New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 71
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Gender
    Female

    Default So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    ...and I can officially state: when people say that the movies didn't follow the letter of the books but did follow the spirit, they are thinking only of the plot. There, yes, the PJ adaptation nearly always hits the right notes on the right nerves at the right times. But if we speak of the milieu and the philosophical underpinnings - not a chance.

    To take the most obvious point: I was thankful at the time of release that the films didn't keep banging the drum of how absolutely everything is a dim shadow of its former glory, because come on we have a world to save and I'd thank you elf-mad piners to stop looking down your nose at it, but I wonder: without that context, how well does the idea of the Grey Havens actually hold up?

    But thus far (I'm in the middle of Moria at the moment), only Sam appears to have survived the adaptation with his philosophical underpinnings intact.

    So, assuming some of you need a refresher every bit as badly as I did...

    Highlights!

    What is Gollum's nature?

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf
    He [before he found the Ring] was interested in roots and beginnings; he dived into deep pools; he burrowed under trees and growing plants; he tunneled into green mounds; and he ceased to look up at the hill-tops, or the leaves on the trees, or the flowers opening in the air: his head and his eyes were downward.

    [...]

    [H]e used it [the Ring] to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. He became sharp-eyed and keen-eared for all that was hurtful. The ring had given him power according to his stature [emphasis added].

    [Ellipsis in which I realize they completely omitted Gollum's aversion to the Sun! But it is, at least, adequately represented that his feeling that he has been hard done by feeds his evil.]

    As he lowered his eyes [from the Sun, for the last time], he saw far ahead the tops of the Misty Mountains[...] And he thought suddenly: "It would be cool and shady under those mountains. The Sun could not watch me there. The roots of those mountains must be roots indeed; there must be great secrets buried there which have not been discovered since the beginning."

    [...]

    All the "great secrets" under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering. He was altogether wretched. He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all.


    TL;DR: PJ's portrayal of Gollum going from zero to murderous crackhead in sixty seconds does not exactly cut it.

    Oh, and on a related note, what is the most important point about Bilbo sparing Gollum's life?

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf
    Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.


    What is Saruman's motivation?

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Saruman's prepared speech for Gandalf
    The Elder Days are gone. The Middle Days are passing. The Younger Days are beginning. The time of the Elves is over, but our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see.

    And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper! I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.


    I mean, obviously I'd remembered he was more of an entity unto himself in the books, but I didn't recall that his temptation was of a kind that it is perfectly and frighteningly plausible for a respected world leader to fall into.

    Minor and broad sketches!

    As everyone has rightly noted: book!Frodo is made of stern stuff. His fall over the course of is considerably more than one from ordinary frailty to feverish madness. (Though, irrationally, he is still terrified of the mushroom farmer he stole from in his long-ago days of youthful hijinks. Honestly, thematically speaking, there is not a page devoted to the ordinary life of the Shire, or the much-more-similar-in-the-books Bree, which is wasted. This is the hobbits' home turf, and the jarring missteps that follow matter.)

    Frodo is completely aware of the danger he's getting in for, and doesn't want his best friends (they are his best friends, not random jokesters who collide with him) to be involved in any of that. This is terribly awkward as he's using Merry for his cover story (because he has a cover story: hobbits are way, way too social for him to just vanish and hope no one notices.)

    But it would turn out that Merry, Pippin and Sam have all known about the Ring for years, Sam told them all about Gandalf's recent revelations, and they are quite as reluctant to let him go into peril alone as he is reluctant to bring them into it.

    The Nazgul prefer to ask around about Frodo, seeing as killing random civilians will net them zip.

    Aragorn is not even a little bit moping around as the reluctant hero. Unappreciated hero, land's sakes yes, but he doesn't let it stop him, even if it does get under his skin a little. He frankly expects not to be trusted, and is therefore prepared with logical proofs - which he needs, because "we have no choice" is not cutting it with the hobbits. But he's already got Narsil right, he knows he's got to be King, and it would seem that even before the recent resurgence, he's had a few narrow escapes from the forces of Mordor, so either they know it too or they really hate the Dunedain on general principle. (Also, while the issue is sort of danced around, I gather he looks like the most weather-stained vagrant anyone has ever laid eyes on. Viggo Mortensen is a serious miscast.)

    (Note: his immediate thought regarding the suggestion that they go into Moria is that Gandalf, and only Gandalf, is so very, very doomed. I do hope that this gets explained.)

    Elrond hasn't got contempt and suspicion for Men. He just sort of deems them irrelevant, which seems all in all to be the prevailing elven stance. (A Rivendell resident named Lindir conveys this in such a deeply punchable manner that I feel I must name a Thalmor after him.)

    The Council of Elrond is held not because Elrond actually called anyone, but because there is deep trouble all over the world and everyone is just so happening to flock to Rivendell on that account. Divine intervention is heavily implied, and in fact Boromir came on account of a vision - which, incidentally, came to Faramir twice before it settled on Boromir instead. Eager to see what, if anything, the Gondorians have to say about this.

    In fact, Elrond couldn't really call anyone, not without it taking twice as long as it actually did. There is, throughout, much more of a sense that hasty communications on the hop are all anyone can reasonably expect, and they need to make their conjectures of what to do next accordingly: everything is done as-the-horse-gallops. "You can no longer wait for a wizard" is the only nod the movie makes to the phenomenon, and I don't think anyone in the theater was actually expecting that they would stick around and wait for Gandalf. But in the book, his whereabouts are of great concern throughout, and best guesses are all they have.

    Also, when the characters are in mortal peril, they aren't aware that they're in the middle of the first volume and should be fine. The danger, to them, is quite real. They weigh their decisions like the life and death matters that they are. I never got that out of the movies.

    Random humorous notes!

    Tom Bombadil, after rescuing the hobbits from the Barrow-wights, breaks the power of the curse by laying the funereal objects out on top of the barrow, in the sun, to be taken by anyone. These relics are, I gather, part of the burial rites of Arnor, and therefore probably fine once they've got out into the sunlight and so recovered from their moderate case of being haunted by hoard-mad vengeance spirits. (Yes, my understanding here is quite imperfect and if anyone has something better, let me know.) So it's all right as far as the thematic magic of it goes, but...

    Okay, say you're J. Random Ranger, patrolling the Barrow-downs for any spikes in the evil level, and you see a big pile of first-rate crowns and bangles and swords lying directly on top of one of the burial mounds, seemingly free for the taking. Are you actually going to touch that? If so, when a similarly stupid action on your part gets you killed, you may thank Tom Bombadil for unduly encouraging you.


    Frodo is introduced to some of the key players in the Council of Elrond. There's Legolas son of Thranduil; there's Gimli son of Gloin; there's a messenger from Cirdan; everyone gets their fair sentence about who they are and why they're important... and then the camera stops dead on Boromir. His noble dress. His fair aspect. His horn. His reaction on seeing Bilbo and Frodo.

    Elrond then introduces him. "Here is Boromir," he says, "a man from the South." Like, come on, I'm thousands of years old and you human lords are constantly dying, you expect me to keep track of who's who?



    Anyway. This is fun and edifying, if a little embarrassing for how much I've forgotten, and I can't wait to dive back in.
    Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    I think I disagree with a lot (not all, by any means) of your analysis, but to actually discuss it intelligently, I'd have to re-read LotR myself (which I would like to do anyway) and probably re-watch the movies, and I don't have the time for either right now.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by dps View Post
    I think I disagree with a lot (not all, by any means) of your analysis, but to actually discuss it intelligently, I'd have to re-read LotR myself (which I would like to do anyway) and probably re-watch the movies, and I don't have the time for either right now.
    I think he is perfectly right. I think one can explain most of these changes as necessary to make a more comprehensive movie, except maybe Saruman's motivation. To get a little bit more into detail:

    Skipping all the stuff in the shire, especially Frodo's decades long wait, gets the movie going faster. The introduction is already pretty long.

    Aragorn in the book is on his quest to become king right from the beginning. His backstory is then told later, mostly in the appendices. You cannot (or rather: should not) do that in a movie. A character needs to be developed through the main plot, not through unrelated flashbacks.

    The council of Elrond in the book is pure world building. It is also probably the longest chapter by far. While it is a nice read, most of it is only peripherally related to the main plot. You cannot do that, even in a 3+ hours movie. Therefore people need another motivation to be there.

    All of these seem like a believable, alternative versions, how events could have gone down. Unfortunately, the writers appear to have lost their good fortune in the later movies.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2013

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    The interesting thing about rereading LOTR is what isn't there. Many of the tropes it tends to be parodied for are either not present at all or acknowledged in some way by the narrative.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Over the Rainbow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    I have an interesting story with LotR. I dare say, my experience with Tolkiens movies is kind of unique even.

    I watched the movies before reading the three six what? yes, "six" books (plus apendixes) that make the proper Lord of the Rings saga. Buuuuut I already had read not only the Silmarillion AND The Hobbit, but also some other apendices on the worldbuilding. Basically, I was in the middle of reading the complete saga and skipped LotR because reasons
    Spoiler: reasons? Yeah... "reasons"
    Show
    I knew I wouldn't finish LotR by the time the first movie came out, so I wanted to avoid confusion about "source" material. Also, I actually prefer Silmarillion and the Hobbit.

    Anyway... I read the books "after" watching the movies (altho I already knew most of the backstory not shown in the film). And when I read it... I finally understood why the movie adaptation changed most of the things it changed.

    Tom Bombadil is obvious: his plotline is basically transversal to the main story. He appears in the book as pure worlbuilding, which is totally fine in book format but a no-no in movies.

    The changes on motivations and backstories of hobitses (?) is probably related to the extense time period the book deals with (25-50 years in the Shire; about 3-6 months until Rivendell, etc) and the relatively shrinkage of time in movies (most movies skip minutes-years from one scene to another without any caption or hint whatsoever). It's understandable they look more bland in the film: most of the character bulding is detailed in the books pretty much in several micro-scenes and memories/jokes/talks between them... which for obvious reasons can't translate at all in movie format.

    The same constraint applies to Saruman and Elrond, but for different reasons: They aren't as much relevant characters as the fandom usually think. Yeah, they are great characters, deep and complex... but their intervention to the main story is pretty much scarce in comparison. In relation to the quest of the Ring, they serve as obstacles and a helping hand to the main characters. For cinematic purposes alone, you don't really need to know Saruman's motivations and complexity because he is supposed to be The Dragon, in the story. You simply need to know how powerful and mean he is. Just like Darth Vader. Elrond's (and elves in general) grudge towards Men are tangential to the plot, and also dissonant to the depiction the movie choses for Elven People IMO (in a movie, you either show them as Demi-Angels or Demi-Pricks; you can't both). So I can live with an abridged version of them on the big screen. I hurts the fans more than it really hurts the movie.

    Now I agree with OP that Vigo Mortensen was a "miscast". But I also found a justification comparing the movie to the books. Basically, I think Vigo fits better with the Aragorn they tried to depict in the movie; more than the one from the books. I always thought the book!Aragorn was an older one (not agewise, but in experience/mind). He pops in the story basically knowing what his destiny is and what he was. He holds no insecurity, no fear, no shame. He is proud and constantly shows to Men what the ancient rulers looked like. Even in dirty rags, he stands out among kings and lords. Now, that is everything the Classic Hero was at the time the book was written. And while it's totally perfect for the story.... sadly the movies were released in the 2000s. And Aragorn is supposed to be "Da Hero", if not the protagonist (that would be Frodo). He is the ****ing middle of the posters. So, I think... he was reworked to make him more appealing to modern audiences: a "broken" hero, not so full of himself, and basically, much more relatable to us. book!Aragorn was supposed to appeal the Post-War Common Guy/Girl. Which is fine. I can still relate to that too. But it's not how marketing works in Hollywood. Was it a bad choice? I don't think so. It's not like he was totally deformed. It's just a kind of younger Aragorn, "cooler" if you want, but still pretty close to what book!Aragorn might have been in at some point.

    But it's totally my personal experience with the movies/books; so you may take my opinion with a grain of salt if you want.
    Last edited by Lord Joeltion; 2017-06-26 at 10:19 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by DomaDoma View Post
    TL;DR: PJ's portrayal of Gollum going from zero to murderous crackhead in sixty seconds does not exactly cut it.
    However, Smeagol (as he then was) *did* murder his friend Deagol to get the Ring, so it pretty clearly had an almost immediate influence on him. Gollum's portrayal is actually one of the things about the movies I don't have a problem with--unlike, say, Faramir, who suffered what can only be described as character assassination in his transition from book to film.

    Fundamentally, Peter Jackson's primary mistake was misunderstanding the nature of the One Ring. It could be far more subtle in its effects than he ever showed in the movies, and only the weakest of minds would be taken immediately under its influence like Smeagol was. Boromir resisted it for months, and he knew what the Ring was and had a pressing need for its power to rescue his people, so why they decided Faramir couldn't resist one viewing of the thing is beyond me.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England. Ish.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by factotum View Post
    Gollum's portrayal is actually one of the things about the movies I don't have a problem with--unlike, say, Faramir, who suffered what can only be described as character assassination in his transition from book to film.
    This probably sums up my dislike of the films - too many changes to too many characters for no good reason (of which Faramir was pretty much the worst). Does Peter Jackson really hate people (or Ents) being heroic?

    But the thing is the films are very good films taken in their own right, I just see them as poor adaptations of the books. So most of the audience (who may never actually read the book) will be fine with it. And really, that's OK.

    Even then, it is still a far better job than the Dune film was (Dune and LOTR were the only two film adaptations I really, really wanted to see when I was younger).

    I pretty much agreed with most of the things taken out - Tom Bombadil in particular, important though that section of the story is (the Barrowdowns in particular) is too much a "poetry" character, who won't work well in film.

    I was a little peeved that the Scouring of the Shire was removed as it is the part of the story that puts the Hobbit's growth into sharp relief, but it was probably easier to remove that than other scenes, especially given that the early shire scenes were truncated.

    On the other hand, there were odd additions that worked very well - one of my favourite scenes is the beacons being lit. This scene was essentially a single sentance in the book. In the film, rather than just mentioning it in passing or showing one beacon being lit, they showed how the chain worked. A little flashy in effects, but since most of the audience would have no idea how a beacon chain worked, a very good choice.
    Warning: This posting may contain wit, wisdom, pathos, irony, satire, sarcasm and puns. And traces of nut.

    "The main skill of a good ruler seems to be not preventing the conflagrations but rather keeping them contained enough they rate more as campfires." Rogar Demonblud

    "Hold on just a d*** second. UK has spam callers that try to get you to buy conservatories?!? Even y'alls spammers are higher class than ours!" Peelee

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    SW England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Another big thematic difference I think:

    The film series, particularly 2 & 3, are essentially war movies. The books much less so, being more about what was going while the war was going on.

    Which isn't a problem - I think that's a reasonable alternative take on the story, and probably works better as a movie. Except that - particularly with the portrayal of Theoden and the Ents - the message comes across as "Stupid pacifists - war solves everything" rather than as in the books "war is terrible, but sometimes not fighting allows even worse things to happen".

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wardog View Post
    Another big thematic difference I think:

    The film series, particularly 2 & 3, are essentially war movies. The books much less so, being more about what was going while the war was going on.

    Which isn't a problem - I think that's a reasonable alternative take on the story, and probably works better as a movie. Except that - particularly with the portrayal of Theoden and the Ents - the message comes across as "Stupid pacifists - war solves everything" rather than as in the books "war is terrible, but sometimes not fighting allows even worse things to happen".
    Both the book and the films pushed the central theme of "No matter how much you want peace, if the other guy doesn't agree you have to fight or die" just about equally, I think.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    I think there were some things in the films that were objectively bad, even if you ignore the books entirely--for instance, the ghosts of the Dead becoming a deus-ex-machina to save Minas Tirith. Generally, though, I agree with Manga Shoggoth--the films are good films, they're just not good LOTR.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    90,000's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Basement mezzanine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by DomaDoma View Post
    So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings...
    Why?

    Did you lose a bet?

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Tom Bombadil, after rescuing the hobbits from the Barrow-wights, breaks the power of the curse by laying the funereal objects out on top of the barrow, in the sun, to be taken by anyone. These relics are, I gather, part of the burial rites of Arnor, and therefore probably fine once they've got out into the sunlight and so recovered from their moderate case of being haunted by hoard-mad vengeance spirits. (Yes, my understanding here is quite imperfect and if anyone has something better, let me know.)
    The barrow-wights are in essence evil spirits left over from the war between Angmar and Arnor. Tom Bombadil implies as much when he's telling the hobbits about the history of the barrow-downs, and Appendix A.I.iii in Return of the King makes it more or less explicit that the evil spirits which became known as the barrow-wights are something that came out of Angmar shortly after the Great Plague of TA1636 devastated the land.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Silfir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Esslingen, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Prior to 2001 LotR was considered flat out unfilmable. If your task was to adapt any given massively acclaimed work of literature today, you would give your firstborn child to do a job half as good as the LotR makers did.

    That they got a couple of details wrong a) was inevitable and b) doesn't matter.
    This signature is boring. The stuff I write might not be. Warning: Ponies.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    The problem with the LOTR movies isn't that they got some details wrong - Aragorn giving the hobbits the barrow swords instead of Bombadil doing it isn't important, for example. It isn't even that they changed character dynamics (although Comic Relief Gimli really grates). The problem is that they didn't do so well on the overarching themes of the book - the contrast between Boromir (who loved war and glory for their own sake) and Faramir (who fought just as eagerly, but for no reason other than to preserve his beloved home) is totally lost, for example.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England. Ish.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Silfir View Post
    Prior to 2001 LotR was considered flat out unfilmable. If your task was to adapt any given massively acclaimed work of literature today, you would give your firstborn child to do a job half as good as the LotR makers did.

    That they got a couple of details wrong a) was inevitable and b) doesn't matter.
    Wrong: At least one other production was made (at least, for the first half of the story) in 1978, and apparantly broke even. That is hardly "considered unfilmable" if they managed to create the first half of the story.

    When checking the date for this I then found out that someone else produced a version of The Return of the King, but I've never seen that.


    Let me be clear: I judge an adaptation on two things:

    1. Is it a good film (yes)

    2. Is it a good adaptation of the source material (no - it is recognisable, but too many changes are mande for no reall good reason)
    Warning: This posting may contain wit, wisdom, pathos, irony, satire, sarcasm and puns. And traces of nut.

    "The main skill of a good ruler seems to be not preventing the conflagrations but rather keeping them contained enough they rate more as campfires." Rogar Demonblud

    "Hold on just a d*** second. UK has spam callers that try to get you to buy conservatories?!? Even y'alls spammers are higher class than ours!" Peelee

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Manga Shoggoth View Post
    Wrong: At least one other production was made (at least, for the first half of the story) in 1978, and apparantly broke even. That is hardly "considered unfilmable" if they managed to create the first half of the story.

    When checking the date for this I then found out that someone else produced a version of The Return of the King, but I've never seen that.


    Let me be clear: I judge an adaptation on two things:

    1. Is it a good film (yes)

    2. Is it a good adaptation of the source material (no - it is recognisable, but too many changes are mande for no reall good reason)
    *Ahem*

    I was alive at the time and I saw that adaptation in the theater with my parents, and I beg to differ .

    My own memories are that it was an excellent movie for thirty minutes, then it quickly devolved into a chaotic mess and a lot of rotoscoped actors against a reddish background. The ringwraiths gave me nightmares for years afterwards (which was good moviemaking) but after the thirty minutes was up it just became a confused, unmemorable mess.

    The ending was the worst.

    Spoiler
    Show

    They completely forgot about the hobbits and had Gandalf kill a bunch of orcs with his sword, and a lot of them exploding into blood on screen. Then Gandalf throws the sword into the year, proclaiming that they had "driven darkness from Middle Earth forever."



    The 1979 Bakshi movie was the single best argument that the books were unfilmable, IMO.

    My initial reaction, at the time, was that trying to tell the story in a 90 minute movie just wasn't going to work. You'd need a really good film maker and at least six hours.

    Peter Jackson took twelve and he still wasn't able to fit everything in.

    I would say that PJ's adaptation, while imperfect, was true to the spirit of the books and it's unlikely anyone else will ever be able to do half as well.

    I will say that there was an adaptation of Return of the King which was actually really well done, hit all the high points in 90 minutes -- but it was only the third book. Still, it's as good as you could reasonably get in that era.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Manga Shoggoth View Post
    Wrong: At least one other production was made (at least, for the first half of the story) in 1978, and apparantly broke even. That is hardly "considered unfilmable" if they managed to create the first half of the story.

    When checking the date for this I then found out that someone else produced a version of The Return of the King, but I've never seen that...

    I saw both the 1978 cartoon in the theatre when it was released, and the 1980 cartoon on television.

    A small sample of the joys of Return of the King:



    Clearly Peter Jackson failed to provide singing Orcs!



    Also of interest is the John Boardman (of Deliverance, Zardoz and Excalibur) script of the 1970's.

    (Well worth "Googleing" for a "might have been")
    Extended Sig
    D&D Alignment history
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Durkoala's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    I saw both the 1978 cartoon in the theatre when it was released, and the 1980 cartoon on television.

    A small sample of the joys of Return of the King:



    Clearly Peter Jackson failed to provide singing Orcs!
    I've never seen the cartoon, but I think that song just became one of my favourite cartoon songs.
    Spoiler: Pixel avatar and Raincloud Durkoala were made by me. The others are the work of Cuthalion.
    Show

    Cuteness and Magic and Phone Moogles, oh my! Let's Watch Card Captor Sakura!Sadly on a small hiatus.

    Durkoala reads a book! It's about VR and the nineties!

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    I saw both the 1978 cartoon in the theatre when it was released, and the 1980 cartoon on television.

    A small sample of the joys of Return of the King:


    Clearly Peter Jackson failed to provide singing Orcs!
    That said, it did do some things quite well.


  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Hey, I think "Return of the King" was a great animated short, as was The Hobbit . The first movie, especially, started my lifetime love of all things Tolkien. I made myself most annoying at my elementary school with my Tolkien fanaticism at the time

    It's the Bakshi attempt at Lord of the Rings, from 1979 , which provokes my ire. But even then, it's not so much hatred as wincing in pain, as if I'd watch someone try to bench press a weight far beyond their ability and have it fall on them.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Silfir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Esslingen, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Manga Shoggoth View Post
    Wrong: At least one other production was made (at least, for the first half of the story) in 1978, and apparantly broke even. That is hardly "considered unfilmable" if they managed to create the first half of the story.

    When checking the date for this I then found out that someone else produced a version of The Return of the King, but I've never seen that.


    Let me be clear: I judge an adaptation on two things:

    1. Is it a good film (yes)

    2. Is it a good adaptation of the source material (no - it is recognisable, but too many changes are mande for no reall good reason)
    Like pendell already pointed out, the Bakshi film was generally considered Exhibit 1 proving the unfilmability of Lord of the Rings - it was tried, and failed to progress past the first book.

    It won't surprise you to hear, I'm sure, that I don't agree that "too many changes" were made "for no really good reason". I think there are no changes that were made for no reason, and I'm not sure we have the same ideas about what constitutes a "really good" reason. There's a limit to how far you can stretch the source material, certainly - take the movie Starship Troopers, which is great satire, but satirizes the very book it's based on - but I don't think the LotR movies crossed that, or ever became particularly close.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnoman
    The problem is that they didn't do so well on the overarching themes of the book - the contrast between Boromir (who loved war and glory for their own sake) and Faramir (who fought just as eagerly, but for no reason other than to preserve his beloved home) is totally lost, for example.
    Doesn't mesh with what I remember of the movies or the books. Both movie and book Boromir are trying to protect Gondor first and foremost, same as Faramir. Boromir's weakness was that he was a fighting man, and when he thought of ways to protect Gondor, he could only think of ways to protect it by fighting back. He thought of the ring as a weapon because weapons were what he understood. Faramir was able to resist the temptation in the books because of a better grasp of scholarship, and because he was modest enough to understand that Sauron was not an opponent any man could fight head-on and win. That's the aspect that was weakened in the movies - though even in the movies Faramir eventually understood in time what Boromir didn't.

    Not that Boromir and Faramir are anything but side characters in either the books or the movies.
    This signature is boring. The stuff I write might not be. Warning: Ponies.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Silfir View Post
    Like pendell already pointed out, the Bakshi film was generally considered Exhibit 1 proving the unfilmability of Lord of the Rings - it was tried, and failed to progress past the first book.

    It won't surprise you to hear, I'm sure, that I don't agree that "too many changes" were made "for no really good reason". I think there are no changes that were made for no reason, and I'm not sure we have the same ideas about what constitutes a "really good" reason. There's a limit to how far you can stretch the source material, certainly - take the movie Starship Troopers, which is great satire, but satirizes the very book it's based on - but I don't think the LotR movies crossed that, or ever became particularly close.



    Doesn't mesh with what I remember of the movies or the books. Both movie and book Boromir are trying to protect Gondor first and foremost, same as Faramir. Boromir's weakness was that he was a fighting man, and when he thought of ways to protect Gondor, he could only think of ways to protect it by fighting back. He thought of the ring as a weapon because weapons were what he understood. Faramir was able to resist the temptation in the books because of a better grasp of scholarship, and because he was modest enough to understand that Sauron was not an opponent any man could fight head-on and win. That's the aspect that was weakened in the movies - though even in the movies Faramir eventually understood in time what Boromir didn't.

    Not that Boromir and Faramir are anything but side characters in either the books or the movies.
    Boromir's first thought on learning about the Ring:
    "The Men of Gondor are valiant, and they will never submit; but they may be beaten down. Valour needs first strength, and then a weapon. Let the Ring be your weapon, if it has such power as you say. Take it and go forth to victory!"
    In other words, he immediately saw it as a way to a glorious victory.

    Faramir
    "What in truth this Thing is I cannot yet guess; but some heirloom of power and peril it must be. A fell weapon, perchance, devised by the Dark Lord. If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle. I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it. Alas that ever he went on that errand! I should have been chosen by my father and the elders but he put himself forward. as being the older and the hardier (both true), and he would not be stayed.

    "But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No. I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."

    "Neither did the Council," said Frodo. "Nor do I. I would have nothing to do with such matters."

    "For myself," said Faramir, "I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise.
    Side characters they may be, but that does not keep them from reinforcing a central theme, that sometimes you have to fight, but you should never fight for glory or conquest - only to preserve that which is good and great. Sam gets an excellent speech on the topic in both book and film, but the books show it through Boromir's fall and Faramir's stand. The films do not.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England. Ish.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    *Ahem*

    I was alive at the time and I saw that adaptation in the theater with my parents, and I beg to differ .

    My own memories are that it was an excellent movie for thirty minutes, then it quickly devolved into a chaotic mess and a lot of rotoscoped actors against a reddish background. The ringwraiths gave me nightmares for years afterwards (which was good moviemaking) but after the thirty minutes was up it just became a confused, unmemorable mess.
    ...

    The 1979 Bakshi movie was the single best argument that the books were unfilmable, IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silfir View Post
    Like pendell already pointed out, the Bakshi film was generally considered Exhibit 1 proving the unfilmability of Lord of the Rings - it was tried, and failed to progress past the first book.
    Amazingly, I was also alive at the time, and I remember the film very well. I even have the film in my DVD collection. I agree that the rotoscoping was dreadful in several places, and there were faults with that adaptation, but it's not quite as bad as you paint it. My problems were more with the music (and I suppose we can be thankful that we didn't get a musical adaptation).

    However, Silfir's contention was that LOTR was considered unfilmable. They managed to film the first book and a good chunk of the second, and there was no reason that the remaining book and a half were unfilmable. Bakshi handled the length of the story (the only real issue for filming the book) by splitting it into two films (simillar to Jacksons approach), of which this was the first part. It was intended to title it as "Part 1" but United Artists objected (this causing some confusion). The film itself was a financial success.

    It is true the second film was never made, however Bakshi's attempt to label it "Part 1" would suggest that a "Part 2" was at least invisaged. The main advantage that Jackson had was that all three of his films were produced together, while Bakshi would have had to produce the second part as a seperate film. (EDIT 3:Obviously, both Bakshi and jackson also cut bits out - for example, the Bombadil bits)

    EDIT: Thank you for the link to the review. While it come from the Tolkien Sarcasm Page it does raise a few interesting points, and the rest of the site looks as if it could be quite amusing.

    EDIT 2: It is! Given the ... controversy ... over Windows 10, the LOTR theory titled "The Truth about Windows 95" is frightningly topical...
    Last edited by Manga Shoggoth; 2017-06-30 at 07:14 AM.
    Warning: This posting may contain wit, wisdom, pathos, irony, satire, sarcasm and puns. And traces of nut.

    "The main skill of a good ruler seems to be not preventing the conflagrations but rather keeping them contained enough they rate more as campfires." Rogar Demonblud

    "Hold on just a d*** second. UK has spam callers that try to get you to buy conservatories?!? Even y'alls spammers are higher class than ours!" Peelee

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Titan in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    Hey, I think "Return of the King" was a great animated short, as was The Hobbit . The first movie, especially, started my lifetime love of all things Tolkien. I made myself most annoying at my elementary school with my Tolkien fanaticism at the time

    It's the Bakshi attempt at Lord of the Rings, from 1979 , which provokes my ire. But even then, it's not so much hatred as wincing in pain, as if I'd watch someone try to bench press a weight far beyond their ability and have it fall on them.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.

    I saw the '77 cartoon version of the Hobbit when I was nine, and I remain very fond of it (my daycare even had the soundtrack album!), and I walked out on "An Unexpected Journey" partially because I didn't think it measured up (mostly because the "Stone Giants" gave me a headache!). I also saw "Star Wars", and Mark Hamil's other film that year, Bakshi's "Wizards", those and seeing the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, and "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" that same year were all pretty influential on me.

    While I had a poster from the movie/cartoon (from Dynamite! magazine), I remember Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" mostly as being confusing (I still hadn't read the book) a couple of years makes a big difference, as Return of the Jedi seemed nowhere near aa enchanting to me as Star Wars or Empire, and I think that was the main problem with the cartoon "Return of the King", I was too old, when I saw it, and having read the books just made it comical to me.
    Extended Sig
    D&D Alignment history
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aotrs Commander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Manga Shoggoth View Post
    EDIT: Thank you for the link to the review. While it come from the Tolkien Sarcasm Page it does raise a few interesting points, and the rest of the site looks as if it could be quite amusing.

    EDIT 2: It is! Given the ... controversy ... over Windows 10, the LOTR theory titled "The Truth about Windows 95" is frightningly topical...
    Dangit.

    And there's a load of my evening gone...

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England. Ish.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander View Post
    Dangit.

    And there's a load of my evening gone...
    Allow me to muck up tomorrow as well: Old vs New – LoTR Animated vs Lord of the Rings - Nostalgia Critic. A rather amusing comparison between the two.
    Warning: This posting may contain wit, wisdom, pathos, irony, satire, sarcasm and puns. And traces of nut.

    "The main skill of a good ruler seems to be not preventing the conflagrations but rather keeping them contained enough they rate more as campfires." Rogar Demonblud

    "Hold on just a d*** second. UK has spam callers that try to get you to buy conservatories?!? Even y'alls spammers are higher class than ours!" Peelee

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aotrs Commander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by Manga Shoggoth View Post
    Allow me to muck up tomorrow as well: Old vs New – LoTR Animated vs Lord of the Rings - Nostalgia Critic. A rather amusing comparison between the two.
    Ah, I'm safe there; I've been watching the NC since just before Kickassia, so I've long-since seen that!

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Quote Originally Posted by DomaDoma View Post
    ...and I can officially state: when people say that the movies didn't follow the letter of the books but did follow the spirit, they are thinking only of the plot. There, yes, the PJ adaptation nearly always hits the right notes on the right nerves at the right times. But if we speak of the milieu and the philosophical underpinnings - not a chance.

    To take the most obvious point: I was thankful at the time of release that the films didn't keep banging the drum of how absolutely everything is a dim shadow of its former glory, because come on we have a world to save and I'd thank you elf-mad piners to stop looking down your nose at it, but I wonder: without that context, how well does the idea of the Grey Havens actually hold up?

    But thus far (I'm in the middle of Moria at the moment), only Sam appears to have survived the adaptation with his philosophical underpinnings intact.

    So, assuming some of you need a refresher every bit as badly as I did...

    Highlights!

    What is Gollum's nature?



    TL;DR: PJ's portrayal of Gollum going from zero to murderous crackhead in sixty seconds does not exactly cut it.

    Oh, and on a related note, what is the most important point about Bilbo sparing Gollum's life?



    What is Saruman's motivation?



    I mean, obviously I'd remembered he was more of an entity unto himself in the books, but I didn't recall that his temptation was of a kind that it is perfectly and frighteningly plausible for a respected world leader to fall into.

    Minor and broad sketches!

    As everyone has rightly noted: book!Frodo is made of stern stuff. His fall over the course of is considerably more than one from ordinary frailty to feverish madness. (Though, irrationally, he is still terrified of the mushroom farmer he stole from in his long-ago days of youthful hijinks. Honestly, thematically speaking, there is not a page devoted to the ordinary life of the Shire, or the much-more-similar-in-the-books Bree, which is wasted. This is the hobbits' home turf, and the jarring missteps that follow matter.)

    Frodo is completely aware of the danger he's getting in for, and doesn't want his best friends (they are his best friends, not random jokesters who collide with him) to be involved in any of that. This is terribly awkward as he's using Merry for his cover story (because he has a cover story: hobbits are way, way too social for him to just vanish and hope no one notices.)

    But it would turn out that Merry, Pippin and Sam have all known about the Ring for years, Sam told them all about Gandalf's recent revelations, and they are quite as reluctant to let him go into peril alone as he is reluctant to bring them into it.

    The Nazgul prefer to ask around about Frodo, seeing as killing random civilians will net them zip.

    Aragorn is not even a little bit moping around as the reluctant hero. Unappreciated hero, land's sakes yes, but he doesn't let it stop him, even if it does get under his skin a little. He frankly expects not to be trusted, and is therefore prepared with logical proofs - which he needs, because "we have no choice" is not cutting it with the hobbits. But he's already got Narsil right, he knows he's got to be King, and it would seem that even before the recent resurgence, he's had a few narrow escapes from the forces of Mordor, so either they know it too or they really hate the Dunedain on general principle. (Also, while the issue is sort of danced around, I gather he looks like the most weather-stained vagrant anyone has ever laid eyes on. Viggo Mortensen is a serious miscast.)

    (Note: his immediate thought regarding the suggestion that they go into Moria is that Gandalf, and only Gandalf, is so very, very doomed. I do hope that this gets explained.)

    Elrond hasn't got contempt and suspicion for Men. He just sort of deems them irrelevant, which seems all in all to be the prevailing elven stance. (A Rivendell resident named Lindir conveys this in such a deeply punchable manner that I feel I must name a Thalmor after him.)

    The Council of Elrond is held not because Elrond actually called anyone, but because there is deep trouble all over the world and everyone is just so happening to flock to Rivendell on that account. Divine intervention is heavily implied, and in fact Boromir came on account of a vision - which, incidentally, came to Faramir twice before it settled on Boromir instead. Eager to see what, if anything, the Gondorians have to say about this.

    In fact, Elrond couldn't really call anyone, not without it taking twice as long as it actually did. There is, throughout, much more of a sense that hasty communications on the hop are all anyone can reasonably expect, and they need to make their conjectures of what to do next accordingly: everything is done as-the-horse-gallops. "You can no longer wait for a wizard" is the only nod the movie makes to the phenomenon, and I don't think anyone in the theater was actually expecting that they would stick around and wait for Gandalf. But in the book, his whereabouts are of great concern throughout, and best guesses are all they have.

    Also, when the characters are in mortal peril, they aren't aware that they're in the middle of the first volume and should be fine. The danger, to them, is quite real. They weigh their decisions like the life and death matters that they are. I never got that out of the movies.

    Random humorous notes!

    Tom Bombadil, after rescuing the hobbits from the Barrow-wights, breaks the power of the curse by laying the funereal objects out on top of the barrow, in the sun, to be taken by anyone. These relics are, I gather, part of the burial rites of Arnor, and therefore probably fine once they've got out into the sunlight and so recovered from their moderate case of being haunted by hoard-mad vengeance spirits. (Yes, my understanding here is quite imperfect and if anyone has something better, let me know.) So it's all right as far as the thematic magic of it goes, but...

    Okay, say you're J. Random Ranger, patrolling the Barrow-downs for any spikes in the evil level, and you see a big pile of first-rate crowns and bangles and swords lying directly on top of one of the burial mounds, seemingly free for the taking. Are you actually going to touch that? If so, when a similarly stupid action on your part gets you killed, you may thank Tom Bombadil for unduly encouraging you.


    Frodo is introduced to some of the key players in the Council of Elrond. There's Legolas son of Thranduil; there's Gimli son of Gloin; there's a messenger from Cirdan; everyone gets their fair sentence about who they are and why they're important... and then the camera stops dead on Boromir. His noble dress. His fair aspect. His horn. His reaction on seeing Bilbo and Frodo.

    Elrond then introduces him. "Here is Boromir," he says, "a man from the South." Like, come on, I'm thousands of years old and you human lords are constantly dying, you expect me to keep track of who's who?



    Anyway. This is fun and edifying, if a little embarrassing for how much I've forgotten, and I can't wait to dive back in.
    I totally agree. I loved the visuals and effects of the movies, the score, the detail put into the costumes and sets, the little nods and references to things like snippets of poems and songs, seeing Middle Earth brought to life in that way. I cringed at every mischaracterization and missed opportunity to portray some great parts of the books and every unnecessary and extravagant added scene.

    The changes to Frodo are the worst. Merry and Pippin are close behind. I am not convinced that the movie needed to make most of the changes to those characters in order for it to be filmable or a good movie. They could have left out some of the extra things they invented to give better treatment to the main characters and themes.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    right behind you

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    I honestly liked the music of the bashki version. As a comparison, goblin town. Im sorry, but this in my opinion is far superior to some gigantic cgi blob hollering to himself The worst part is, had they kept it to a mass singing event where the goblins are all over the place, a vast army, all singing about the horrible fate that awaits the dwarves, THAT would have been badass and intimidating. But no, we get a self glorifying tub of goo chanting to himself over semi musical accompaniment. Also the linked video of samwise the strong. That film did a pretty damn good job of using music to set the mood, to provide exposition, to explain exactly what was going on to the audience. It had tons of flaws, but that wasnt really one of them.
    "Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
    Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama View Post
    Traab is yelling everything that I'm thinking already.
    "If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: So, I've been rereading Lord of the Rings for the first time in a WHILE...

    Actually, Traab, I think you're referring to The Hobbit , which is entirely different from Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings".

    And so far as that goes , you're right. So far as I'm concerned the 1977 Hobbit movie remains the standard bearer for that particular novelization. It was a 90 minute movie which was faithful to the story material and had some really cool music. I think it is far superior to the recent trilogy, if for no other reason than it has better music and understands storytelling economy.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •