professor Tolkien's work, but since you're referring to Jackson's World of Wonder I shan't bother.

As for the movies...

FotR is beautiful, elegaic, fabulous, and a work of art with very few flaws.

TT, though deeply flawed, is exciting and engaging. Plus it introduced me to Miranda Otto, so I must love it.

RotK is a stinking pile of donkey vomit so prutescently repulsive that it reached back in time and ruined the first two movies. It is ideal for DVD in that there are so few scenes worth watching (Pippin's song to Denethor, Sam vs. Shelob, anything with Eowyn, and that's about it) that one can simply skip to the worthwhile scenes, expend the half hour on them, and then pretend that the rest of the film was lost in the fire on the set that took Peter Jackson's life.

[Rodgers01]

FotR is beautiful, elegaic, fabulous, and a work of art with very few flaws.

TT, though deeply flawed, is exciting and engaging. Plus it introduced me to Miranda Otto, so I must love it.

RotK is a stinking pile of donkey vomit so prutescently repulsive that it reached back in time and ruined the first two movies. It is ideal for DVD in that there are so few scenes worth watching (Pippin's song to Denethor, Sam vs. Shelob, anything with Eowyn, and that's about it) that one can simply skip to the worthwhile scenes, expend the half hour on them, and then pretend that the rest of the film was lost in the fire on the set that took Peter Jackson's life.

Huh. You know, I had thought I liked them in descending order like that just because things naturally had gotten more complex and confusing as the stories wore on. But it's interesting that a fan thought the movies got progressively worse. Fellowship of the Rings was definitely the best one for me; some of the stuff at the beginning when they first hit the road) is actually quite exciting.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I don't feel that LotR is a kiddie book. But I also have to say that I have never, quite literally never, come across anyone who first read the book as an adult, say, over the age of 25, who approaches it with the awe and wonder of its true fans.

You just have.

I read the Hobbit in, I believe, ninth grade. I was only mildly interested, certainly not enough to spend allowance money on LOTR. The local library only had THE TWO TOWERS, and I didn't want to read the books out of sequence (this being long before I knew it was a single book anyway). So I never got around to reading LOTR.

Fast forward fifteen years or so. One of my best friends was a serious tolkien fan, and he was insisting that we had to go to the FotR on the first night. Mostly I was just humoring him, but I agreed to. But, because of my "never see a movie adaptation without reading the book first," and because i came across a cheap copy in a used bookstore, I read a paperback version of FotR hte weekend before the movie opened.

I fell in complete love.

[Stealth Potato]

I'm actually in the opposite group. I never read the books and never had an interest in them even though I do like fantasy sci-fi. The first one just sucked me right in. I thought it suceeded on a lot of levels.
When the Two Towers came out I saw it and it still remains my favorite. The battle at Helm's deep was so powerful because you actually felt the dread. As if there was no way out and they were fighting not to win but to just survive. Great stuff. Good vs. evil, man vs. beast.
Still, not ever reading the books I didn't know how the story wrapped when going to see Return of the King. I was a bit disappointed. Not in Peter Jackson's telling of the story, but of Tolkien's story itself. I felt the ghost army was a total cop-out for a plausible win of the battle. Here we had a world of flesh and blood creatures of humans, elfs, dwarves, hobbits, orcs, goblins, etc. and some wizards with some extra powers but still very flesh and blood. Adding some ghosts that can fight in battles just seemed lame. But that's just me. Rest of the movie was good but felt somewhat rushed to wrap up the story and fit everyhing in even with a 3+ hour running time.
You missed something by skipping the books, then. In Return of the King (the book), the army of the dead only helped Aragorn sweep the forces of Sauron out of the southern coasts of Gondor, liberating Pelargir and seizing the fleet of Umbar. They departed for the nether realms before the battle of Pelennor Fields at Minas Tirith took place. In any case, it was never explicitly stated in the book that the ghosts had actually had the power to cause physical harm in battle; it is probable that their chief weapon was fear. Fear and surprise. Er, their two weapons were... ;)

As far as my personal opinion goes, I loved all three of Jackson's films, almost as much as the original Rankin and Bass animated version of The Hobbit. Honest! Return of the King was my favorite, followed closely by Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers kinda bugged me on several levels (like Saruman's rather overt "possession" of Theoden), but I still enjoyed it.

[Quartz]

Could the films have been better? Certainly. We've had a number of threads over the years.

Were the films good? Oh yes indeed.

[Cerri]

The whole family loves em. We own all three in both the theatrical release and the extended versions. I just re-watched all three a few weeks ago, one after the other, during a marathon try-to-teach-myself-to-knit-but-continue-to-suck-horribly-at-it session.

In fact, for Xmas my fiance's son got the Lord of the Rings Movie Trivial Pursuit game. He just turned 8 two weeks ago, so he's gotten a bit old for "baby games".

We wanted a game mature enough for the rest of the family to enjoy without being bored out of their skulls, yet one "easy" enough so that he can participate fully in the game and not get frustrated. All four of us have seen the trilogy a bajillion-squintillion times, and we had a blast playing it earlier this very evening, in fact. ;)

(His 12 year old daughter received her very first Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying set for her Xmas game...can you tell we're a family populated by fantasy geeks? ;) )

[Martin Hyde]

I became a Tolkien fan in phases myself.

Way back when I was probably roughly ten years old I read the Hobbit for the first time. I liked the book because I had already started liking fantasy literature and the genre as a whole. However it *was* a labor to get through some parts of it. I basically just rolled my eyes through some of the songs that Tokien put in the book, as a kid, I just said "this stuff sucks." I like the fighting, killing the big spiders, the slaying of Smaug, the epic battle of five armies. That stuff was cool, but I felt like I had to wade through waves of boring descriptive texts combined with uninteresting filler to get to the cool parts.

About a year later when I was 11 I got the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I made it through Fellowship and gave up after the first 1/4 of Two Towers. Man, I hated it. Nothing happened. It was talking, and running around. I just did not enjoy it *at all.* I still don't remember my specific complaints (it was a long time ago) but I just didn't like it, was bored by it.

Fast forward to 14 or so and things have changed a lot. I've read lots of fantasy authors by that point, and have become a true fan of the genre, so I start to think it's silly I haven't read the genre's seminal work.

I sit down, and read through the Hobbit (I decide to read through the prequel+the 3 books for the full effect.) I found that I enjoyed it a lot more in the rereading, I also recognized the Hobbit was somewhat simpler than some of the stuff I had been reading (Tolkien specificall wrote the Hobbit for children.) But I appreciated some of the deeper meanings behind what the characters were saying and doing. I liked this deep world that Tolkien was showing us, albeit only small bits. You learned very little about the world of Middle Earth, you learned just enough to realize its vastness and just enough to want more.

I tore through the Lord of the Rings after that and loved all three of the books. I came to appreciate some of the more "descriptive" and "developmental" parts of the earlier books. I began to see the trilogy not as just a pleasant romp laden with battles but as a masterpiece, slowly working towards crescendo.

Anyways, compared to the novels I was given as assigned reading at the same age, the LotR was way above the reading level of those books. One of the books I remember from the 9th grade is To Kill a Mockingbird, another is Catcher in the Rye. I understand the importance of both and etc, but honestly both of those books don't require the same reading comprehension level to "get" as LotR. So I don't think levying the claim of "kiddie books" against them is appropriate.

As for the movies themselves, I actually appreciate that the battles are what gets the most notice. The battles are highly memorable from the novels, after all. And some of the plot, character, and world development that I loved in the book, I think would make the movie boring and bogged down. Some things just don't translate well from book to movie, and I think Jackson did an excellent job in extracting three very good movies from three very good books. He did so in a manner that didn't create visual copies of the books, that is impossible, he strove to make good movies and modified the books somewhat, and I'm fine with that. The only real problems I have are the little things he did that deviate from the book with no purpose that I can discern.

[Terrifel]

There are different ways to like and not to like these movies. For example, big fan of the books loved to see the characters come to life. Or big fan of the books, hated to see beloved characters distorted and poorly presented. Personally, I stopped reading The Two Towers in 1980 at age 9; it was just too boring. I guess I gave up kiddie books at an early age.Okay, I'll bite; what sort of books were you reading at age 9?

[brownie55]

brownie55, accusing other posters of trolling is against the rules. If you feel that someone is trolling for responses, report the post to a moderator or e-mail one of us.
Sorry

[What Exit?]

Several comments:
Aeschines: many do not like or get the books. But age 9 was probably too young too read them. I would say 12 or above and preferably reading at a higher grade level.
…These are my favorite books and QtM is the only person I have met on the Internet or IRL that knows more about them then I do. However we disagree on the movies. If I detach my emotion, I recognize that the films were an awesome achievement with sweeping landscapes and have set the standard for all fantasy/Epic films to come. My problem, every time the director deviated from the story it pained me. It honestly drove me out of the movie. Do I think any director today could have done a better job? No, I don’t. But to satisfy me would have taken 27 hours of movie not 10 hours.
…Someone called the Lord of the Rings a novel. It really isn’t a novel. It is a modern classic Epic. It is of course a single narrative broken into 6 books and published as 3 for easier publishing. The story is built into a carefully created word with a level and layer of detail never seen before or since. Tolkien intended the story to be the English Language Epic to rival Beowulf, Roland or the Odyssey.
…The Lord of the Rings has largely created the popularity of Fantasy by itself. It is also the inspiration for D&D, which is the inspiration for all other Role Player Games. This means both paper and pencil and computer games.
…The Lord of the Rings is not a children’s book, the Hobbit is. In fact the Hobbit is probably the longest Fairy Story ever written. It is also the difference in point of view between a happy and successful uncle entertaining young Hobbits and a morose and weary Hero who simply prepared a chronicle of a great war. Think of Lord of the Rings as the Guadalcanal Diary of the War of the Ring. It was one Hobbit’s daily struggles in an impossible and horrific situation.

I’ll stop here,
Jim

[Dung Beetle]

I attempted to read the Tolkien books as a kid, but they defeated me. I came back to them years later and managed to choke them all down. A few years later, I forced myself through it all again. Last year, I attempted to watch one of the movies (whichever one is first). I only wasted ten minutes on it before giving up. I guess I just don't get it.

It's odd, because the books seem to have all the ingredients of a book I would like. Sometimes I will read just the part where Gollum and Frodo are doing riddles. I like ol' Gollum. The rest...bleh.

[well he's back]

Feel compelled to reply - I am a LOTR geek. Read the books around 1965; reread many times since. I was going to skip the films, but saw "Fellowship" at a second run house & was hooked. (Still think it was the best of the 3).

I think the movies were beautiful adaptations, though obviously not without many flaws. (We've gone into these in other threads). I also think they are marvelous films in their own right. I'm esp. happy if they bring some folks to the books. I cherish the films, and am not getting tired of them.

That said, everyone obviously has a right to their own opinion - including you, Wendell Wagner. I'm not sure I understand the OP's purpose - personally I think the Star Wars movies are stupid, pointless, and overhyped childish tripe, but I wouldn't start a thread to say so (except maybe in the pit).

[jackelope]

I thought the first movie was pretty good, but in retrospect that may have been because it was the first time I was exposed to that kind of spectacle on a movie screen.

The second one I didn't see until it was on video, and I couldn't get more than about a half-hour in before I literally fell asleep on the couch. I tried a couple times, too.

The third one I saw in the theater, and while the battle scenes were pretty cool, the film as a whole was so unbelievably ponderous and overblown that by the time things started winding up I was checking my watch and deciding which bar I was going to sprint to as soon as it was over. It was like the Dance of the Hippos in Fantasia, except not funny; every time a character blew his nose, I expected an ominous, subsonic rumbling.

To be fair, though, I'm not even remotely a fan of the genre; when I get within earshot of elves-fairies-wizards stuff, my eyes glaze over and I start thinking about football or Buster Keaton. Even when I was in the target age bracket for Dungeons & Dragons, and all my friends were nuts about it, I just couldn't drum up any enthusiasm.

[Atticus Finch]

I really like the books and have read them a few times.

The movies, on the other hand, got progressively worse. I quite enjoyed the first, though I thought it was a little long. The second and third? Ouch. So many pointless changes that just dragged the movie out - added battle scenes, added "everyone thinks x is dead, but he isn't really" cliches, so many interesting characters made weaker and stupider - the Ents, Denethor, Faramir, Saruman.

There was a high level of gloss on the whole thing - top special effects, good actors etc, but the underlying writing and direction was pretty dire.

[Aeschines]

I don't feel that LotR is a kiddie book. But I also have to say that I have never, quite literally never, come across anyone who first read the book as an adult, say, over the age of 25, who approaches it with the awe and wonder of its true fans.

Though it not kiddie literature, there's something there that only truly speaks to wide-eyed children. I can't quite put my finger on it, although the movie recognized it by turning Frodo from a comfortable middle-aged fixture in his community to a beardless youth stumbling into adventure.Yeah, my comment about kiddie lit was smartass and not very subtle, but there was a point to it. Although Tolkien was a sophisticated linguist and intellect, he was unable to make his characters seem like real adults. Perhaps this is what your finger is searching for.

The characters are asexual. Their motivations are unsophisticated. Evil is ugly and black, goodness is pretty and white. (OK, the "white wizard," but sheesh.) The LotR books' take on evil is not only childish, but quite the opposite of what it is IRL.

OTOH, however dumb you think the Star Wars movies are (and the prequels are definitely cow dung), I think Lucas has some very deep insights into the nature of evil that he elucidates quite well. No, he doesn't really deal with sadistic, wanton evil, but he grasps anger and fear as sources of power in a way I've seen few other creators do.

Someone asked what I was reading at age 9 and beyond. I started to read more and more non-fiction, especialy about music, since I played cello at the time (and later oboe, too). I did go on to read some more kiddie lit, such as all Chronicles of Narnia (dumb books, but much easier--in a good way--reading than LotR), the Choose Your Own Adventure books, Madeline L'Engle's stuff, etc. But I was also reading around that age Animal Farm and later 1984 some sci-fi like Ray Bradbury. Frankly, it's hard to remember.

[glee]

...

I'm not going to explain now what I liked or disliked exactly, but since you mentionned it, in particular I thought the director had made a poor job of Saruman (the white wizard), oversimplified him, gave him the wrong motivations, downplayed his capacities, hence made him a much less interesting character than he should have been. For instance, he's supposed to arguably be the most charismatic character in middle-earth, so before the release of the third movie I had a great expectation for the speech scene, wondering how they would render the power of his voice......and he fails to convince even the clown they made of the dwarf when he speaks! The blandness of this scene stays as one of my major dissapointments (not that I had not already noticed Saruman's character had been sacrified to create an easy to understand villain since the first scene where he appears in the first movie).


Saruman's influence is shown indirectly in the way that Saruman and Wormtongue control Theoden.
By the time he speaks in the third movie, his power is considerably diminished (especially compared to Gandalf). Also Jackson was trying to compensate for the loss of 'the Scouring of the Shire' by making this Saruman's end.

...
For the fans : after watching it again, what I still regret the most (though the reason why it was discarded is obvious) and is a very unusual complaint : the absence of Radagast the brown (the third wizard appearing in the books).


:eek: I don't remember Radagast making an appearance in the books! Isn't he just in the Appendices as one of the 5 Istari?

[Aeschines]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you read them too young? Have you tried reading them since?Oh yeah, I was too young to "get" them. But Tolkien really didn't have his target market figured out too well. The books, with their talk of fairie frolics, are for kids--but then there are all the sophisticated linguistic things he throws in that will be totally over kids' heads and bore them to tears.

Around 1979 or 1980 I also tried to read the Silmirilian. Now that really is a piece of work, in more ways than one.

I peaked at FotR in the bookstore around when the first or second movie was out. I was impressed with the poem about Mordor "where the shadows lie." I would never say that Tolkien's prose (and poetry, for that matter) is anything but excellent. But I really have no motivation to go back and reexplore those books. They just don't have that "adultness" I mentioned.

[Aeschines]

I think ROTK approaches masterpiece status as an example of epic filmmaking. I think the trilogy is an accomplished nearly without equal. Not just on a technical level, but on a cinematic, story, again epic level.It may be without equal, but that says more about movie than it does about these movies.

I didn't see the epic sweep. I did see failure in that regard, however. There was never any sense (either via "show" or "tell") that a truly vast war was sweeping a large landmass. Rather, it seemed like there was one large battle in each of the latter two movies, and that was that.

With a filmmaker of talent and seriousness like Peter Jackson, the movies achieved grandeur rather than topheavy silliness. It's the greatest overlap between popularity and "quality" that I can think of at the moment.Speaking of adaptations from novels, I saw Ole V's Starship Troopers the other day. Now, I don't know if that's a good adaptation of the novel or not but I can say that it certainly doesn't feel like there's anything missing. It's a truly *full* and *round* movie. Satisfying. Good storytelling!

Had J had the feel for pacing and storytelling that V has, he might have come up with something I like. As it is, it's battle-liv tyler mugs-battle-battle-battle-elijah wood mugs-blah.

[Aeschines]

The books are very obviously the work of an academic with what most people would consider an unhealthy interest in language and oral history. They don't exactly tick along. "Okay... we're going to advance the plot a little bit here, and then, children, we'll have another seventeen pages about what our heroes ate and drank, followed by twelve pages of dirge-like recitations that provide expository extradiegetic analepsis related to the very remote history of our imagined land, with some coy parallels to obscure medieval history of the real world, but which have very little (or more often no) connection to the events in the story, and then perhaps we'll return to the plot for a little bit..." You have to really want to know what happens to Master Frodo if you're going to stick with it.Well said. But you said it, not me.:)Still, it's a fine film and conveys much of the spirit of Joyce's work -- even if it necessarily contains a very slim percentage of the book's actual content. It's a film. It's two-and-a-half hours long.I'm not so much concerned about whether Jackson's movies conveyed LotR accurately or not; I'm concerned whether they stand up as good movies in their own right. And I don't think they do. Like the HP movies, they seem skippy, disjointed, effortful instead of effortless. Not good storytelling.Jackson's LOTR does a remarkable job of getting nearly everything that's important to the story up there on the screen, and getting it up there effectively. No easy trick.Except for the first 1/2 of FotR or so, which is fantastic, I totally disagree.Would you complain that Gandhi is the "Reader's Digest Condensed" version?Again, is it good filmic storytelling or not? I saw Gandhi in the theater when it came out (only movie I've ever seen with an intermission btw) and thought it was good; don't know what I would think now. But obviously there are differences between doing a person's life (obviously too big for a movie's running time no matter what) and doing a novel (some adaptations are successful, some not). Some books are probably too big, too complicated, too mental/verbal as opposed to visual. Too bad. Don't adapt those. Or adapt them and make them bad adaptations but good movies.Should the characters talk or sing songs about the the past two hundred years and Saruman's rationale for not going in strong against "The Necromancer" when they realized he was Sauron returned? Should this be presented as a flashback? Should his motivations be explained by showing his decades of research on the rings and where they might be? Does it work better dramatically to show him lure Gandalf blithely into a trap, with the audience sharing Gandalf's surprise, or would fifteen or twenty minutes of exposition on his corruption beforehand have made for better storytelling?All good questions. For one thing, Jackson goofed in making the movies so battle-heavy. Plain and simple. Action is good, but watching a battle that long is boring, especially when it's unclear what the fighting is about.

So reduce the battles and you have more time for Saruman. Again, maybe the movie is unadaptable, but when I was watching the latter two movies I was racking my brain, trying to remember the books I'd read 20+ years ago for pertinent information on Saruman, because the necessary information certainly wasn't in the movies. That's poor filmmaking.

[Tamerlane]

Yeah, my comment about kiddie lit was smartass and not very subtle, but there was a point to it. Although Tolkien was a sophisticated linguist and intellect, he was unable to make his characters seem like real adults. Perhaps this is what your finger is searching for.

The characters are asexual. Their motivations are unsophisticated. Evil is ugly and black, goodness is pretty and white. (OK, the "white wizard," but sheesh.) The LotR books' take on evil is not only childish, but quite the opposite of what it is IRL.


I think Pochacco, among others, probably nailed it...



The main thing I think that deceives people about LotR is that it's emphatically not a psychological novel. The modern fashion is for "serious fiction" to focus on the internal evolutions of characters rather than their external struggles. Stories of action and event are dismissed as throwaway entertainment. Usually they are.

Tolkein, however, was purposely rejecting the modern fetish for psychological character development. Instead he was attempting to recapture the type of characterization that you find in premodern works like Beowulf or the Iliad. We never learn the subconscious roots of Achilles' brooding, just as we never learn the subconscious roots of Frodo's sacrifice.

I can understand not liking the outsize and often seemingly unrealistic heroics of Tolkien's stuff. There actually is an awful lot of grey in Tolkien's works ( noble but pride-doomed Noldor, noble but corrupted Denethor, noble but treasure-obsessed Thorin ), but it usually plays out as a fall from grace ( or elevation from vileness as with Gollum ), rather than the psychological complexity of real life character. The result is a world that seems very black and white, 'tis true. It works for me because of the richness of the epic he created ( complete with the wonderfully intricate history - it was the appendices that I read obsessively ), but if you're the sort who likes a lot more of a modern moral ambiguity in their characters, LotR may not be for you. S'okay - different strokes and whatnot.

If you want a more modern, more morally ambiguous take on grand fantasy, try George R.R. Martin.

- Tamerlane

[First Amongst Daves]

But for the most part, they are like Star Wars or The Matrix. No matter what technical flaws they might have, I'm going to get sucked into watching them whenever they are showing.

Here lies the crux of why I was ambivalent about LotR. I read LotR as a kid, as well as the Narnia books. Like especially Star Wars, LotR is unsophisticated escapism - a soap opera with swordplay. Its a flaw of most fantasy and science fiction. By way of comparison Dune (by Herbert the Elder, not ther drek by his son) for its part drew on Islam and Medici politics, and Dan Simmons' book Hyperion was a sci-fi Canterbury Tales. Simmons' fantasy horror Song of Kali is similarly impressive. There is craft in these stories which I can't see in LotR, as a film or otherwise.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

LotR is unsophisticated escapism - a soap opera with swordplay.
Did we read the same book????????

[First Amongst Daves]

Did we read the same book????????

I think so. Its the archetypal quest. It might have been packaged in a particular way, but the essential plot is not brilliant literature.

[Miller]

Huh. You know, I had thought I liked them in descending order like that just because things naturally had gotten more complex and confusing as the stories wore on. But it's interesting that a fan thought the movies got progressively worse. Fellowship of the Rings was definitely the best one for me; some of the stuff at the beginning when they first hit the road) is actually quite exciting.

Most fans seem to like RotK best, and TT second. I feel the opposite, although not as... fervently as Fabulous Creature. I liked all three movies pretty well, but by the third started to cross into the absurd. In the first movie, when Legolas jumped on the troll's back and shot an arrow into his skull at point-blank range, it was awesome. When he single handedly slaughtered an oliphaunt and surfed to safety down it's trunk, it was just silly. But, it also had some wonderful high points. Theoden's speech to the rohirrim just before the charge was magnificent, for example.

[Terrifel]

Here lies the crux of why I was ambivalent about LotR. I read LotR as a kid, as well as the Narnia books. Like especially Star Wars, LotR is unsophisticated escapism - a soap opera with swordplay. Its a flaw of most fantasy and science fiction. By way of comparison Dune (by Herbert the Elder, not ther drek by his son) for its part drew on Islam and Medici politics, and Dan Simmons' book Hyperion was a sci-fi Canterbury Tales. Simmons' fantasy horror Song of Kali is similarly impressive. There is craft in these stories which I can't see in LotR, as a film or otherwise.You might want to consider re-reading the trilogy, then, as an adult. There is just the slightest passing hint of religious and political themes woven into the story, that you may not have registered as a wee sprout. I'd agree that most fantasy and SF is unsophisticated escapism, but this is not really a criticism that applies to LOTR. At worst, it's extremely sophisticated escapism.

[The Hamster King]

I think so. Its the archetypal quest. So is Jame's Joyce's Ulysses.

The artistic merit of a work has little to do with whether or not the story hews to a particular form or not. It's all about the execution.

[First Amongst Daves]

There is just the slightest passing hint of religious and political themes woven into the story, that you may not have registered as a wee sprout.

Yes, that's entirely possible. None of that seemed to translate across to the films (well, the first and third, which I saw on plane trips - I admit to not having seen the second), which I concede is probably a limitation of the medium, rather than a flaw in the production.

[First Amongst Daves]

So is Jame's Joyce's Ulysses.

The artistic merit of a work has little to do with whether or not the story hews to a particular form or not. It's all about the execution.

I agree entirely, but I've reached a different conclusion from you. And Ulysses is very, very far-removed from LotR in literary quality.

[Terrifel]

It may also be worth pointing out that, in a certain sense, LOTR is the exact opposite of what one might reasonably expect from the 'archetypal quest.' In just about any other fantasy-type scenario one might imagine, the hero would be going through all sorts of trials and adventures in order to find the one magical weapon that can defeat the evil overlord. In LOTR, on the other hand, the hero starts out with the doomsday weapon right at hand, and the quest is all about getting rid of the thing, because no one can be trusted to use it. Not entirely a strict 'black-and-white' scenario after all, really.

[The Hamster King]

OTOH, however dumb you think the Star Wars movies are (and the prequels are definitely cow dung), I think Lucas has some very deep insights into the nature of evil that he elucidates quite well. No, he doesn't really deal with sadistic, wanton evil, but he grasps anger and fear as sources of power in a way I've seen few other creators do.
Oh, please. One of the gaping voids in Episodes I-III is Lucas's utterly ham-handed development of Annikin's turn to evil. Real life evil isn't about consciously choosing "THE DARK SIDE" the way Star Wars characters do. Truly evil people are convinced of the rightness of their actions. The idea that the cartoonish emperor could seduce anyone is laughable.

Tolkein's approach is much more sophisticated. None of the main characters are seduced by Sauron directly, but they are confronted by numerous opportunities to fall into evil.

The most obvious is the temptation of the ring itself, a metaphor for the corrupting influence of power. Boromir's descent into evil is far more intelligently handled than Annikin's. He is a good man. He wants to save his people. The tool of this salvation is placed before him. But it is a tool that will give him such power that it cannot help but corrupt him. The corruption begins with envy. He is the heir to the stewardship of Gondor -- by rights the ring should be his. Boromir doesn't "choose the dark side" consciously. He chooses evil, because evil is masked within a mantle of good.

Or consider the role that Saruman plays. Saruman is sophist and and equivocator. He is a seducer. He twists words so their meaning becomes fluid and diffuse. He works this "magic" on Theoden and later on the party that shows up when he's trapped in his tower. He sounds perfectly rational, but he sows the seeds of despair and dillusionment. This sort of secuction is far more believable than the "join me in darkness" claptrap that Lucas favors.

[The Hamster King]

And Ulysses is very, very far-removed from LotR in literary quality. I agree. One is a powerful and moving epic that deeply resonates with the roots of English literature. The other is set in Dublin.

[First Amongst Daves]

I agree. One is a powerful and moving epic that deeply resonates with the roots of English literature. The other is set in Dublin.

LOL! Touche.

[Aeschines]

Oh, please. One of the gaping voids in Episodes I-III is Lucas's utterly ham-handed development of Annikin's turn to evil.Yeah, but I already said that the prequels are crap.Real life evil isn't about consciously choosing "THE DARK SIDE" the way Star Wars characters do. Truly evil people are convinced of the rightness of their actions. The idea that the cartoonish emperor could seduce anyone is laughable.I disagree. The Emperor and Darth are to a high degree motivated by their vision of an "orderly" galaxy. That is the principle they are pursuing.

I'm not saying that the whole thing is subtle; it ain't. I'm saying that the drawing upon of anger and fear for power is insightful.

Or consider the role that Saruman plays. Saruman is sophist and and equivocator. He is a seducer. He twists words so their meaning becomes fluid and diffuse. He works this "magic" on Theoden and later on the party that shows up when he's trapped in his tower. He sounds perfectly rational, but he sows the seeds of despair and dillusionment.I'll grant you that more of the subtleties come through in the books. They don't come through at all in the movies.

[BlackKnight]

The Emperor and Darth are to a high degree motivated by their vision of an "orderly" galaxy. That is the principle they are pursuing.
I'm curious where you get that from. I certainly didn't see anything in the movies about their rationale for ruling the galaxy. I assumed they did it because they were power-hungry bastards, or just plain evil.

[Scissorjack]

By way of comparison Dune (by Herbert the Elder, not ther drek by his son) for its part drew on Islam and Medici politics...

C'mon, Dune was just Edgar Rice Burroughs with added cod-Eastern mysticism: it didn't make a lick of sense.

[lalaith]

Oh yeah, I was too young to "get" them.
Considering that I used myself as an example at first I thought that you acting like I had insulted you was an overreaction. Then I saw where you had posted this:

Speaking of adaptations from novels, I saw Ole V's Starship Troopers the other day. Now, I don't know if that's a good adaptation of the novel or not but I can say that it certainly doesn't feel like there's anything missing. It's a truly *full* and *round* movie. Satisfying. Good storytelling!

Had J had the feel for pacing and storytelling that V has, he might have come up with something I like.
When I finally stopped laughing, and that took a while, I realized that you had – unintentionally – just explained everything.

As a Heinlein fan (With the exception of his technical material, I have read all of Heinlein’s published works both fiction and non-fiction and that includes out of print short stories written under a pen name.) let me say that the Starship Troopers movie was not a good adaptation.

I have never met a Heinlein fan who thought it was a good adaptation. I suppose there are a few of them. The book was a serious exposition about the place of the citizen in society, the virtues of civic responsibilty, the philosophy of government, the ethics of the use of controlled force and a treatise about how an efficient military should operate. Can’t say the movie captured any of that.

I didn’t realize – please accept my apology for the encouragement I gave you to read Tolkien. Also, I am in every way possible not encouraging you to read Heinlein. First, we tend to dislike the movie Starship Troopers, so your taste and the taste of Heinlein fans already differ. Second, in general people who like Heinlein like Tolkien. I have yet to meet a Heinlein fan who didn’t like Tolkien. Must be our fondness for “kiddie books.” :)

I am extremely pleased to be on the opposite end of the taste spectrum from someone who liked the Starship Troopers movie and does not like the works of Tolkien. Just as I would think that you are pleased to be on the opposite end of the taste spectrum from someone who likes Tolkien and thinks the Starship Troopers movie was a groteseque warping of a fine book as well as being a bad movie in and of itself.

I appreciate you having the courtesy to repond to my intial post., but I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree on these subject matters.

[Aeschines]

Considering that I used myself as an example at first I thought that you acting like I had insulted you was an overreaction.You insulted me? I never noticed.As a Heinlein fan (With the exception of his technical material, I have read all of Heinlein’s published works both fiction and non-fiction and that includes out of print short stories written under a pen name.) let me say that the Starship Troopers movie was not a good adaptation.I'm sure it wasn't a good adaptation. It just happens to be a good movie that doesn't feel like a "selection of scenes" from the book.I have never met a Heinlein fan who thought it was a good adaptation. I suppose there are a few of them. The book was a serious exposition about the place of the citizen in society, the virtues of civic responsibilty, the philosophy of government, the ethics of the use of controlled force and a treatise about how an efficient military should operate. Can’t say the movie captured any of that.No, I think the movie was sending up all of that.I didn’t realize – please accept my apology for the encouragement I gave you to read Tolkien. Also, I am in every way possible not encouraging you to read Heinlein. First, we tend to dislike the movie Starship Troopers, so your taste and the taste of Heinlein fans already differ. Second, in general people who like Heinlein like Tolkien. I have yet to meet a Heinlein fan who didn’t like Tolkien. Must be our fondness for “kiddie books.”My favorite sci-fi writer is the recently deceased Robert Sheckley. Some of his stories were quite serious, but for the most part he was pretty funny in how he wrote (though even his funny stories usually had a sharp point to them). OTOH, I never liked the wanton goofiness (and ultimate self-seriousness) of Douglas Adams. So, I think the main difference between us is that you like this ponderous, overserious stuff: Tolkien and Heinlein, whereas I prefer the more satirical.

I tried to read Stranger in a Strange Land once and, my god! if you can read a page you can read the whole novel, and I don't mean that in a good way. I will grant, however, that Heinlein has written a short story or two that didn't totally put me to sleep. Read one recently in a collection, actually. Can't remember a damn thing about it, but I also don't recall hating it.

[well he's back]

Dear dear Pochacco - Thank you for stating in Post #55 re "Star Wars" what I have not had time to write. And I'm sure you said it in a much more calm way than I could have.

It's interesting to hear all these reactions to LOTR - as Qadop said, did we all read the same booK? But just to respond to one of the comments - that characters in LOTR and not psychologically complex: Well, there are so many characters, that I am sure that's true for some. However, not Denethor nor Boromir, as has been noted. And not Frodo, who has been described as a modern, flawed hero, not a medieval one, and an example of a wounded warrior who cannot return home due to a sort of post traumatic stress syndrome. As for oversimplifying evil - no, it doesn't. That's why the Scouring of the Shire episode is so important - it says that no place is immune to evil; that even with Sauron destroyed, evil will re-form and come again.

Unlike many fans, I can cope with the films' take on these matters simply because they are films, and I feel they succeeded so well as films - the "look" of the characters and scenery, the music, the pacing - it all worked for me. I'm still interested in the specific comments of those for whom they didn't work as movies, though.

and in case no one else answered the question - yes, Radagast was in the book itself. He unwittingly lured Gandalf to Isengard, but also unwittingly helped him by his "conversations" with the animals, specifically Gwaihir the eagle.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Moderator interrupts, just as a reminder (to everyone) that personal insults are not allowed here. Not that I'm suggesting anyone has gone that route, but there have been some lines that could be read that way.

Works of art/entertainment are subject to taste and opinion, and we can agree to disagree. The point of this forum is to express the opinions about the work, to share those with others, and to respect the opinions of others even if they disagree with our own.

Reactions to art/entertainment often depend on the individual's background, present mind-set, age, life-experiences, etc. That's what makes these discussions so interesting.

[ISiddiqui]

I read LOTR a few years back. Right before the 1st movie came out. So I was around 20ish, I guess (I'm 25 now). I really did like the books, although I almost put the books down before it got started, the beginning of FOTR bored me that much. I can't ever be as fanatical as those who seemingly read the books when in their mid teens and just fell in love. I consider the books to be a good yarn, but nothing mind blowing. I must say that I enjoyed TTT the most (especially with the 'two books') and the concept of creating an entirely new language was amazing.

I never felt the need to read the Similarion or other Tolkien books, aside from "The Hobbit", which I enjoyed greatly. They were a great story, but didn't shoot to the top of my list (fantasy wise, I personally prefer the "Song of Ice and Fire" series and the "Harry Potter" series).

When I saw the movies, I was disappointed. FOTR, my least favorite of the books, was by far my favorite of the movies, and the only one I own on DVD (regular edition - I ain't buying the extended versions, didn't like them that much). I hated TTT. I realize Helm's Deep is pretty big and all, but it felt like the whole damned movie was about that. And then ROTK was ok, but nothing special to me. After FOTR it seemed the entire thing devolved into cliche fantasy action flick instead of exploring the wonder of the world (if that makes any sense).

[Archergal]

I happen to think that the Peter Jackson films aren't very good adaptations of the novel, which I think is great.

I'm kinda with Wendell Wagner here. I liked FotR a lot, but after that I feel like Peter Jackson veered off into his own vision of what the story was. And unfortunately, his vision and my vision don't mesh too well. I do like some parts of all the movies (special effects great, visuals overall were pretty gorgeous, etc.), but overall, I was disappointed in how he told the story. YMMV.

[eleanorigby]

Count me in as a kid.

The Hobbit is by far my favorite Tolkien book. I like the Trilogy--and like the movies (although the EE versions are much better than the theatrical release ones).


If memory serves, Tolkien didn't set out to write a story about Good vs Evil--he wanted to create a legendary landscape of mythic characters and fables that were based on English culture, language and history. He succeeded, IMO.

the characters are not modern or even all that layered and subtle (although one could well argue Denethor or Eowyn here) because they are mostly archetypes, really. Read as that, it reads well indeed.


I must say that my subscription to Tolkien is not complete. I have tried to read The Silmarillon several times to no avail. The characters are too distant, the settings too vauge and mystic for my liking. I find I don't care that Aragorn and Arwen are basically history repeating itself (have even forgotten who they most resemble in terms of their courtship etc)--I am more interested in their relationship (and even more so in Eowyn's and Faramir's--Tolkien's best drawn and most complex couple, IMO.) History deprived of personality is boring to me. I never could get into the Pantheon, either--only the myths that dealt with man's run ins with the gods.

I do wish that PJ had also made The Hobbit--The Shire was perfect (although I did not like the actor's rendition of Bilbo at all) and Gandalf was spot on. The dwarves would have been great, I'm sure, and a CG dragon.....ah, well.

IMO, the biggest mistake that PJ made was in not including the Shire at the end--to not have the Hobbits take their own destiny into their hands and come of age--that rankled with me.

Anyway, two years on, and I still like the films (just re-watched them again right before Christmas).

I have never read any Heinlein-any suggestions? (sorry for hijack)

[Debaser]

I tried reading the trilogy as an adult and couldn't get through it. I was shocked at how bad it was. I've always enjoyed reading fantasy and assumed that I would love them. They had been on my list for a long time.

The first half of the first book contains nothing. Frodo and some others walk for a while, make camp when they get tired, and walk some more. Rinse, repeat. For hundreds of pages nothing happens. Maybe they get better after that, but I just couldn't do it anymore.

None of the characters have any personality. They are two dimensional and boring. The author doesn't even seem to try at making any two of them different or interesting or anything. Bland, flavorless, boring.

For the record, I hated the first Harry Potter book also, but loved the Narnia Chronicals when I was a kid.

[Guinastasia]

I got into LOTR as an adult, after seeing the movies. This is one rare instance where I'm glad I saw the movies first-I could never have kept all those characters straight otherwise.

Sadly, I was turned off of Tolkien as a child when that awful Rankin Bass version of The Hobbit was on TV and bored me to tears. Later, after reading LOTR, I took a stab at The Hobbit and quite enjoyed it.

[ISiddiqui]

I tried reading the trilogy as an adult and couldn't get through it. I was shocked at how bad it was. I've always enjoyed reading fantasy and assumed that I would love them. They had been on my list for a long time.

The first half of the first book contains nothing. Frodo and some others walk for a while, make camp when they get tired, and walk some more. Rinse, repeat. For hundreds of pages nothing happens. Maybe they get better after that, but I just couldn't do it anymore.

None of the characters have any personality. They are two dimensional and boring. The author doesn't even seem to try at making any two of them different or interesting or anything. Bland, flavorless, boring.

I had the same reaction, but a struggled through Fellowship and I'm glad I did. Not saying that you'll like it too, but that's just what happened to me. I was reading FotR and saying WTF! How do people like this stuff! Then it hit its stride and I enjoyed it. Though, like I said, I didn't fall head over heels for it.

[Terrifel]

Sadly, I was turned off of Tolkien as a child when that awful Rankin Bass version of The Hobbit was on TV and bored me to tears. Later, after reading LOTR, I took a stab at The Hobbit and quite enjoyed it.I have to say that I was extremely impressed with the sheer moxie of whoever wrote the score for The Hobbit. Whenever Tolkien had his characters burst into one of their frequent musical interludes, the Rankin-Bass songwriter(s?) stepped up to bat and actually set the lines to music-- and did a fairly good job of it, for the most part, in my opinion. I'm thinking mostly of the heavily atmospheric chorus for "Far Over Misty Mountains Cold," and also the couple of songs that the goblins sang-- "Fifteen Birds in Five Fir-Trees," and the Goblin-Town song. Admittedly there was also a sort of twee Paul Williams-esque theme song that I don't recall much about, except that it was extremely '70s. And I for one am glad that Professor Tolkien was eventually able to expand the horizons of fantasy literature beyond the point where elves sing songs containing "O tra la la lally."

The animation was also quite impressive for a TV special, I thought. Although it has been some long years since I've seen it, so maybe I'm deranged.

[What Exit?]

...snip...
I have never read any Heinlein-any suggestions? (sorry for hijack)

We have many, hear is a link to the boards consensus opinion of good ones to start with. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342503&highlight=heinlein

[First Amongst Daves]

C'mon, Dune was just Edgar Rice Burroughs with added cod-Eastern mysticism: it didn't make a lick of sense.

Really? How so?

I'm guessing you are referring to the Warlord of Mars books.

[eleanorigby]

We have many, hear is a link to the boards consensus opinion of good ones to start with. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342503&highlight=heinlein


This will have to wait until after the GRE, but thanks!


(have to say I am more into fantasy and murder mysteries--I dont' really get hung up on technical errors when it comes to sci-fi or fantasy-I don't analyse the physics of space travel etc, so maybe it's not for me....)

[Exapno Mapcase]

You just have.

I read the Hobbit in, I believe, ninth grade. I was only mildly interested, certainly not enough to spend allowance money on LOTR. The local library only had THE TWO TOWERS, and I didn't want to read the books out of sequence (this being long before I knew it was a single book anyway). So I never got around to reading LOTR.

Fast forward fifteen years or so. One of my best friends was a serious tolkien fan, and he was insisting that we had to go to the FotR on the first night. Mostly I was just humoring him, but I agreed to. But, because of my "never see a movie adaptation without reading the book first," and because i came across a cheap copy in a used bookstore, I read a paperback version of FotR hte weekend before the movie opened.

I fell in complete love.
You see from this thread just how unusual you are, although you still appear to have been on the early side of thirty when you finally finished the novel. Maybe you just have arrested development! (Just a joke! :) No personal slight intended.)

This thread, like virtually all the others here, quickly got hopelessly enmeshed in like/appreciation/caring for the book as well as the movie, rather than a discussion of the movie on its own merits. I personally think that the spectacle of the movie slighted the story, that the characterization gained more from traits of the individual actors in the parts than from the script, that the last movie was hollow within and without.

But even when I try I can't put the book completely out of mind. Movie adaptations are particularly tricky that way. They usually work better when the source material is put aside for movie virtues but the closer any original work is to viewers, the more distance any liberties drive them from the screen. I'd be willing to back a moratorium on all movie adaptations for a decade or so and force writers to write directly for a screen for the time, just to remind them of what that means. Spectacle and story! Wouldn't that be great for a change?

[Scissorjack]

Really? How so?

I'm guessing you are referring to the Warlord of Mars books.

Oh, running a galaxy based on medieval Italian politics, complete with evil barons and noble dukes as an excuse for settling everything of import with poisonings and knife-fights. I should start another thread on it, actually, rather than hijack this one further: I re-read it recently for the first time since I was 15 and it's been bugging me.

[Scissorjack]

Really? How so?

I'm guessing you are referring to the Warlord of Mars books.

Oh, running a galaxy based on medieval Italian politics, complete with evil barons and noble dukes, as an excuse for settling everything of import with poisonings and knife-fights. I should start another thread on it, actually, rather than hijack this one further: I re-read it recently for the first time since I was 15 and it's been bugging me.

[smiling bandit]

by Hampshire
Still, not ever reading the books I didn't know how the story wrapped when going to see Return of the King. I was a bit disappointed. Not in Peter Jackson's telling of the story, but of Tolkien's story itself. I felt the ghost army was a total cop-out for a plausible win of the battle. Here we had a world of flesh and blood creatures of humans, elfs, dwarves, hobbits, orcs, goblins, etc. and some wizards with some extra powers but still very flesh and blood. Adding some ghosts that can fight in battles just seemed lame.

That part wasn't Tolkein's story. The ghosts didn't win the day, and in fact never got near Minas Tirith. They did help kill off the sea pirates, but it was never clear that they actually killed them (terror being an almost physical force in Middle-Earth). The normal humans who had been facing the pirates took the ships and sailed up the river, thus completely encircling the orcs.

[lightingtool]

Second, in general people who like Heinlein like Tolkien. I have yet to meet a Heinlein fan who didn’t like TolkienHowdy. Also, even more unbelievably, I like Heinlein and the movie Starship Troopers.

I read through the books when I was in my early teens because (basically) my older brother made me. I didn't really enjoy them, but I didn't hate them. I tried to re-read them all before the movies came out, and ended up stopping about half-way through Two Towers. I just couldn't keep up with all the characters, and I found the story to be a bit boring. That's saying a lot, coming from me, seeing as one of my favorite books is Moby Dick. Yes, I really did just write that.

I loved the movies, for the most part. Jackson did an admirable job in capturing that world, and condensing a huge amount of information into around 10 hours. Like many others, I started getting kind of annoyed by Legolas and his amazing tricks, and I think leaving the scouring of the Shire out of the movie was a big mistake. Aside from that, I think the movies are really well done.

[First Amongst Daves]

Oh, running a galaxy based on medieval Italian politics, complete with evil barons and noble dukes, as an excuse for settling everything of import with poisonings and knife-fights. I should start another thread on it, actually, rather than hijack this one further: I re-read it recently for the first time since I was 15 and it's been bugging me.

Please do. It'd be a good topic to explore.