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

Black Wizard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Life is not one big fairytale either.

Edit: I agree that it is doomy story but the Silmarillion account leaves out the greater part of the tale. According to the Tolkien Estate ".. approximately 75% of the actual story appears in interrupted form in Unfinished Tales. Also, a brief version of the tale can be found in The Silmarillion and there are variations of parts of the story and references to it throughout the History of Middle-earth series, and most notably in vols. II, III, IV, V, and XI."

Some more from the Tolkien State (more here: http://www.tolkienestate.com/faq/ )

Is there any point reading this book if I've already read Unfinished Tales / The Lays of Beleriand / etc. ?
This would have to be up to you. If you have read any or all of the above works, there may be little to surprise you in the actual storyline. You will however be reading a stand-alone version of the tale, constructed with the reader's pleasure in mind, rather than to give a precise and analytical explanation of how the story evolved, which is the approach adopted by The History of Middle-earth. As such, you may find that the flow of the story brings new pleasure and insight to your reading.

What is the importance of the tale of the children of Húrin in JRR Tolkien's writings ?
The tale was of great personal importance to the author, and probably one of the main springboards for his entire Legendarium. He worked at the tale all through his life, returning to it again and again, and it was a source of great frustration to him that he never managed to complete it.
It is a story of Middle-earth in an altogether different literary mode than The Lord of the Rings, taking place in a different time. But it also stands out from other tales of the First Age in its much greater elaboration, and in its study of character. We believe it to be a work of great emotional power and tragic interest in its own right.
 
Well yes it's depressing but that doesn't make it a bad story... I think that as a movie it would work... Or the tale of Tuor and the fall of Gondolin.

EDIT: Forostar, I was reading the Unfinished tales and saw a map of Númenor... Is your forum name based in that region of Númenor, the Forostar?
 
Before reading the books? :down: No, it's no big deal, but I don't think I could enjoy reading the books so much for the first time after I'd already learned the main plot from the films. Besides the spoiling of the plot, I wouldn't have my own imagination when reading the books. Instead I'd have the film printed in my mind. :/

EDIT:
Plus: I am 100% sure you are very eager to see the films after you've read the books. But you could be less eager to read the books after seeing the films.
 
I saw The Fellowship of the Ring before I read the book, but that was just over then years ago. I had read the next two books before The Two Towers came out.
 
More arguments to not do this, Sixes: you have not even finished The Hobbit. You know about a third of the main plot. So at least: read that book before you're making the chaos complete. :)
 
SixesAlltheway said:
I read that the 3D version/3D glasses made people sea sick, a lot of people had complained, advised against it. It made the news here :wtf:
Click to expand...

I saw it in 3-D... no see sickness, it was fine. It was.... meh. Spent most of the movie thinking, "I don't remember that in the book..." Now, I haven't read it since high school, but the movie confused me so much I bought a new copy and I'm rereading it lol.
 
I just came back from the Hobbit.. First movie even in 3D, and first time in cinema since 2006..

Hmmm, it was like I had Forostar on my right and Perun on my left, maybe Perun won this time.. While I enjoyed a lot the effects and generally the time I had was good, yet I found the movie weak. I haven't read the book but it was obvious that Jackson took it to the limit trying to make 3x3 hours movies.

Also the story line is far less interesting that The Lord of the Rings.. And there are some differences with LOTR trilogy, if I remember well, Bilbo took in a different moment the Ring.

No surprises. This can resume how I felt. One King struggling to take back his kingdom, one big bad guy that will appear probably in the 2nd film and will die in the 3rd, one item that turned the ancient king sick, one fellowship, Bilbo is separated from the fellow ship passes through a mini divine comedy and finds them again, bad guys that are killed immediatelly, good guys that don't even get injured, but unlike LOTR, there is no interest, only a loose story -what is the relation of the dragon and the Orcs or the Necromancer and the stone, I didn't realise in 3 hours.

Why the dwarfs lost their country, what this had to do with that stone and the dragon, I should be able to get a clue.
Yet I can't say it was a waste of time, all those effects and 3D and all were kind of fun.
 
The story line is less interesting but it also looks like you don't understand it. Is that because you don't know the book?

______no5 said:
Yet I can't say it was a waste of time, all those effects and 3D and all were kind of fun.
Click to expand...
What about the humour? Lots of it, I quite liked that. :)
 
I think comparing The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings is unfair. Yes, it's a prequel but just by checking the books you can paint the scene for yourself. Lord of the Rings is a trilogy while The Hobbit is a single book. The fact that Peter Jackson decided to turn it into a trilogy doesn't change this fact and for me, it's no surprise that the story line is less interesting.

I'm pretty good in knowledge of Middle-Earth but I haven't actually read the books. Planning to do so, though.
 
Forostar said:
The story line is less interesting but it also looks like you don't understand it. Is that because you don't know the book?
Click to expand...

This is a flaw if you ask me, in 3 hours I should be able to understand better.. There are things that happen out of the blue, like:

Why the magician choose especially Bilbo for the job.
Why the magician helps the dwarfs.
What is exactly -if any- the urge for the dwarfs to take back their land.
Where are living the rest of dwarfs except those 13.
In that battle that Orc lost his hand, why the dwarfs were fighting with Orcs in the first place?? What even Orcs have to do with the dragon, the taken mountain, Necromancer and everything??

In LOTR there was a clear urge, a reason and it was clearly understood from the beginning why things go that way.. Here everything seems pointless and loose. Still a nice watch though, but levels below LOTR.

Forostar said:
What about the humour? Lots of it, I quite liked that. :)
Click to expand...

He he, yes there were some moments, I liked the mushroom quote a lot ;)
 
You have not read the book, so you miss background, but if you claim to have understood LOTR then The Hobbit shouldn't exactly be rocket science. The Hobbit happened before LOTR. Keep that in mind. The intro of the film explained most things you're asking now. Also Gandalf tells about himself and what he his afraid of.

I'll try to get deeper into your questions.
Why the magician choose especially Bilbo for the job.
Gandalf wanted a small person which wouldn't attract too much attention. He thinks Bilbo is the right one. He thinks he has hidden qualities which will be revealed during the adventure. Also, Gandalf knew the roots of Bilbo. The film mentions Bandobras "Bullroarer" Took (known for his exceptionally large stature for a Hobbit; he stood 4' 5" and could ride a horse), who led the defence against the orcs of Mt. Gram led by Golfimbul at the Battle of Greenfields. He is said to have knocked Golfimbul's head off with a blow from his club and sent it flying into a rabbit hole, and is thus credited with inventing the sport of golf.
Why the magician helps the dwarfs.
Gandalf should be seen as one of the "assistents" (Maiar) of the Gods (Valar) who created the world and all folk dwelling in it. One of the Gods (Morgoth) rebelled and he did all kinds of evil stuff, creating evil creatures, one of the worst was Sauron. When the Valar decided to send the order of the Wizards to Middle-earth in order to counsel and assist all those who opposed Sauron, Gandalf was proposed. So this is the basis of everything Gandalf does.

Smaug was a threat (I think the film mentioned the fear of Smaug coming in Gandalf's hands). Gandalf had for some time foreseen the coming war with Sauron, and knew that the North (The Hobbit's story is in the northern part of Middle-earth) was especially vulnerable. If Rivendell were to be attacked, the dragon Smaug could cause great devastation. He persuaded Thorin that he could help him regain his lost territory of Erebor from Smaug, and so the quest was born.
What is exactly -if any- the urge for the dwarfs to take back their land.
Asides from the Dwarves being very obsessed by jewels and gold, but naturally they are bitter (not all, but especially Thorin) that they have lost their kingdom.
Where are living the rest of dwarfs except those 13.
At this point you've seen in the film that the Dwarves were forced to leave Erebor (The Lonely Mountain). Later in the next films, you'll see more Dwarves, but I do not wish to spoil too much yet.

There are various mountain ranges where they had lived (e.g. Moria which can be seen in LOTR)). If you're interested in this, I'd advice you to read The Silmarillion. It tells about the beginnings of Middle-earth (and Arda) and of all the races who came to live in it. It tells about their migrations and individual adventures and -in some cases- life stories. I personally feel that the different lands attribute a lot to the happenings in the (and the power of the) stories of Tolkien.
In that battle that Orc lost his hand, why the dwarfs were fighting with Orcs in the first place?? What even Orcs have to do with the dragon, the taken mountain, Necromancer and everything??
The Dwarves have been fighting with the Orcs for a long time already. Dwarves live in and under mountains, and Orcs (eventually under the ultimate command of Sauron) try to get rid of them. The Silmarillion also explains this much more.
You know what? I think this film made you curious to find out more, to make the picture bigger (or at least clearer) and there's nothing wrong with that. You have an urge to understand the scope of Tolkien's world better, but unfortunately this cannot be explained in one film. This film (and book) represents a relatively small time frame, but at the same time, it is connected well to LOTR, and thus the events happening in it are significant.

Please don't hesitate to ask more, but also don't forget that the next films might provide more insight, and naturally the books!

I have one question to you about something I didn't understand. Could you explain what you mean here:
______no5 said:
And there are some differences with LOTR trilogy, if I remember well, Bilbo took in a different moment the Ring.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
______no5 said:
In that battle that Orc lost his hand
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't understand this particular battle either. I am not sure which one it is (even if it was mentioned in the film, I must have forgotten it). Maybe Sebas-Hero1995 or someone else knows?

And here the most ridiculous thing of the Hobbit film:
At some point Elrond takes the map, and says something about the moonletters in this vein:
"Hey, these can only be read at this specific moment"

*party moves outside*

Elrond says:
"Hey, we're lucky, it happens to be this specific moment right now!".
This certainly wasn't as Monty Pythonish in the book.
 
Forostar you are awesome (ok I knew that already)!!
You took the time to explain all these, man I appreciate that.

Ok it's clearer now.
About the choice of Bilbo
I've understood that the Magician was needing a Hobbit, due to the smell of his feet or something like this and his size of course, also that he knew Bilbo's ancestor, but I thought there was a better reason for that choice.. Why him and not some other Hobbit. And there is a hole here: Since they were needing a Hobbit why they left the next morning without converting another one?? They left while he was sleeping, to go where?? Supposedly they should have him or another Hobbit with them. Does not make sense..

Story-line wise I think there should be a better reason for the dwarves' urge, but at least it's explainable, as you've shown me.

By the way, this beautiful woman with whom the Magician has a mind-communication, they seem to have a secret relation -like being lovers in the past or something..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top