Finally getting around to seeing Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Which would you rather have?

[Bossy Monkey]

Poll question: Finally getting around to seeing Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Which would you rather have?

[Orrex]

1. My favorite part about the trilogy is how jobycom adores EVERY SINGLE FRAME

Also, whatever his merits, Tolkien can be more boring than any ten mortal authors. As evidence, I cite the 6,000 pages during which the hobbits are walking to Bree in Fellowship during which basically nothing happens at all. Not talking about Tom Bombadil--I'm referring to the other 6,000 pages of the trek.

Snooze!

[tigereye]

2. we read the trilogy out loud a few years ago - it was so good that way

you can really hear what a great story-teller Tolkien was.

[Lyric]

6. You mean other than being stalked by Black Riders and nearly eaten by trees?

:P

[petronius]

9. And the barrow wight, and the funny farmer with the mushrooms, and the first

meeting with elves?

Lot of stuff happened there - I'm surprised it could be crammed into a mere 6,000 pages...

[Orrex]

22. No--I'm talking about the faux-victorian travel narrative about walking through the woods

The eaten-by-trees bit (IIRC) is part of the Tom Bombadil bit that I mentioned, and the Black Riders are there, but they seldom have much impact during that part of the trip. Although 6,000 page might have been an exaggeration, I'd say that you could knock out about 200 pages and lose close to nothing. Jackson managed it quite effectively IMO.

I've heard Tolkien's verbosity defended on the grounds that it shows how long and arduous the hobbits' journey was. To this I say "nonsense!" Even if the halflings had to hoof it cross-country, there's no justification for punishing the reader with an exhaustive account of it. You could sum up the bulk of the trip in a few paragraphs while still keeping Tom, the Riders, and the Trees intact.

[Lyric]

24. Okay, we can discuss this seriously.

I disagree with you--not just because I'm ornery (I totally am) but also because I think that section of the book plays a very important role in foreshadowing and linking back later stories. When I said "eaten by trees", I actually wasn't thinking primarily of the Willow Man. I was thinking about Merry's shortcut through the Old Forest, which serves to foreshadow Fangorn, and also to create some mystery later on when Treebeard is mourning the loss of the Entwives. Obviously the reader is meant to put two and two together and realize that the Entwives might be in the Old Forest, where the trees are alive and aware in exactly the same way that they are in Fangorn--and ONLY in those two places. I think the time spent in the Old Forest before Bombadil is important. I also think that the Farmer Maggot meeting is important, because Maggot's response to the Black Riders helps the reader to see that the stubborn and nationalistic way that Hobbits cling to their traditions and culture is at least a potential defense against the "moral invasion" that the Riders represent.

The earlier part where the Hobbits are traveling through the Shire to get from Hobbiton to Bucklebury also takes up a lot of space, but again, some important things happen there. There's the character development, and also the relationships that are being unveiled--especially the devotion and responsibility that Sam feels toward Frodo, which foreshadows the choice that Sam will make at the end of "Fellowship" when they head off alone into the Emyn Muil. There's the meeting with the party of Elves that, in turn, helps to create mystery and to deepen the threat of the Black Riders because the Elves are the literary messengers to the reader that the Black Riders are something incredibly important and also incredibly dangerous. The journey is Frodo's way of shedding the "old" Frodo and taking on the mantle of the new adult that Frodo now has to be. And of course, there's also the purely practical purpose--Saruman holds Gandalf prisoner for a certain length of time, and in a strange way, the long woods narrative tends to mirror that imprisonment.

In fact, I think that half of the journey from Bree to Rivendell is a lot more of a literary "drag" to the story than anything that happens before it--I don't really think that we needed to hear the details of them eating short rations and being eaten up by swamp midges, because that sort of thing would be rather obvious. Nothing of import happens there until the Nazgul close in on the party when they're camping at Amon Sul.

[tigereye]

26. it's long because that's the way period tales were told - that was Tolkein's

specialty. When you read it aloud, you can really tell that, and enjoy it.

[Orrex]

33. Well...

I majored in pre-Renaissance lit, so I'm familiar with the stuff that JRR was reading in the run-up to writing the LotR, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.


The council of Elrond alone is 500,000 pages of boredom and infodump. YAWN!

[tigereye]

34. fair enough - so you're a pre-Renaissance Man!

:rofl: You never fail to surprise, Orrex! :thumbsup: Fellow English major here.

[Orrex]

35. And let me tell you, no major is as employable as pre-Ren lit.

Companies are positively tripping over themselves to nab the young go-getter who can recite whole swaths of Beowulf from memory.

[CBGLuthier]

3. I think Peter Jackson and James Cameron are in a never-ending duel

To make the most over-rated and bloated pieces of crap in cinema history.

Cameron is winning but with 5 to 6 hours of Hobbit hurtling our way I expect Jackson to regain his shiny plastic crown.

[blogslut]

4. I love the books

I love the films

So there.

[elocs]

10. Me too. A movies are different from books. I don't know why that is difficult to understand.

Reading a book is different from viewing a movie. I wonder if someone made an exhaustive movie of the Bible if people would complain because the "begats" were left out.

Jackson's LOTR films are classics and people will still be watching and enjoying them long after all of us are dead and gone.

[blogslut]

16. Ha!

That's actually kind of funny because the Begats where what kept going through my mind when I first read The Silmarillion!

[elocs]

19. To be honest, I could never get through The Silmarillion.

I think I tried back in 1977.

[dimbear]

21. I'm guessing it depends on personality.

If you like to spend your weekends in a sensory deprivation tank, you're going to love the Silmarillion.

[blogslut]

23. Well, one doesn't read the Silmarillion for entertainment

Just the same, I loved it for what it was and when I re-read the Trilogy or The Hobbit, I used/use it as a companion reference. I love that Tolkien created this incredibly detailed history. :hi:

[tigereye]

27. I do, too

I think the films are gorgeous and masterful, although the books have that quiet, non-cinematic, non- blockbuster quality that I would like to have seen a bit more of in the films.

[TZ]

5. lol

I love to listen to the haters whine about the imperfections in the movie version while conveniently ignoring the fact that the books are very very flawed int their own ways as well. Its funny, but you'd never know from some here that the original books were total and complete FLOPS when they first came out.
Fact is, the books are good but not perfect..and the movies based on them are very good..while not perfect, they have actually left out alot of the excesses and chaff that weigh down the books, IMO.
Of course, I'm probably now going to be flamed because I dare to critique the Messiah, Tolkien

[Kaleva]

13. Alerted 'cause you dared to critique the Messiah, Tolkien

j/k!

[bif]

7. Ben Stiller pitches a sequel to Peter Jackson

If you haven't seen this, it's one of the funniest skits ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1KMg6bLDlw

[Bucky]

8. marked for later viewing

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. Had to go with number 4.

[Green_Lantern]

12. I tried to read the books and got bored...

I really prefer movies to the books because they get right to the point.

[Occam Bandage]

14. I love the books. They would have made terrible movies. nt

[bluedigger]

15. Jackson did very well in bringing them to the screen.

Some will prefer the books, some the movies, same as ever, and some don't care for any of it. I liked it all, ever since Dad gave me The Hobbit for my tenth birthday. My grandmother, an English teacher, disliked all sci-fi and fantasy, until I gave her TLOR in the her late 80's. She later admitted to me it was pretty good! :)

[tigereye]

28. no reason not to enjoy both!

:thumbsup:

[Dr Morbius]

17. Sometimes written material from novels doesn't translate well to the screen.

Peter Jackson took a few liberties with the story, but he captured the magic of the books. He eliminated the scouring of the Shire. He killed off Saruman early, since he got rid of the scouring. No Tom Bombadil. He played up Arwen's character. Then there was the casting; Galadriel was supposed to be incredibly beautiful, and while I think Cate Blanchett isn't ugly, she's definitely not a world-class beauty. Orlando Bloom made an attractive elf, I suppose, but Legolas was supposed to be nearly 3000 years old! And the dwarf, who mysteriously speaks with a Scottish brogue, calls him "Laddie."

But he did well with Gollum/Smeagol and the ents. I found all three movies entertaining.

[pokerfan]

18. The audiobooks are fantastic!

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Trilogy-Gift-Set/dp/1402516274

AUDIOFILE: Before we talk about your narration of the books, let's get a technical question or two out of the way. What was the recording schedule like for THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS titles? Where did the recordings take place?

INGLIS: We recorded all three books in the trilogy over a six-week period, so it was quite intense. We actually went back and recorded THE HOBBIT about a year after the trilogy. All the recording sessions took place at the Recorded Books studios in New York in 1990.

AUDIOFILE: Did you do a lot of preparation for all the different voices you employed in the stories, or just dive right in and figure out the characterizations as you went along?

INGLIS: (laughs) Oh, my--I couldn't just dive right in! The various dramatic societies I belong to had all sorts of people breathing down my neck to make sure I got it right! So, yes, there was much preparation. Actually, I was already a bit prepared, I think, because of my one-man stage production of THE HOBBIT. It was my one-man show that actually brought me to the attention of Recorded Books. They heard a recording of one of my shows and asked me to do the full readings of all the books.

AUDIOFILE: Listeners are treated to some wonderful singing performances throughout THE HOBBIT and the three volumes of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Who set the various songs to music?

INGLIS: Tolkien himself had already set a few of the songs to music, but most of the songs one saw on the printed page were without music. So, I had to come up with music for some of the songs, and Claudia Howard of Recorded Books wrote the rest of the music. She also essentially acted as my director and manager during the course of the recording sessions.

AUDIOFILE: Scores of characters appear throughout THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Was it wearying to breathe life into so many characters, and to give every character his own idiosyncrasies and other bits of uniqueness?

INGLIS: It was certainly challenging, but I enjoyed it. It's what I do, interpret and dramatize. And, of course, I didn't do it alone. There is much in the original writing that suggests how a character should be brought to life. It's quite strange. At times it felt like Tolkien himself was talking to me through his prose, telling me how things should be.

--Joseph P. Menta

(c) 2003 AudioFile Publications, Inc.

[elocs]

20. I have The Hobbit and all of the LOTR unabridged books on cd.

I have listened to them a few times.

[pokerfan]

32. Audiobooks are great for traveling

When I'm driving I can only listen to so much music and the end of each song just highlights the fact that I've only gone another 3-4 miles down the road. But a good audiobook really passes the time. I figure Inglis' LOTR (53 hours!) is good for about 3000 miles.

[JTG of the PRB]

25. I'm in the middle of Return of the King right now. Love the books, love the movies.

A couple years ago I bought the boxed set of all three extended versions of the films. Considering how much material is in the books, they could have made six movies and still not have gotten it all in. There were only two serious mistakes from the tone of the book and nature of some of the characters, and I'm willing to forgive that because the vision of the trilogy and the way Middle Earth was brought to life still amazes me.

I think they should do a Lord of the Rings animated series and really take their time to tell the entire story... But that's just me.

[tigereye]

29. the extended versions of the films extras also have wonderful film-making

primers- love watching them as well.

[JTG of the PRB]

30. And all the DVD extras are great too/

The behind-the-scenes stuff, how they made certain things in the movie, locations they used, the concept drawings... So many, many hours of incredible stuff.

[MilesColtrane]

31. Other: an angry, axe wielding dwarf to do my bidding