The Lord of the Rings General Thread

Now, there must be some people out there who like (or even LOVE) "the Lord of the Rings". I do myself, both PJs films and the books. I thought it would be good to have a general thread where lovers or even haters of LOTR could throw their ideas around. Feel free to say anything in support of LOTR, or reasons why you don't like it. I must say though, RESPECT OTHER PEOPLES VIEWS. Well, enjoy!

Moved to the Bibliotheca-Valus

I liked the first film of LotR very much: it was new and fresh. I bought the books after I had seen the film, and it really made me a 'LotR-lover'. However, as new movies came out, and the big masses became more and more interested I lost my interest, it was *used* and *overused* or *abused*.

i DONT like lLOTR

Originally Posted by Spartacus_GR

i DONT like lLOTR

As a long term fan of the book, I had some problems with the movies. That said, I've watched the Extended Edition DVDs many times. It's hard not to like them, given that they are based on such an excellent story.

You can count me as a fan.

After all, what guy wouldn't want to be Aragorn? Liv Tyler aside; he's one of cinema's coolest heroes.

Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg

As a long term fan of the book, I had some problems with the movies. That said, I've watched the Extended Edition DVDs many times. It's hard not to like them, given that they are based on such an excellent story.

You can count me as a fan.

After all, what guy wouldn't want to be Aragorn? Liv Tyler aside; he's one of cinema's coolest heroes.

I first read LOTR in 1956. I was eight years old, and I read the trilogy, and followed it with The Hobbit. Since then, I've probably read the books about twenty times. I also have The Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales of JRR Tolkien. These are great books.

If I was Aragorn, I would have made a lifelong thing of it with Eowyn. In a sense, I did. At 20, my wife was a close copy of the lady who played her in the movies, down to the little cleft in her chin.

My favorite character in the trilogy is Boromir. Of all of Tolkien's characters, he is the most human. Sean Bean really captured the character perfectly.

In my opinion, Tolkien's lifework is a masterpiece, capturing perfectly the eternal struggle between good and evil, and demonstrating that there are elements of both in all living beings.

By the way, my latest and last purchase of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is the Folio Edition, London. Beautifully-bound and printed ...

Books are better than those movies

the books are classics, brilliant in every way bar one... i've always found tolkien to be a little over descriptive sometimes... you get bored of reading about intrioate carvings and want to find out what happens next, but i still love LOTR

the films were good, actually, they were amazing. translating LOTR to screen is an incredible feat, and that PJ managed to stay as true to the books as he did he excellent given how far other book/film adaptions stray

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

the books are classics, brilliant in every way bar one... i've always found tolkien to be a little over descriptive sometimes... you get bored of reading about intrioate carvings and want to find out what happens next, but i still love LOTR

The exhaustive descriptions are exactly what turned me into a fan of J.R.R's writing. I've been a fan since I was eleven (the first time I read The Silmarillion) and i've been reading LOTR almost once a year every year since then. Yeap, geekish, I know.

LOTR is alright, but it's extremely overrated.

Originally Posted by Manji

The exhaustive descriptions are exactly what turned me into a fan of J.R.R's writing. I've been a fan since I was eleven (the first time I read The Silmarillion) and i've been reading LOTR almost once a year every year since then. Yeap, geekish, I know.

Same here. I was around the same age when I first read Tolkien. I remember having a dictionary beside my bed at night when I read the Silmarillion :laughing: The way he went into such detail of the simplest of things really made the books come alive imo, I love 'em to this day.

As far as the movies go what did we all expect them to be? To make the LOTR into a movie was madness to begin with, but PJ did an admiral job doing so. Otherwise the movies would each be 9+ hours long, I'd sit through 'em...but I doubt the majority of others would lol. I say bring on The Hobbit!

It can't be overrated (IMHO) because it's a book and hence it's a matter of personal opinion. It's like saying the Bible, or the latest book by Terry Pratchett or any other book for that matter is overrated, it's a matter of taste.

i love the films and the books but the advantage of the films i can be busy skinning and have the film running haha

I remember talking with a friend of mine of is a book fan too and discussing how cool it would be for someone to make a movie out of LOTR but how it would be impossible.
I appreciated the movies but the books are much better.
Also, in my honest opinion, to make THe Silmarillion, PJ would need three movies too...

How the hell can you read and understand the silmarillion at age 11? I read the Hobbit and the Trilogy, but when I tried reading the Silmarrillion I got bored and confused because their is so much to remember. I think that if you aren't a die-hard tolkien fan but liked the lord of the rings, the book of Unfinished Tales is the only other Middle Earth book worth reading.

"the movies would each be 9+ hours long, I'd sit through 'em...but I doubt the majority of others would lol. I say bring on The Hobbit!"
I agree! The Hobbit would be better than all the other 3 put together. The book isn't as good, but if PJ "adulted it up a bit" it would be so cool. The Dwarves were severely underrepresented
in LOTR, and since they're the best race AND there are about 500 in "the Hobbit", it would be good to round off the image of Middle-Earth PJ did such a good jib bringing to life.

I had to dig up this thread due to the numerous mentionings of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies in various threads.

Now, I understand that people can like the movies. Truth be told, I find them quite enjoyable as long as I'm fast-forwarding to the actiony bits. But a lot of people consider them to be "best movies evaaarr!"

I mean, Return of the King was voted #10 on IMDb's top 250 list. Number 10! It was voted for over movies like Blade Runner, Aliens, Das Boot, Platoon and about just about every single decent movie made.

Now, this isn't just a fanboy of the book simply raging about Peter Jackson's butchery of a favored story. This is a critic of movies utterly and completely lost as to how these movies could be so well liked.

I am willing to admit, the films do have some things going for them. Number one being the art of the film. Everything from set design to costumes and makeup is excellent. Secondly, the film features some good actors: Sir Ian McKellen and Holm, Sean Bean, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis and Brad Dourif all play their roles well in the films. Sean Bean in particular made me cry at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring.

But there the positives end and the negatives pile up and just keep piling up. Elijah Wood is a big one, though it can't all be blamed on him. After all, it wasn't EW that wrote Frodo in the script as a complete and utterly useless bag of Hobbit lungs that screams pubescently in every third scene.

Apparently, stupidity is funny, therefore the Hobbits dole it out in suitably Hobbity (read: excessive) portions. And what the hell, Dwarves look a little like Hobbits so let's make Gimli a moron too. Poor John Rhys-Davies.

In all three movies, crucial bits of information of the plot are left out or edited for reasons that remain unknown or are shoddily explained in a senseless manner in the bonus features interviews. For example: (Two Towers)how did those thirty-odd Rohirrim horsemen Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli meet swell into an army of several thousand in the course of just a few scenes? (Return of the King) Why was the army of the dead not used to invade Mordor? These are not just quabbles a fan of the book has with the movies; these are gaping plot holes.

Why, oh why, do you rate these heaping piles of (admittedly nice-looking) shyte so high?

I could go in depth with complaints about deviations from the books, but won't bother here. I would just like a little feedback before I continue any ranting.

Just got done watching the extended editions over the course of last week and I have to say that if you want to see the movie you must watch those. They are almost like the books, save for a few things and one big one, Saruman is not killed! I wanted to see the hobbit battle! Guess they couldn't find that many midgets, and didn't want to cg them.

On the subject of the Simillirion or however you spell it, that book was waaaay to boring to me. " Gafling was the son of Gafar, who was the son of King blah blah blah" it just kept going on, although I do have a burning desire to know the history of the LOTR universe. A quick ? for those who did read it, is Morgoth the guy who commanded Sauron and who the Balrogs served? Did he die?

Morgoth was one of the Valar, kinda like a Archangel or a God.
Sauron was one of the Maiar, kinda like a Angel or a demi-god.

Yes, Sauron was originally a good guy who became more and more attracted to Morgoth and eventually served him. When Morgoth was destroyed Sauron hid and later resurfaced not as his henchman but has the new Dark Lord.

Balrogs were originally Maiar like Sauron; they are the equivalent of "fallen angels" who became corrupted like Sauron and joined Morgoth (who, has you might have reasoned by now, is the equivalent of Satan).

By the way, if you are wondering, Saruman, Gandalf and other wizards not named are also Maiar though in human shape.

This is the most epic bump I think I've ever seen.

I've reread LOTR and The Hobbit countless times, but I've never read any othe Tolkien works. Best place to start?