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

Cornfed Hick said:
I saw it in non-3D, 24 frame rate, large screen. I recommend that experience. No nausea, no distractions. There are probably some scenes that would have looked cool in 3D, but I've found that colors are not as vibrant when wearing the 3D glasses, which are darkened.
Click to expand...

That absolutely is true. I saw the film in 3D, 48 frame rate first then saw it in 2D, 24 frame rate for a second time. Huge difference in colours, though action scenes are more fascinating in 3D.
 
I watched it the first 2 times in 2D, then I watched it in 3D 48 frames. I liked the 48 frames, it looked as a huge blu-ray but in a good way
 
Watched it last night with the family.
Entertaining, fun and not too long at all.
Freeman was excellent as Bilbo. Serkis/Gollum again amazing.
 
I saw it on Wednesday afternoon and really enjoyed it. :)

There were a couple of little boys in the cinema who clearly weren't interested in the film at all. At one point they both disappeared off to the toilet for ages and after their mothers had gone to fetch them they could barely sit still. Those women should be banned from taking children into the cinema.
 
I just came home from watching The Hobbit in 2D. Great film! The action scenes do not disappoint! I really have to read the books now.
 
Mmmmh I think that if you put together LOTR, the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, the Children of Húrin and the History of Middle-Earth books, you get waaaaaay more pages than the Bible...
 
No, I'd say it's too much revealing, too soon. I'd say this order:

The Hobbit
The Lord of the Rings
The Silmarillion


These are the three essentials. You start with an adventure which becomes more epic and darker in LOTR.
Then you'll dive into The Silmarillion which is about the creation of Middle Earth and its races, and stories of early eras. A true work of mythology.

Then the rest.
 
Aren't the History of Middle-Earth books about how the book was written and some analysis by Christopher? I'm not interested in reading them.

I don't think it's actually necessary to read The Hobbit first by the way. It is, of course, chronologically before The Lord of the Rings but the important stuff in The Hobbit is mentioned in LOTR anyway.
 
Black Wizard said:
Aren't the History of Middle-Earth books about how the book was written and some analysis by Christopher? I'm not interested in reading them.
Click to expand...
Might be that. Can still be interesting but I'd never read first.
Black Wizard said:
I don't think it's actually necessary to read The Hobbit first by the way. It is, of course, chronologically before The Lord of the Rings but the important stuff in The Hobbit is mentioned in LOTR anyway.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe not absolutely necessary but I wouldn't skip it. It's a good foundation, a set-up so to speak. It's an entertaining read and it's more logical to read it before rather than after it. Then again, I can't speak from an other experience. Also, if one has seen the film of The Hobbit, don't expect the book will be too predictable because the film is different in quite some ways.
 
Just bought The Unfinished Tales, and I believe that the right way of reading the books is : The Hobbit, LOTR, Silmarillion, the rest. Maybe The Children of Húrin before the Silmarillion, since it already is in the Silmarillion but in a smaller and compressed version.
 
I don't see the point in reading The Children of Hurin. The story has already been told in The Silmarillion and it's pretty damn bleak and depressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top