Lord of the Rings

[treee]

So I just watched the 3 part movie series over the course of two days and I loved it! I tried to get into the movies when I was younger, but I could never make past the 2nd one. I think it's the politics/factions portion of the story that originally threw me off.

Anyways, I'm definitely considering buying the books now. I hear they can be a slog to get through, but that there is some top-notch world-building if you can stick with it. I tried reading the Hobbit when I was younger as well, but I'm thinking that even though it serves as a "prequel" of sorts, it'd be better appreciated after finishing the main book.

Anyone else here watched/read LotR?

[BengalHawk62]

Multiple times.  Excellent movies, even better books.  I took a Tolkien class in college.  That turned out to be the best 1 credit course I ever took. 

[XenoMorph]

(01-25-2018, 05:03 AM)treee Wrote: So I just watched the 3 part movie series over the course of two days and I loved it! I tried to get into the movies when I was younger, but I could never make past the 2nd one. I think it's the politics/factions portion of the story that originally threw me off.

Anyways, I'm definitely considering buying the books now. I hear they can be a slog to get through, but that there is some top-notch world-building if you can stick with it. I tried reading the Hobbit when I was younger as well, but I'm thinking that even though it serves as a "prequel" of sorts, it'd be better appreciated after finishing the main book.

Anyone else here watched/read LotR?

The Hobbit happens before the LOTR yes  you can read them in any order.. the hobbit is probly easier to read (as in no slow spots)

when reading lord of the Rings the 2nd book is where it slows down... As the first half of the book is all sam and Frodo and then its Aragon and Helms deep. 
(they keep the timelines sync'd by the characters looking at the stages of the moon)   

Then it all comes back together in the last book   (which isn't as long as it looks thanks to a very well done index.)

Reading the books will give you even more appreciation for the films... They hit every major point.. (some small changes) but nothing major was left out.

[*Go Cards*]

Liked them so much I bought the complete series of books for my grandmother in the mid to late 70's.

She claims to have read and enjoyed them but not sure if she is being truthful or just being nice. lol

[Bengalzona]

Read all the books about 40 years ago (including the Silmarrilion and Bestiary). Seen all the movies. The books are a slog, even more so in today's world where we have a lesser appreciation for language. But it is a definitely a worthwhile read.

Part of the problem with the read is that there are layers of complexity. You can read it once to just get the base story. And that is definitely worthwhile as it is a great story. But like Shakespeare and the Bible, if you put some time in to study as you read it, you find there is a whole new level of ideas that Tolkien was trying to communicate. Tolkien was a languages expert and a professor at Oxford U. specializing in Anglo-Saxon and Early English. There were a lot of early language terms strewn about the books that Tolkien was trying to revive in addition to creating new languages (such as Elvish). The second level is equally fascinating as the first.

As far as the Hobbit, I'm not a fan of the Peter Jackson movie trilogy. It sort of shows all that is wrong with movie making today ("make it bigger and better and darker, and make more money!). The one-hour Rankin Bass animated movie from the 70's encapsulated the story and captured the original charm far better, IMO. The "Hobbit" was supposed to be a story you could share with kids. My son was horrified with the movie and wanted to leave after a half hour because of the violence and darkness of it. It is a movie for adult-children.

[XenoMorph]

(01-25-2018, 11:38 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Read all the books about 40 years ago (including the Silmarrilion and Bestiary). Seen all the movies. The books are a slog, even more so in today's world where we have a lesser appreciation for language. But it is a definitely a worthwhile read.

Part of the problem with the read is that there are layers of complexity. You can read it once to just get the base story. And that is definitely worthwhile as it is a great story. But like Shakespeare and the Bible, if you put some time in to study as you read it, you find there is a whole new level of ideas that Tolkien was trying to communicate. Tolkien was a languages expert and a professor at Oxford U. specializing in Anglo-Saxon and Early English. There were a lot of early language terms strewn about the books that Tolkien was trying to revive in addition to creating new languages (such as Elvish). The second level is equally fascinating as the first.

As far as the Hobbit, I'm not a fan of the Peter Jackson movie trilogy. It sort of shows all that is wrong with movie making today ("make it bigger and better and darker, and make more money!). The one-hour Rankin Bass animated movie from the 70's encapsulated the story and captured the original charm far better, IMO. The "Hobbit" was supposed to be a story you could share with kids. My son was horrified with the movie and wanted to leave after a half hour because of the violence and darkness of it. It is a movie for adult-children.

Yep that animated movie was what I grow up on that and my dad reading me the hobbit as a bed time story...

Was kinda disappointed the orc/goblins didn't resemble the ones from that movie lol.

there was also a LOTRs one in the same fashion but it was only the Return of the king....

There was a cell shaded type LOTR animated movie in the past as well

[Bengalzona]

(01-25-2018, 12:29 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Yep that animated movie was what I grow up on that and my dad reading me the hobbit as a bed time story...

Was kinda disappointed the orc/goblins didn't resemble the ones from that movie lol.

there was also a LOTRs one in the same fashion but it was only the Return of the king....

There was a cell shaded type LOTR animated movie in the past as well

Yeah, I remember those as well.

For me Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy worked far better on the big screen than "The Hobbit" trilogy. LOTR is a much darker and epic story. The story was written for a more mature audience to grapple with more serious issues. Trying to add those darker epics into the Hobbit story line just to link up with the LOTR was not a good choice, IMO. Tolkien wrote the ideal amount of foreshadowing into the original Hobbit story. It didn't need to be elaborated on.

By the same token I think that was why the LOTR animated movies weren't as successful as the animated "Hobbit" movie. LOTR wasn't meant to be as charming and simple as "Hobbit" and that is something that that type of animation had a trouble communicating.

[XenoMorph]

(01-25-2018, 01:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah, I remember those as well.

For me Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy worked far better on the big screen than "The Hobbit" trilogy. LOTR is a much darker and epic story. The story was written for a more mature audience to grapple with more serious issues. Trying to add those darker epics into the Hobbit story line just to link up with the LOTR was not a good choice, IMO. Tolkien wrote the ideal amount of foreshadowing into the original Hobbit story. It didn't need to be elaborated on.

By the same token I think that was why the LOTR animated movies weren't as successful as the animated "Hobbit" movie. LOTR wasn't meant to be as charming and simple as "Hobbit" and that is something that that type of animation had a trouble communicating.

I Agree they took the content of the Hobbit and STREEEEEEEEEEEETCH it out as far as possible even adding in some things that were never part of the story.. (but was going on in the time)  in the book hobbit we never get to see where gandolf keeps running off to we do in the movies.. 

But yeah a lot was added for movie effect  It didn't need to be a triology but I still enjoy the movies overall.  If I remember correctly the Dwarfs Elves and Humans were all fighting each other in the books before the orcs show.     Battle of 3 armies turns to 4 then 5 when the eagles show...   (in the movie you could hardly call the # of human soldiers an army)