NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just curious as to how many people have read the book. I have and I loved it. What do others think?

I've lost track of how many times I've read those books. I'm actually re-reading them again right now (as I do every October), and I'm about halfway through FOTR.

Not to mention The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Histories of Middle Earth etc.

I plan to get a tattoo of Tengwar runes (elvish script), though what it will say I haven't decided yet.

Movies kinda pissed me off, but I can deal with it. :p

I have read them so many times. Also, I was incredibly angry about Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire being left out of the movies.

I read them a few years ago. Loved 'em! I was so sad when I finally finished.

I've lost track of how many times I've read those books. I'm actually re-reading them again right now (as I do every October), and I'm about halfway through FOTR.

Not to mention The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Histories of Middle Earth etc.

I plan to get a tattoo of Tengwar runes (elvish script), though what it will say I haven't decided yet.

Movies kinda pissed me off, but I can deal with it. :p
The movies pissed you off?
Why?
Right.

Answering the question yes i have read the LOTR and have read a bit about the History of Middle Earth i also have a book on the weapons and warfare of middle earth but i havent read the The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Histories of Middle Earth(Might have read that...)

They are bloody awesome

Read them, loved them.

There is nothing more epic than that.


Also I agree that leaving out Tom Bombadil of the movies is crime against humanity.

The movies pissed you off?
Why?
Right.

:confused:

Answering the question yes i have read the LOTR and have read a bit about the History of Middle Earth i also have a book on the weapons and warfare of middle earth but i havent read the The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Histories of Middle Earth(Might have read that...)

They are bloody awesome

Indeed they are. :)

Read them, loved them.

There is nothing more epic than that.

Also I agree that leaving out Tom Bombadil of the movies is crime against humanity.

I think the complete change made to Faramir's character probably pissed me off more than anything else, especially considering that Faramir is my favorite character in the books.

Then of course, you have the elves at Helms Deep :headbang:

I think the complete change made to Faramir's character probably pissed me off more than anything else, especially considering that Faramir is my favorite character in the books.

Then of course, you have the elves at Helms Deep :headbang:

What really, really annoyed me was Arwen running around the whole thing in that confused and forcibly etherical way... I mean really, what's the point?
If they were desperate for a love story, why not go with the one provided in the book?

:confused:



Indeed they are. :)
Sorry Why did the movies piss you off?

*I dont know where the right came from... *mutters*

Sorry Why did the movies piss you off?

*I dont know where the right came from... *mutters*

Shit, do you really want a list??

read 'em, loved 'em, frequent geeky LOTR message board, ect ;)

please don't shoot me, but i'm GLAD they left Tom B. out of FOTR... don't get me wrong, i loved him, but that first half of the book is just so bogged down... it's bad enough trying to get through it as a first time reader, let alone the disastrous effects a sojourn in the Old Forest would have on film pace...

loved the films, too, although i was VERY ANGRY about the changes to faramir's character in TTT- he did redeem himself in ROTK, and i quite liked Denethor.

arwen... don't get me started...
i found it rather ironic that the one kissing scene in the novel was left out, but we get to see arwen trying to swallow aragorn's face, and darn near succeeding...

Shit, do you really want a list??
Yes. :)

i read the books a few times (i mean seriously, how many people here HAVNT read it? come on)

i also like the films. a friend of mine has all three of the extended versions on dvd and they are much better

The thing that pissed me off about the movies is that Dwarves were portrayed as a kind of joke race, bumbling, cowardly and stupid, whilst elves portrayed as perfect beings with no disadvantages. Dwarves kick ass - they are incredibly strong, industrious, brave and intelligent, whereas elves are whiney little arrogant weaklings who despite living for so long haven't advanced beyond living in tree houses.

One of the stupidest scenes was luckily taken out, but in the extended version - where Legolas beats Gimli in a drinking contest, when dwarves are supposed to have the consitution of a bear and be able to drink loads, whilst elves have the consitution of a gnat.

The thing that pissed me off about the movies is that Dwarves were portrayed as a kind of joke race, bumbling, cowardly and stupid, whilst elves portrayed as perfect beings with no disadvantages. Dwarves kick ass - they are incredibly strong, industrious, brave and intelligent, whereas elves are whiney little arrogant weaklings who despite living for so long haven't advanced beyond living in tree houses.

One of the stupidest scenes was luckily taken out, but in the extended version - where Legolas beats Gimli in a drinking contest, when dwarves are supposed to have the consitution of a bear and be able to drink loads, whilst elves have the consitution of a gnat.


Here Here!

I hate the way they killed off Saruman.

read the books and liked them so much i went and brought them. I think Peter Jacksondid reallywell the films, i mean to b honest it could of been alot worse at least he kept most of it to the book, tho he did leave stuf out. Theres no way u cud eva make a movie dat was as good as the books but it was dun better then i expected.

Abridged List of reasons why I disliked the LOTR movies.

SPOILER WARNING! ( :rolleyes: :p )

Fellowship of the Ring
-The lack of Farmer Maggot as a friendly character
-The removal of the Barrow-Downs (impossible without Bombadil)
-The lack of explination about the origins of the swords that Aragorn gives to the hobbits
-The removal of Glorfindel
-The HORRID manner in which the Council of Elrond was potrayed.
-The fact that the creature the Fellowship encounters in Moria was NOTHING like what was descibed in the books as a "Balrog"
-The geographic inaccuracy of the manner of terrain on either side of the River Anduin towards the end of the film.

The Two Towers
-The addition of elves at Helms Deep
-The fact that Eomer was not at Helms Deep, as it is written in the books
-The Warg Rider sequence (NOT IN BOOKS! :mad: )
-The changes made in the characters of Wormtounge and Eomer that resulted in Eomers "banishment" in the movies.
-The changes in the character of Faramir

The Return of the King
-The entire Paths of the Dead sequence
-The lack of the Wildmen and Ghan-Buri-Ghan
-The complete changes made to the character of Denethor, and the lack of the Palantir as the source of his madness.
-The complete lack of humans in the army that assaults Minas Tirith
-The removal of the Grey Company that accompanies Aragorn on the Paths of the Dead
-The removal of Prince Imrahil
-The utter lack of attention to the Houses of Healing sequence
-The "Army of the Dead"...more like the magic green scrubbing bubble army!
-The sequence in which Sam is told to go home.
-The utter incompetence of the director to accuratley potray Frodo, based on his torment by the ring.
-The fact that after his death, Theoden is utterly forgotten.
-The removal of the Scouring of the Shire (THE MOST IMPORTANT CHAPTER IN ANY OF THE BOOKS!!! :mad: )

In General
-The reduction of the character of Gimli into mere comic relief
-The character of Legolas...
-The insistance that Aragorn was "afraid" of his destiny *coughsBULLSHITcoughs*
-The complete reduction of importance of the character of Sam

....there's more, but I think you get the idea. ;)

I hate the way they killed off Saruman.

True, THAT was really stupid.
Was I the only one who thought that it was odd how they only put a few of the songs into the last movie, and completely out of context and sung by completely the wrong people? ... Aragorn singing during his coronation... :eek:

-The "Army of the Dead"...more like the magic green scrubbing bubble army!
LOL Godmode????
I actually noticed all those points as i read the books before going to he movies obviously not directly before but you know.

My Favourite of the 3 movies was the 2nd i felt the 3rd was way too different and one of my favourite parts in the book was when the hobbits return to their homeland and see it in ruins and ead the uprising.

True, THAT was really stupid.
Was I the only one who thought that it was odd how they only put a few of the songs into the last movie, and completely out of context and sung by completely the wrong people? ... Aragorn singing during his coronation... :eek:
Absadoodle getting run over by a Spiked Wheel.

To be fair, the movies could have being a lot worse than they were. To include everything and make them perfectly accurately would take far too long - they would have had to make it more like 6 movies.

But to portray elves and dwarves accurately wouldn't have taken any extra time.

To be fair, the movies could have being a lot worse than they were. To include everything and make them perfectly accurately would take far too long - they would have had to make it more like 6 movies.

If they had not ADDED an entire list of things that weren't in the books, then they could have included the entire list of things that were left out.

I didn't expect it to be dead on accurate, and I certainly expected some things to be left out (Bombadil, for example)

But those movies were adaptations of a story, not the story itself, and rather half-assed and poorly concieved adaptations at that.

I've read all Tolkien's works many times. Since I first read the Hobbit in the 2nd grade, I've been a Tolkien fanatic. I like that imaginary world so much, I even play LOTR trading card game.

I'm just about to start my... how many times now? reading of LotR.

For the movies... well, they had some moments that made me want to scream (Frodo's and Aragon's AGES for example), but for the most part I enjoyed the movies and even liked some of the changes for example.

I will NEVER forgive Jackson for three things though:
What he did to Moria and the very nessisary back history
The Crack of Doom where Frodo CHARGES Gollum, I mean... just no.
And the Scouring of the Shire, Tolken knew damn well what he was doing when he put that in.

I have read them so many times. Also, I was incredibly angry about Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire being left out of the movies.


The scouring of the Shire, I'll grant you, that was to show that the War, hit home, too.

Bombadil however, was totally useless, served no purpose, and did nothing to add to the story.

Bombadil was a diversion, nothing more.

His removal was appropriate.

....there's more, but I think you get the idea. ;)
Hey, the first movies were even worse, so don't complain ;)

Hey, the first movies were even worse, so don't complain ;)

LMAO...true, true. :)

LMAO...true, true. :)
Yeah, the only thing that seriously irked me was that the Scouring of the Shire got cut out. Otherwise Peter Jackson did a fantastic job. (To be honest, I'm somewhat disappointed by Tolkien for there being no Dwarf battalion ever going against Sauron's or Saruman's forces... :p )

20+ times, including once out loud.

And I actually liked the movie adaptations. There had to be substantial changes to get the main story across, and I thought they did a very good job, by and large. I have quibbles, but many fewer than I expected.

Honestly, the books aren't that good.

The LOTR series covers: war, love, prophecies, magic, swordplay, the undead, corruption, exotic animals, redemption, insanity, loyalty, etc. In other words, all the elements of a classic epic fantasy, BUT it is still hard to get through some of the lengthier passages without getting a little bit bored.

Compare this to any book by Jane Austen. All her books seem to be about one thing: women sitting in rooms talking about marriage, BUT it is so exquisitely written that you cannot put it down.

Tolkien rightly deserves credit for coming up with the fantasy novel genre, but his writing is deplorable.

Honestly, the books aren't that good.

The LOTR series covers: war, love, prophecies, magic, swordplay, the undead, corruption, exotic animals, redemption, insanity, loyalty, etc. In other words, all the elements of a classic epic fantasy, BUT it is still hard to get through some of the lengthier passages without getting a little bit bored.

Compare this to any book by Jane Austen. All her books seem to be about one thing: women sitting in rooms talking about marriage, BUT it is so exquisitely written that you cannot put it down.

Tolkien rightly deserves credit for coming up with the fantasy novel genre, but his writing is deplorable.

Wont argue.

Tolkien was a language professor, not a writer.

He happened to come up with the greatest fairy tale ever, and write it all down, and then make up an entire world, and then make a history, and mythology around it.

Except, that it all happened in reverse.

The language of the elves came first, followed by the mythology, and the story last.

His writing style however, is deplorable.
How many times has anyone read every single page, of every single damn elven song, and went "sheesh, that was boring, and long." afterward?

He was not a very good writer at all, he just happened to come up with such a marvelous story, it covered up for his lack of direction and tangents.

Honestly, the books aren't that good.

The LOTR series covers: war, love, prophecies, magic, swordplay, the undead, corruption, exotic animals, redemption, insanity, loyalty, etc. In other words, all the elements of a classic epic fantasy, BUT it is still hard to get through some of the lengthier passages without getting a little bit bored.

Compare this to any book by Jane Austen. All her books seem to be about one thing: women sitting in rooms talking about marriage, BUT it is so exquisitely written that you cannot put it down.

Tolkien rightly deserves credit for coming up with the fantasy novel genre, but his writing is deplorable.

I don't agree. While I love and enjoy Jane Austen, and read several of her books more than once, I find Tolkien's language far more intricate, colourful, inventive and captivating.

I read the books a number of times, and the aspect that keeps fascinating me is that every time, it seems like an entirely new book. There are shades and aspects that you will only notice when reading the passage a second or third time, and episodes that bored you at one point become thrilling and gripping, while others that you originally enjoyed become boring or even a bit annoying.

I don't agree. While I love and enjoy Jane Austen, and read several of her books more than once, I find Tolkien's language far more intricate, colourful, inventive and captivating.

I read the books a number of times, and the aspect that keeps fascinating me is that every time, it seems like an entirely new book. There are shades and aspects that you will only notice when reading the passage a second or third time, and episodes that bored you at one point become thrilling and gripping, while others that you originally enjoyed become boring or even a bit annoying.


C'mon!

You dont really read every single sentence of every single song.
Especially in the house of Elrond.
No one does.
They just arent well written.

Tolkien goes off on so many uneeded tangents, he easily confuses the reader.
Bombadil and Goldberry......

C'mon!

You dont really read every single sentence of every single song.
Especially in the house of Elrond.
No one does.
They just arent well written.

Tolkien goes off on so many uneeded tangents, he easily confuses the reader.
Bombadil and Goldberry......

*lol

I even went further than just reading them. ;)

I helped a friend composing music for some of them, and at one time, I copied them all from the books by hand, illustrated them, bound them, and gave them to a friend as a birthday present.
They are no Shakespeare sonnetts, but from a purely aestetical point, they are brilliant.

snip

I'm terribly sorry, but are you completely barking?

We agree that the whole point of the Lord of the Rings is that they are the FIRST 'epic' fantasy. Every book since then has been a mere shadow, with very very few... hell, NONE approaching the sheer creative genius that Tolkein pumped into his world. Every single element of his books, the writing style included, serves to transfer to the reader some emotional element of the journey - dull, leaden passages are purposely designed to carry the ennui of travelling. The formal, ancient style of conversation contains the dreamlike elements of Middle Earth.

Throughout the novels the power of the spoken or written word is a constant theme. Tolkein's artistry is reflected in the magic voice of Saruman or the twisted words of Wormtongue. All elven magic is based in song and poetry. This power to carry emotional messages within his works, even the Silmarillion, create a degree of immersiveness hardly present in other writers. In other books, you may empathise with the characters you observe, but in LOTR you suffer with them. The frustration of delays, the boredom of the road and the desolation of the dead marshes is part of the journey alongside the companions - the 'Fellowship' includes the readers as well.

Jane Austen is nothing more than rather poor, pretentious poetry written in prose form with subjects so incredibly stylised and situations so ridiculously boring that it is not only easy to put down, but even easier to launch from a catapult into a POOL OF FROTHING LAVA. The woman was paid by the word and this is truly, painfully obvious. On top of that, the 'stories' were cliches when they were written and definitely haven't improved with age.

*lol

I even went further than just reading them. ;)

I helped a friend composing music for some of them, and at one time, I copied them all from the books by hand, illustrated them, bound them, and gave them to a friend as a birthday present.
They are no Shakespeare sonnetts, but from a purely aestetical point, they are brilliant.


You arent by chance in the "TAS" are you?

Crispy Jesus, I cant imagine anything so tedious.

I read them, even more than once.
But these days, when I read em, I simply skip em.

Compare this to any book by Jane Austen. All her books seem to be about one thing: women sitting in rooms talking about marriage, BUT it is so exquisitely written that you cannot put it down.You've got to be kidding me. Jane Austen is one of the most annoying authors I've been subjected to in English class...

You arent by chance in the "TAS" are you?

Crispy Jesus, I cant imagine anything so tedious.

I read them, even more than once.
But these days, when I read em, I simply skip em.

I don't even know what the "TAS" is...

When it comes to poetry, that's just personal taste, I think.

You've got to be kidding me. Jane Austen is one of the most annoying authors I've been subjected to in English class...

Another one who didn't get the irony in her writing? I love her books...

I don't even know what the "TAS" is...

When it comes to poetry, that's just personal taste, I think.


Tolkien
Appreciation
Society.

Tolkien
Appreciation
Society.

... ok... well.... no. Just no. Something about the name sounds really wrong... You don't "appreciate" Tolkien, you like him, or admire him, or hate him, or adore him. But you don't "appreciate" him.

Another one who didn't get the irony in her writing? I love her books...It's more of a problem with her plots. And the fact that I couldn't stand some of the characters...
Jane Austen just isn't made for me... ;)

One of the stupidest scenes was luckily taken out, but in the extended version - where Legolas beats Gimli in a drinking contest, when dwarves are supposed to have the consitution of a bear and be able to drink loads, whilst elves have the consitution of a gnat.

WHAT? :mad:

I have to agree that the movies left a LOT of stuff out that should have been in there...and made changes to several of the characters that should not have been made...

But they were better than I expected. (come to think of it, it's probably a good idea they didn't add much more...they were long enough as it was)

I'm terribly sorry, but are you completely barking?

We agree that the whole point of the Lord of the Rings is that they are the FIRST 'epic' fantasy.
Now wait a minute, here. He wasn't the first person to create the epic fantasy fiction novel. The bloke that wrote the Bible should get credit for that.

Personally when it comes to fantasy, I prefer Jack Vance's Lyonnese triology and his Dying Earth series myself. I just enjoy the word-play and imaginative scenarios he puts the characters in.

Honestly, the books aren't that good.

The LOTR series covers: war, love, prophecies, magic, swordplay, the undead, corruption, exotic animals, redemption, insanity, loyalty, etc. In other words, all the elements of a classic epic fantasy, BUT it is still hard to get through some of the lengthier passages without getting a little bit bored.

Compare this to any book by Jane Austen. All her books seem to be about one thing: women sitting in rooms talking about marriage, BUT it is so exquisitely written that you cannot put it down.

Tolkien rightly deserves credit for coming up with the fantasy novel genre, but his writing is deplorable.

:confused: :eek: :(

:mad: MAY YOU DIE A PEASANTS DEATH!!!!! :mp5:

I'm just curious as to how many people have read the book. I have and I loved it. What do others think?
IMHO, the book was sooo much better than the movie!

I’ve read LOTR, Silmarillion (hope I got the spelling right) and Bilbo, and I really liked them, although it was some time back now, and I don’t remember all too much.
The movies were surprisingly good, although I have to say they lacked something, focusing too much on the battles instead of, well, the dull poems...

One of the best books I ever read...didn´t like the movies that much, but better than expected...much better than the old, fragmentary animated movie.

people who slam the movies drive me crazy

when YOU can take a thousand page book with as many storylines as lotr and make it into 3 3to 4 hour movies that WORK. then you can bitch about what jackson did.

he make the unmakable movie and he made it well. the vast majority of the audience was made up of people who had never read the books. it worked for them.

he avoided the worst of the possible deviations from the books. for example he had filmed helms deep with ARWEN showing up to fight. he was persuaded by fan reaction to rethink the way he would keep arwen in the movie. yeah in a modern movie you have to have female characters and tolkien is woefully short on them. so jackson had to expand a bit.

movies are a different art form from books. if you cant accept that, you should never see a movie based on a book you love.

if you want to see a story butchered, read the wizard of oz then compare it to the movie. THAT is butchery. and yet the movie works wonderfully.

Now wait a minute, here. He wasn't the first person to create the epic fantasy fiction novel. The bloke that wrote the Bible should get credit for that.

Personally when it comes to fantasy, I prefer Jack Vance's Lyonnese triology and his Dying Earth series myself. I just enjoy the word-play and imaginative scenarios he puts the characters in.


ok for a start, the bible wasnt written by one bloke. it was a hell of a lot of blokes. secondly its based on fact. LOTR isnt just a story, tolkien had the time, and the patience to create an entire world within his head, complete with races, languages, mythology and legends and locations. i think the man deserves a lot of credit for that, for capturing the hearts of millions.

While LotR is a wonderful tale, The Silmarillion is perhaps the most beautiful book ever written.

Read them, learnt the tengwar and cirth, read them several more times, started learning Quenya, frequent Tolkien message boards.

ok for a start, the bible wasnt written by one bloke. it was a hell of a lot of blokes. secondly its based on fact. LOTR isnt just a story, tolkien had the time, and the patience to create an entire world within his head, complete with races, languages, mythology and legends and locations. i think the man deserves a lot of credit for that, for capturing the hearts of millions.


Fact?
And you base that on what?

LOTR is good, and the ideas are incredible.. deffo kudos to Tolkien for having the imagination and brilliance to think it all up.. but I agree that it was a tedious read at times...

I loved the books (that is, the ones I've read... The Hobbit, LOTR, and the Silmarillion) and the movies. Everything about them, the language, the story, the character, its epic nature.... all great.

On the Austen tangent that sprung up... gawd those books bore me. I don't see the attraction... but I suppose different opinions, and all that. Mine is the correct one, is all...

It's more of a problem with her plots. And the fact that I couldn't stand some of the characters...
Jane Austen just isn't made for me... ;)

I HATED Emma. Tolkien I think isn't that bad, sure the writing may not be perfect, but the plot is really good. I've read the hobbit as well at Lotr, and i can't find the silmarrilion. i used to have copy. what about the hobbit as a film?

he make the unmakable movie and he made it well. the vast majority of the audience was made up of people who had never read the books. it worked for them. if you want to see a story butchered, read the wizard of oz then compare it to the movie. THAT is butchery. and yet the movie works wonderfully.

actually I heard some people asking who was the king. lol
and on Wizard of Oz, the guy who wrote 'Over the Rainbow' is to be praised. the director wanted the song faster and to have Judy Garland WAY more dressed up. but the songwriter said he wasn't going to change it and told them Judy Garland was supposed to be a farm girl.

i loved the books tom bombedel(SP?) was the best!
i thought the movies were good

Shadowfax.

Wasn't he supposed to be a BLACK horse?