The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)

Been avoiding this thread for two weeks, but I've finally seen it.
A gorgeous spectacle, with phenomenal action scenes.
Not the book, I never expected it to be, but the amount of plot deviation was quite surprising.
Thoroughly enjoyed it.
 
I understand what you say Cried, and LC as well.
@Cried and maybe others as well: I suppose you have one (or more) edition(s) of the work in one book on your shelf?
 
LooseCannon said:
Yeah, but it's important to remember that when it comes to publishing decisions, the publisher has final say. It's unfortunate that the book wasn't sent out as Tolkien wanted, but in the end, a trilogy was created - even if it was against the will of Tolkien. The end result is what matters, not the author's original decision. And that goes for a ton of famous book series.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. It's one work. The nature of it's publication is not relevant. If a story was serialised, you would not be describing it as a "trilogy" if it just happened to be published over three magazine releases. Practically every famous story/novel first published in this manner (i.e. hundreds of Victorian novels, including much of Dickens' work) would be a duology, trilogy, etc, if this were the case. This is patently incorrect. What if a novel was bound in three volumes (as many 18th & 19th century novels were) but sold as a set? Would this make it a trilogy or not? None of this matters. A book/novel is so defined based on its literary intent, not the printing & binding standards of the time, or the economic decision making of the publisher. This isn't to do with the author's views usurping what actually happened, from a printing/publishing perspective; it's simply a statement about the work itself. You (& others) are confusing the two in respect to the literary work.
 
So so...LotR: Return of the King. I'm not sure which episode I liked best, probably the first one. The third one, at 4h23m, really was too long and I got tired of countless moments that went:

Bad guy - "Oh, I have you, now you die, hear me? I'm going to stab you, but first let me talk about how I'm going to do it, listen carefu-"
*Good guy stabs the bad guy from behind. saves the other one*

The Witch-king of Angmar and all such others are supposed to be strong, majestic but instead they get killed with cheesy lines:

"No man can kill me!"
*close-up to woman's face* "I am no man" *dramatic pause*

Please, do it normally, not in an obviously cheesy way. Way too much cheese and filler (could've been like that only in the extended version which is what I watched). All the Aragon-and-Arwen-endless-love scenes could've been sped up.

I was hoping for more true evil and darkness, not a family-movie type evil. That's why I liked part 1: the first scene with the Nazgul looking over the hobbits, first encounters with dark forces etc.

But these are the bad sides, on the whole it's still a hell of a movie and I'm glad I watched the three episodes. Even though they could still have been a lot better, I found a great interest in finding out loads more about Tolkien's work and the huge universe of LotR.
 
First dinner at at a Chinese restaurant and then a trip to the cinema to see the Hobbit 2. I really liked! Great action scenes! I thought it ended very abruptly though...

Radagast FTW.
 
I hope the scenes with Radagast are extended for the extended edition. I felt like they cut out a lot there regarding the Witch-King of Angmar that Gandalf was supposed to expand upon.
 
With every line Radagast had in this film, I was like. "Yes, Radagast (and Peter Jackson + writing team), duh, we know that."
 
I want a Tolkien universe movie with Radagast in the leading role...One of his own adventures maybe? Like Tolkien extended universe...
 
Really, I have erased his lines from my memory, but it was really like "bananas are yellow", "the sky is blue" or "the night is dark".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top