# 2 years later, LotR still boring tripe **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 27, 2005, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309 "2005-12-27T02:31:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/41 "2005-12-28T02:32:53Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > … > > 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. > [@clairobscur](#): > > … > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/42 "2005-12-28T02:41:27Z")
> [@lalaith](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/43 "2005-12-28T02:50:24Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/44 "2005-12-28T03:12:11Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/45 "2005-12-28T03:19:26Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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… > [@Pochacco](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/46 "2005-12-28T03:34:31Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/47 "2005-12-28T03:50:36Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > LotR is unsophisticated escapism - a soap opera with swordplay. Did we read the same book??? ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/48 "2005-12-28T03:57:04Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/49 "2005-12-28T03:57:15Z")
> [@Rodgers01](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/50 "2005-12-28T03:58:35Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/51 "2005-12-28T04:54:47Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/52 "2005-12-28T04:58:35Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/53 "2005-12-28T05:00:23Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/54 "2005-12-28T05:10:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/55 "2005-12-28T05:23:01Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/56 "2005-12-28T05:25:51Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/57 "2005-12-28T05:53:45Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/58 "2005-12-28T07:35:59Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/59 "2005-12-28T09:45:32Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309/60 "2005-12-28T10:51:15Z")
> [@First Amongst Daves](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2-years-later-lotr-still-boring-tripe/337309.md?page=4)