Lord of the Rings: A discussion

[Mara 29]

Okay, let's discuss!

Which genre do you prefer of the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

The novels were first - are they still the best?

The films encompassed a lot, but did they do enough?

Are the films better - more accessible?

Easier to understand without all the words?

Or do you love both for various reasons?

Edited April 19, 2008 by Mara

[Drake 53]

Books ftw.

The movies were great but the novels are, by far, the superior.

[Mara 29]

Can you explain? :p

[Andy 60]

I haven't finished the novel. lol

Didn't get far past Tom bloody Bombadil. lol

[Drake 53]

Can you explain?

Nah.

[Rogue 4]

That'd ruin the fun of guessing his reasoning :p

[Winters 0]

I haven't finished the novel. lol

Didn't get far past Tom bloody Bombadil. lol

One thing I dislike of the novels (which I have to reread...) is that they're wordy... and dry...

[TheUnknown 39]

I got halfway through TTT (after the battle at Helm's Deep), then stopped. One of the things that really burned me about the books is the absurd, obscene number of poems and songs. It's like reading Lord of the Rings: The Musical.

The Hobbit, however, is awesome.

[Tsl 7]

The movies (mainly 2) essentially slaughtered the greatest books ever written ever. Ever.

The amount of lore woven into LOTR is amazing, hence the "wordyness" and the poetry. It enriches the whole world and makes it feel as though you're reading history rather than fiction. No offense meant, but I read this first when I was 11 and had a bit of a hard time getting through the Council of Elrond, but subsequently haven't had such problems. I don't find a single bit of any of it boring or overly flowery.

My only critique would be that the end is somewhat anticlimactic. I'm thinking he meant to write on, but got pressured into finishing up by his publisher and/or got too old and tired to work on it anymore.

[Darth Bane 0]

Only read the hobbit and LOTR 1, and watched the 1st movie....

[Rouge77 0]

I love them both! If I would have to choose, I would put the novels on the first place. They are the authors's original vision in unaltered form, and even when the movies are in my opinion a very good interpretation of the novels in another format, they are just interpretation. Very entertaining interpretation, but the first place still belongs to the author.

[Mara 29]

Can you explain?

Nah.

Anyway, I would say I love both, for different reasons.

Yes, the films did skip a few things, but in the long run, they were pretty accurate (considering other novel to film adaptations in the past).

Yes, the novels are a bit wordy and long, but which novels aren't from that area of literature? And you get a lot of things explained that aren't always explained fully in the films. A lot of background information.

I just think both are amazing works of art.

[Tsl 7]

In the Two Towers movie....the Elves came to Helm's Deep, which was wrong on about every level.

And they made Faramir into a complete jerkface.

Aaaaaand...they had a Nazgul spot Frodo WITH the Ring defeating the whole purpose of the fighting in Minas Tirith which is where Sauron had thought that the Fellowship had taken Frodo and the Ring but really he was going to Mordor which wasn't expected and was therefore able to sneak in.....*breathes*

[Pandora 77]

I got halfway through TTT (after the battle at Helm's Deep), then stopped. One of the things that really burned me about the books is the absurd, obscene number of poems and songs. It's like reading Lord of the Rings: The Musical.

The Hobbit, however, is awesome.

I love the movies. I have watched all the extended versions, in order, in one day (and it took all bleeding day). The music rocks, the actors all did a FABULOUS job. As for the books, however, I agree with Unknown and Andy. I tried reading them (I have a beautiful hard-bound volume with the entire trilogy together) and couldn't get out of the Shire. And I did tend to skip over the songs and poems. I may try to read them again after I have exhausted my ever-dwindling supply of vampire books.

[TheUnknown 39]

I agree with Unknown

You know your scare me when you do that.

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

one of these days it's going to bring about the end of the world. :p

[CorSec 5]

I read the books in order as each movie was released, so I had the imagery fresh in my mind as I sat down to read. Both are excellent examples of their genre, suited for their specific audiences.

Continuity issues in the movies don't phase me. A 1:1 translation would be absurd, and losing content means adding new content to re-inforce concepts in a shorter time-frame. Adding Elves to Helms Deep is to signify that the Elven people were fighting also (which we are told of in passing in the books; the Wars in the North that are occurring paralell to the main storyline). Is it wrong? Maybe, but it gets the point across and makes for a good 'movie', not a good 'translation' of the novels.

[Tsl 7]

But the Elves would have never fought with the humans. That was somewhat important to the story.

[Princess 35]

I thought that the films were beautifully done, and I enjoyed the books, but they took for freaking ever to read

[CorSec 5]

But the Elves would have never fought with the humans. That was somewhat important to the story.

Battle of Five Armies? =P

Different Elves of course...

[Tsl 7]

In the Age of Man or whatever, the Elves kept almost completely to themselves and would have never joined the men at Helm's Deep. the Lothlorian Elves least of all, I think. The Elves were doing some fighting, but they were defending their respective homelands. It is mentioned in the book, but in no detail.

Wiki said it nicely for me

"Jackson never makes it clear how a regiment of Elves were able to march from L?rien to Helm's Deep in one day while it took Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli three days to run across Rohan from the Emyn Muil to Fangorn forest. Critical readers also claimed it went against the idea of Elves declining ("fading") and leaving Men to their own devices."

The Hobbit was written as a children's story and was taken much less seriously. LOTR was written for a more adult audience and Tolkien poured his soul into volumes and volumes of back story to create the lore behind the events featured in the book. Tolkien actually did go back and edit The Hobbit to bring it more into line with LOTR. The most famous bit of editing being that Bilbo steals the Ring from Gollum through trickery rather than being given it as a gift. Tolkien didn't change everything because that would have changed the story too much, and so inconsistencies still remain.

Edited May 4, 2008 by The Tsl

[Andy 60]

So, I recently picked up the Blu-ray boxset of LotR and have been watching them again... Bloody hell I forgot how long they were.

I kinda wish they had made it in six parts instead of three. Would have made sense too, seeing as the story was made up of six books. But never mind!

[Winters 0]

This was before Harry Potter started the fad of breaking up movies into two parts, it wouldn't have been received so easily with LotR.

[Drake 53]

Actually, Beeurd is correct...sort of. Tolkien wanted the story to be one volume with three parts. The publishers, wanting to make more money I guess, split it into three novels. Each novel was also internally split, making for six total books.

They are:

1. The Fellowship of the Ring
   
   • The Ring Sets Out
     
   • The Ring Goes South
     

   [*]The Two Towers

   • The Treason of Isengard
     
   • The Journey to Mordor
     

   [*]The Return of the King

   • The War of the Ring
     
   • The Return of the King
     

[Andy 60]

My copy of LotR is one of those all-in-one versions, and although it's still separated into 3 volumes / 6 books within the novel, it doesn't have titles for the individual books, just starting them with a title page saying "Book One" etc. so I wasn't even sure they had titles. :p