I got the first trilogy of that in a single volume as a Christmas gift two years ago. I still haven't finished the first book, but I use the cover wrap to block the light from my computer monitor's power button at night.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Terry Brooks sucks!
Elric of Melnibone is what needs doing, all of the emo-teens would love the angsty anti-hero which he'd be turned into by modern film-makers.Angsty anti-hero is what Elric is.
He pretty much invented angsty anti-hero for modern fantasy.
Angsty? That dude enjoyed the hell out of himself!
The talk of other heroic fantasy adaptations has reminded me of the SciFi (back when it was spelled that way) Channel's adaptation of A Wizard of Earthsea. Whatever your opinion of PJ's Hobbit and whether it should be a trilogy or not, it won't be that sort of travesty.
If I missed someone else posting this already, sorry "tl;dr"...
I want to see a full treatment on Gandalf's little "visit" to see the Necromancer in Southern Mirkwood.
|
If you all want a short hobbit movie, Watch Rankin Bass' The Hobbit. it was fast paced and was over in a flash. it also chopped out a ton of stuff and made things happen so fast you barely got the Hobbit Story
The deal with the Hobbit trilogy movie. There was a TON of stuff Tolkien had that took place before, during and after. I remember once reading that Galdalf and someone else and I do believe it was Aragorn where investigating the Witch King and his fortress because they where stirring with the ring coming out of hiding.
While The Hobbit book was a fast read, MOST fans of LotR would have loved to see MORE. There where tons chopped even from the movies that where in the book because lets face it, You CANNOT take a good book and make a 2 or 2.5 hour movie with out cutting it to pieces.
Even the Harry Potter books where sliced and diced and chopped up to be able to make them into single or the last book 2 movies. Even the original Star Wars book had far more to them than the movie first movie, but Lucas chopped a lot out to fit into the time he was allotted to make a movie
I'm trilled they are doing more. I am NOT happy I have to wait 3 years to see it all. But I have waited longer for less, so I will be happy as it will be grand and it is the best Fantasy movies EVER that counts LotR.
Hmmm... yeah, those 3 LotR movies they made did suck pretty hard. Oh wait, no they didn't. They were AWESOME! So, we're being offered more LotR content and this is a problem how?
If you read the article, he's not proposing making the novel "The Hobbit" into three movies. In fact, they were never even making the novel into TWO movies. The plan has always been to include all of that "off-screen" stuff from the Hobbit and the LotR appendices into the movie, since it happens in and around the time frame of when Bilbo & Co are heading to Erebor. Instead of Gandalf just disappearing to wherever and then coming back later, we are going to be seeing all of the bits and pieces of what else is going on in the world at the same time. If you've read things like Unfinished Tales and the Tolkien errata books, you know there is puh-lenty of material there.
My suggestion: Don't get hung up on "3 movies of the Hobbit." Think of it as "3 movies of Tolkien history and prequel and inbetweenquel that includes the Hobbit but also links it across the span of 60 years to the beginning of LotR."
Peter Jackson took some creative license with Lotr that, me being a Tolkien purist, really ticked me off to put it mildly. Here's a few annoyances off the top of my head in no particular order, just to give you an idea:
1. Expanding Arwen's role from what was originally presented in the novels, two pages in the beginning and then once at the end;2. The way the contest of wills was presented between Gandalf and Sarumen with Theoden King; This one is the one that angers me the most
3. Faramir taking Frodo to that stupid little burg rather than turning him loose before even getting there;
4. An accident in the Mines of Moria that alerted the Orcs to their presence instead of Pippen throwing a coin down the well;
5. Frodo figuring out the riddle to gain entrance to the Mines of Moria instead of Merri or Pippen (forget which one);
6. The lack of Glorfindel who was the elf that originally rode out to find the Hobbits NOT ARWEN;
7. Compelte removal of the Old Forest bits where you get to see Frodo become something more;
8. Arwen speaking a chant INSTEAD OF Finding out that it was Gandalf and Elrond evoking the magical protections of Rivendell to wash away the Nazgul;
9. Not filming Frodo calling upon the power of the Ring when Golum tries to take it just outside of Mount Doom, instead just having Gollum fall in while doing a victory dance. In the books, Frodo grabs the ring after beating back Gollum "Gollum, if you try to take the ring again, you will fall into the cracks of doom."
Plus, many, MANY, more.
I'll go to see the Hobbit DESPITE Peter <insert f-bomb>-ing Jackson's desire to put his own stamp on arguably one of the best children's books ever written. It should have been kept to a two-part story. Expanding it to a trilogy is just a way to insure that he is able to at least break even with $500 million dollar price tag. The Hobbit is NOT Lotr. It has dark parts, it does have the Battle of 5 Armies, however, it is NOT the 'things are bad and getting worse' tone of Lotr. Addint the info from the appendices does NOT enrich the story, it expands it for the people that are incapable of enjoying the story as it was originally present.
With Peter Jackson's meddling, I liken him to Ted/Sam(?) Raimi..the guy who completely SCREWED the POOCH with the TV adaptation of the Sword of Truth series under the guise of LEGEND OF THE SEEKER. More like the LEGEND OF THE PIECE OF CRAP.
Terry Brooks sucks!You're a goblin, you can't even read!
(Out of curiosity, what Shannara stuff have you read?)
Just the first one and the first of the Landover kingdom series.
The Terry Brooks sucks! thing is kind of a running joke for me. Although I don't highly appreciate his work (at all), I wouldn't go running around saying someone sucks--unless I was wearing my Burgomeister hat.
You're a goblin, you can't even read!
Also, you're a bigot.
I have to admit that I wasn't paying much attention, and that whole elf/dwarf romance thing has me mightily shaken in my former confidence that this is going to rule.
But I'll still see it all--every minute!
|
|
Just the first one and the first of the Landover kingdom series.
The Terry Brooks sucks! thing is kind of a running joke for me. Although I don't highly appreciate his work (at all), I wouldn't go running around saying someone sucks--unless I was wearing my Burgomeister hat.
Usually the people who think he sucks have only read the Sword of Shannara, his much-maligned Tolkien ripoff but I enjoyed some of his later books as he went off in a different direction and started fleshing out his world. He does settle into some predictable writing patterns but I still thought he did some good stuff.
Also, you're a bigot.You're a goblin, you can't even read!
You can't be a bigot for stating the truth.
|
You can't be a bigot for stating the truth.Also, you're a bigot.You're a goblin, you can't even read!
You are right. Stating the truth is not bigotry. I for one think Goblins are foul little creatures. And if suddenly they all dropped dead, I might go out and celebrate with several rounds of a hearty mead. This may be bigotry. ;)
Cheers,
Mazra
P.S. You may want to be careful with your dealings with literate Goblins.
Usually the people who think he sucks have only read the Sword of Shannara, his much-maligned Tolkien ripoff but I enjoyed some of his later books as he went off in a different direction and started fleshing out his world. He does settle into some predictable writing patterns but I still thought he did some good stuff.Just the first one and the first of the Landover kingdom series.
The Terry Brooks sucks! thing is kind of a running joke for me. Although I don't highly appreciate his work (at all), I wouldn't go running around saying someone sucks--unless I was wearing my Burgomeister hat.
Okay, so after Sword it does get better? Because as I said, I couldn't finish slogging through it and the book is sitting dusty on my shelf while the cover jacket serves as a light shade. It came highly recommended but the first story is just ... bluh. (Which frankly is what I thought of LotR as well. Slogged through Fellowship but finally gave up early on in Two Towers.)
You can't be a bigot for stating the truth.Also, you're a bigot.You're a goblin, you can't even read!
You are right. Stating the truth is not bigotry. I for one think Goblins are foul little creatures. And if suddenly they all dropped dead, I might go out and celebrate with several rounds of a hearty mead. This may be bigotry. ;)
Cheers,
Mazra
P.S. You may want to be careful with your dealings with literate Goblins.
[Sends Mazra a letter-bomb]
Okay, so after Sword it does get better?
Above all, I have to say that the image of Middle Earth as described by Tolkien is pretty sad. Every good idea has already been had, long ago. The quality of a ruler is directly proportional to the number of generations his ancestors have been hogging the throne. The place of the common people is working the dirt and being happy at subsistence level, and giving respect to said throne hoggers. Everyone who tries changing ANYTHING in this picture of pastoral perfection is unequivocally Evil. This goes for inventing new tools (goblins), industrializing (New Shire), questioning the wisdom of the ages (Saruman), not ceding thrones back to throne hoggers or even trying to learn about an enemy (Denethor). It is not a pretty picture.
The hobbits seem to be eking out more than a subsistence-level existence.
Yeah, probably. Then again, they are blessed with a lack of a throne hogger. Still, it's fun to see you of all people defending it all. :)
|
|
Context is all.
Why on earth would someone who had lived through two industrialised wars which slaughtered thousands of his compatriots and thousands more besides, experienced the joyless industrialisation of early 20thCentury Britain and seen the difference between weak rulers and strong ones at time of war (Chamberlain/Churchill) seek to evoke a pastoral idyll, disparage industrialisation (and especially industrialised warfare) and promote the ideal of the noble leader?
Hmmm...
Tolkein was clearly raised ina rigid class system and could not really iagine anything else. You represent him as promoting a rigid class divide, I see him as accepting a rigid class divide and them promoting the idea that the nobility should actually be noble and earn their pre-eminence.
You see him as promoting 'working the dirt', well I don't see anything inherently wrong with farming as a profession. Do you? I see him as promoting a pastoral idyll at a time of massive, often-shocking industrial change, in a small country like the UK where that industrialisation genuinely does limit our experience of the rural world.
And yes, Tolkein is clearly against change-for-the-sake-of-evil, but his experience clearly colours that as well.
Do you understand that the living standards of Brits who were forced to leave the land, or stop being artisan workers in rural environments, were massively reduced as they entered the brutal, industrial experience of late19th and early20th century Britain (in fact it goes back earlier than that, remember the Luddites?)
So, you can see him through a modern lens, or you can appreciate the context of his writing.
Shakespeare thought it was natural for women to be treated as the property of their fathers and husbands... that doesn't mean we have to dislike his work, we just need to appreciate it for what it is and when it was written.
Non?
|
|
Above all, I have to say that the image of Middle Earth as described by Tolkien is pretty sad. Every good idea has already been had, long ago. The quality of a ruler is directly proportional to the number of generations his ancestors have been hogging the throne. The place of the common people is working the dirt and being happy at subsistence level, and giving respect to said throne hoggers. Everyone who tries changing ANYTHING in this picture of pastoral perfection is unequivocally Evil. This goes for inventing new tools (goblins), industrializing (New Shire), questioning the wisdom of the ages (Saruman), not ceding thrones back to throne hoggers or even trying to learn about an enemy (Denethor). It is not a pretty picture.
Everyone has an opinion. But without the LotR you wouldn't have Orcs. And many of the foundation aspects that lead Gary Gygax and company to create Dungeons & Dragons. I am not saying it would not have still happened; but it would have been vastly different. And I dare say not nearly as popular.
Cheers,
Mazra
Everyone has an opinion. But without the LotR you wouldn't have Orcs. And many of the foundation aspects that lead Gary Gygax and company to create Dungeons & Dragons. I am not saying it would not have still happened; but it would have been vastly different. And I dare say not nearly as popular.Cheers,
Mazra
I realize it was not directed towards me, but I want to express again. Despite not liking most of Tolkien's works, I very much appreciate his input into the genre I love.
Greg
Above all, I have to say that the image of Middle Earth as described by Tolkien is pretty sad. Every good idea has already been had, long ago. The quality of a ruler is directly proportional to the number of generations his ancestors have been hogging the throne. The place of the common people is working the dirt and being happy at subsistence level, and giving respect to said throne hoggers. Everyone who tries changing ANYTHING in this picture of pastoral perfection is unequivocally Evil. This goes for inventing new tools (goblins), industrializing (New Shire), questioning the wisdom of the ages (Saruman), not ceding thrones back to throne hoggers or even trying to learn about an enemy (Denethor). It is not a pretty picture.
While all this is largely true (from a certain perspective) LotR can be enjoyed on a much simpler level. If one just accepts that Sauron is "evil" the the story become the fight of the little guy against overwhelming evil, triumphing but with a huge price attached. Tolkien may have envisioned a deeper story (the fight against industrialization, etc.) but it's not necessary to acknowledge that and still enjoy the tale.
I admit I've only read it through once and in high school (about 30 years ago) and so there is a fair bit nof naiveté attached to my memory of the story, but that's how I remember it and that's how I enjoyed the movies, even though I'm in my 40s now.
Greg
Above all, I have to say that the image of Middle Earth as described by Tolkien is pretty sad. Every good idea has already been had, long ago. The quality of a ruler is directly proportional to the number of generations his ancestors have been hogging the throne. The place of the common people is working the dirt and being happy at subsistence level, and giving respect to said throne hoggers. Everyone who tries changing ANYTHING in this picture of pastoral perfection is unequivocally Evil. This goes for inventing new tools (goblins), industrializing (New Shire), questioning the wisdom of the ages (Saruman), not ceding thrones back to throne hoggers or even trying to learn about an enemy (Denethor). It is not a pretty picture.While all this is largely true (from a certain perspective) LotR can be enjoyed on a much simpler level. If one just accepts that Sauron is "evil" the the story become the fight of the little guy against overwhelming evil, triumphing but with a huge price attached. Tolkien may have envisioned a deeper story (the fight against industrialization, etc.) but it's not necessary to acknowledge that and still enjoy the tale.
I admit I've only read it through once and in high school (about 30 years ago) and so there is a fair bit nof naiveté attached to my memory of the story, but that's how I remember it and that's how I enjoyed the movies, even though I'm in my 40s now.
Greg
Sissyl would appear to prefer this version of the story.
And in the second movie, do you expect me to believe that ANYONE - especially an obvious slimeball like Gollum - could drive a wedge between Frodo and Sam?
Oops. I meant the THIRD movie.
Well, it WOULD have been the second movie had the movies been divided at the same points as the books.
|
Here is a really good article on the three Hobbit movies:
It's well worth reading.
Random quote from the article:
"This change is not only bold and daring, it is coming from the right place. This isn’t a money grab. This isn’t the studio stretching out a franchise. This is team Jackson feeling that a story, a complicated one with multiple threads and characters, needed more time to tell."
It should be noted that the quote above is preceded by a disclaimer:
"I risk sounding like a Jackson fanboy here but what I believe is what I believe."
Yeah, probably. Then again, they are blessed with a lack of a throne hogger. Still, it's fun to see you of all people defending it all. :)
Oh yeah?
Epic Pooh in your face!
Boo-yah!
Sissyl would appear to prefer this version of the story.
Excellent work, comrade!
I think maybe I was misunderstood. I understand that Professor Tolkien saw what ruinous change can bring, in all sorts of shape or form. I can relax and enjoy the story, the beautiful setting, the languages... but as I said, I find it SAD that every nuance of change is immediately cast down as Evil. The good professor is forgiven this and far, far more, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you guys think Tolkien is a reactionary, you should read Homer!
|
And in the second movie, do you expect me to believe that ANYONE - especially an obvious slimeball like Gollum - could drive a wedge between Frodo and Sam?Oops. I meant the THIRD movie.
Well, it WOULD have been the second movie had the movies been divided at the same points as the books.
by the way, yes, the entire point of Gollum is to drive a wedge there. When Sam looks at Gollum he sees a "slimeball" as you said, but when Frodo looks at him... he sees a possible future for himself. He knows the allure of The Ring. He can understand what happened to Gollum, how things went wrong... he can even Sympathize.
but Sam can't. He just sees a filthy, despicable creature. Frodo knows this and it terrifies him - because if Sam, who adores him more than anyone else can't have a bit of understanding, who could?
And from Sam's point of view, Frodo is neglecting him in favor of Gollum- how could he not appreciate how much Sam cares and gives?
What you get is two confused, scared good friends in a horrible situation and being forced to stare at the reason of their conflict daily whenever Gollum's around. Yes, fear and confusion WILL turn into unjustified anger aimed at the wrong person under such circumstances. That makes the characters very human in my eyes.
sword of truth series=drell. Was the biggest tease and im ashamed to have read them. The first book was very good but after that it turned into fantasys version of SAW. Richard and company rescue people who have been tortured beyond belief or become prisoners and get tortured. Most of the chapters involve lots of blood being beaten out of people and torture. The magic and cool creatures from first few books are replaced and seem to die out like the dinosaurs.
Sword of Shannara and many books around that timeline are just clones of LOTR as many series now try and be Game of Thrones Clones.
|
|
I think maybe I was misunderstood. I understand that Professor Tolkien saw what ruinous change can bring, in all sorts of shape or form. I can relax and enjoy the story, the beautiful setting, the languages... but as I said, I find it SAD that every nuance of change is immediately cast down as Evil. The good professor is forgiven this and far, far more, though.
I appreciate your clarification, and see better from where you are coming from. Being a lover of history, I saw LotR's setting like unto Europe's Monarchical Medieval times where there is a very distinct class system, and changes in that system was often seen as for the worst.
But please forgive my defensive stance. For me, LotR is hands down my favorite work of fiction. And to see more and more representation of Tolkien's world in film is a very exciting thing for me.
Cheers,
Mazra
I think maybe I was misunderstood. I understand that Professor Tolkien saw what ruinous change can bring, in all sorts of shape or form. I can relax and enjoy the story, the beautiful setting, the languages... but as I said, I find it SAD that every nuance of change is immediately cast down as Evil. The good professor is forgiven this and far, far more, though.
I didn't mean to come off as snarky (well, not very snarky) Sis, that was a real book I linked, and I think you might enjoy it, or at least that it speaks to the subject you raised.
In some essay, Ursula le Guin wrote that if Sam had called Frodo "sir" one more time, she was going to start a Socialist Hobbit Party.
Right on, sister!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The nice thing about calling your betters "Sir" is that you don't have to remember their individual names. M'lord Dice tells me the upper classes invented the forms of address as a favor to the rest of us.
And that's another two years you've set the race back by, Dicey.
[Shakes head]
I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...
Peter Jackson took some creative license with Lotr that, me being a Tolkien purist, really ticked me off to put it mildly. Here's a few annoyances off the top of my head in no particular order, just to give you an idea:
1. Expanding Arwen's role from what was originally presented in the novels, two pages in the beginning and then once at the end;
2. The way the contest of wills was presented between Gandalf and Sarumen with Theoden King; This one is the one that angers me the most
3. Faramir taking Frodo to that stupid little burg rather than turning him loose before even getting there;
4. An accident in the Mines of Moria that alerted the Orcs to their presence instead of Pippen throwing a coin down the well;
5. Frodo figuring out the riddle to gain entrance to the Mines of Moria instead of Merri or Pippen (forget which one);
6. The lack of Glorfindel who was the elf that originally rode out to...
If we want to talk LotR flaws, those are all pretty minor, though. The films are fantastic, but the one thing that irks me most about them is the way Frodo is characterized. After being stabbed at Weathertop he loses all semblance of a personality. He's either the (admittedly awesome, moving and fun to watch) pouty-eyed elijah wood or foaming at the mouth and touching the ring and waving it around at passing Nazghul. I'm sure he could've shown Frodo a little more of the strength of character he had in the books. Does anyone agree?
Also I'll jump on the bandwagon and giggle at anyone who thinks that there was anything in the Sword of Truth series to butcher... Biggest trap of a series I've ever read. My Dad and I kept buying each other the next volume and secretly resenting the other for it. "They're bound to pick up! Just one more!"
|
|
I'm sure he could've shown Frodo a little more of the strength of character he had in the books. Does anyone agree?
I don't agree. I believe Jackson wanted to portray how tortured Frodo was with the burden of carrying the One Ring. In that, Jackson and Elijah Wood pulled it off very well. Plus, in the end Frodo was able to overcome the pull of the One Ring. It is even more heroic when a character that has no heroic qualities overcomes them and becomes heroic.
Today I could see no one else doing a better job of portraying Frodo than Elijah Wood. YMMV.
Cheers,
Mazra
by the way, yes, the entire point of Gollum is to drive a wedge there. <etc>
That's... interesting. I've never heard that part of the movie defended before. I disagree with you, but your reply gave me something to think about.