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

I also dislike Tom Bombadil in the books; my first attempt to read The Lord of the Rings was thwarted by his presence. He would have been almost impossible to do justice towards in the films.
 
Brigantium said:
Wasn't it supposed to be Legolas that the Hobbits met up prior to the stand-off at the ford with the Black Riders?
Click to expand...
Only according to the animated film from the seventies. That was wrong. As wrong as ridiculous as calling Saruman Aruman throughout most of that film. Glorfindel is the one who was ...
... sent by Lord Elrond to search for Frodo and his companions. He pursued some of the Nazgûl and drew them away from the Ford of Bruinen. He then found and led the company for days stopping only briefly to let the Hobbits rest. When the Nazgul approached again, Glorfindel put Frodo on his white horse Asfaloth, and bade the horse take Frodo to Rivendell. Asfaloth out ran the black horses of the Nazgûl and managed to cross the Ford of Bruinen which lead to Rivendell. A severely weakened Frodo, conscious but delirious due to the wound he was carrying from the Morgul Blade, turned back to defy the Riders who pleaded for him to come with them. The Nazgul entered the shallow ford but were there un-horsed and swept away by a torrent of enchanted water which guarded the entrance to Imladris charged with the power of the Half-elven and indeed by Gandalf the Grey. He later led the injured Frodo and the rest of the company safely to Rivendell.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The whole Tom Bombadil/Old Man Willow/Barrow downs sequence is one of my favourite parts of LOTR. Also important for the very essence of the book (forces of nature and all the stuff that Brigs already mentioned).
They also left out the Scouring of the Shire part, that's probably the most important for showing the book's ideas.
Glorfindel is of course an instance of connecting the present with the old world had been all but forgotten at the time, LOTR is full of those.

The old elven lord that died in the fall of Gondolin fighting a Balrog and returned from Halls of Mandos? Nah, give us more hi-speed chases with Vargs and stuff like that

Imagine a movie version of Crime and Punishment, that graphically shows the splitting of a head with an axe (in slow motion), and subsequent two hour crime story of a young and handsome detective trying to find the murderer, with an inevitable horse cart hi speed chase through the streets of St Petersburg, effectively removing all what the book is actually about, but visually stunning. That's the LOTR movie for me in a nutshell :p
 
frus said:
The whole Tom Bombadil/Old Man Willow/Barrow downs sequence is one of my favourite parts of LOTR. Also important for the very essence of the book (forces of nature and all the stuff that Brigs already mentioned).
They also left out the Scouring of the Shire part, that's probably the most important for showing the book's ideas.
Glorfindel is of course an instance of connecting the present with the old world had been all but forgotten at the time, LOTR is full of those.

The old elven lord that died in the fall of Gondolin fighting a Balrog and returned from Halls of Mandos? Nah, give us more hi-speed chases with Vargs and stuff like that

Imagine a movie version of Crime and Punishment, that graphically shows the splitting of a head with an axe (in slow motion), and subsequent two hour crime story of a young and handsome detective trying to find the murderer, with an inevitable horse cart hi speed chase through the streets of St Petersburg, effectively removing all what the book is actually about, but visually stunning. That's the LOTR movie for me in a nutshell :p
Click to expand...


Heh, also a surprisingly huge amount of priests and theologians I've met and read insist that LOTR is among the most fundamentally Catholic works in the whole 20th century. (Just as pretty much all of Tolkien's work - himself a devout Catholic). And yeah, it's there, it's indeed all there, yet very cleverly hidden and subtle. I read the book in completely different ways pre- and post-conversion.

The movies... are not.

Whatever @frus said.

I enjoy both, though. :D The films:

1. work in their own way - a lot of people who never read the book were nonetheless smitten with the movies and hold them in high regard. Their internal logic works on its own and it's not necessary to "go read the books" to explain glaring leaps of logic, faults and nonsense - at least if we include at least a bit of suspension of disbelief.

2. are an indeed beautiful "addition" and visualisation for people who have read the book. Of course some of the stuff is different, a lot of the motivations and subtle stories are gone, but it's beautiful anyway. I know the differences, yet I can't help but almost cry when I see a lot of the story in live action before me. And, of course, thanks to the movies we now have Shore's score, a wonderful companion to the book in its own way. When I now re-read the books, I often play the music belonging to particular scenes (or at least moods/races) in the background. Awesome!!! :rocker:
 
Last edited:
Another question. I* vividly remember Pippin farting when Gandalf tries to concentrate, when he thinks of the password before the Moria gate. I thought it was an extra (deleted?) scene on a DVD I own. Can't find it anymore.

I can't find any section of deleted scenes. Can't stand it.... who knows where to search?


* And three other persons, we are sure we saw it together.
 
frus said:
They also left out the Scouring of the Shire part, that's probably the most important for showing the book's ideas.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes, this is a part that I thought was a strong point of the books, and would also have worked well in a film....although it was already too long for yet another bit of plot. It was showing what the hobbits had become. Same goes for Bilbo v the Mirkwood spiders in The Hobbit. This was a defining moment for our budding burglar, but it was glossed over in the film, to make way for an elf plot that wasn't needed, and an overlong action barrel riders scene that was all a bit too Super Mario Bros for my liking.
 
Currently watching the final The Hobbit film. No Super Mario Bros, just an epic fest of drama and action and some of the best visuals ever. I love it! Still can't believe why this one isn't appreciated the most of the three. The differences have become smaller though, and the appreciation for these films has increased already.

7.9
7.9
7.4

I am pretty sure the IMDB grades were (much) lower when they came out, especially for the 3rd film (I remember some high 6). Faith in humanity restored.
 
Last edited:
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Why are you saying this? They're fucking horrible.
Click to expand...
Sorry, hater. I rather not wish to discuss Tolkien adaptions with you again. Just saying that most people "out there" like these, more then before.
I gave a very good explanation of the things I like about these films. If you are seriously interested into the opinion of someone who likes this, read again first.
 
Last edited:
Ugh... Sorry, I also think The Hobbits are horrible. I remember I still had hope after the first one, but the next two were reeeally bad. It's shocking to me that it's basically the same team who did LotR. The only positive thing I can think of right now is Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He was perfect. I also liked the design of some of the dwarves (not Thorin and the two young ones, though).
 
I'm on the fence with The Hobbit's to be honest; I did enjoy them for what they were but disnt like the portayal of the dwarves... then again I didnt like the portrayal of Gimli in LOTR as he was elenquent and wise in the books.
 
I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Made me draw parallels between Bilbo Baggins and Arthur Dent, which kind of works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top