OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

Well, I just finished the 3rd book, again. I'm not going to put any major spoilers in, just a minor one to whet your appetite with lots of warning (and space) if you don't want to read it, it really doesn't give anything away.
I'm going to try not to ramble, I'm only active in one or two forums but I feel like making a recommendation:

Read the books. If you read them over 10 years ago, especially if you, like me, were a teenager, do yourself a huge favor and read the books.

As an adult, with a bit more patience, it is AMAZING how much I missed. Banter, scenery, emotion. I read the books 3 times all the way through as a teenager but now, in my mid thirtys, there is so much more that I just didn't pick up on.

If you never read them but liked the movie, start with the second book, I wouldn't want you to get distracted reading what you already saw and stop before the second book.

If you saw the "cartoon"... for GOD'S sake don't bring it up to me, it makes my left eye twitch when people talk about it and say things like: "The Lord of the Rings? Oh yea, I saw that cartoon." *must control fist of death*

You will like the books better than the next two movies. If you see the movies without reading the books, you may never and you will be missing the best fantasy books ever written.

The second book will be hard to start because he uses "old english" heavily. But before the middle of the second book you understand it well and don't notice any more.

The character development is incredible. the converstations are... for lack of a better word, uplifting. There are scenes where I forgot to breathe for paragraphs at a time, and I had to put the third book down on the plane (the seige of Minas Tirith), because I was going to start crying like a baby...

If you want to escape, there is no better book to escape too. Read it slowly, don't rush.

The first movie was AWESOME but they had to leave out so much. The third book especially, will be missing SO much in the movie, the only way they could get it all is make it 6 hours long. Don't rob yourself, take it all, read the books, be uplifted.

Minor spoiler regarding the Lord of the Nazgul, I'll stop just before I reveal anything, the part that this is the beginning of, is the BEST 4 pages in all 3 books. When you get to these paragraphs in the book, take a deep breath..... you might need it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Upon it sat a shape, black-mantled, huge and threatening. A crown of steel he bore, but between rim and robe naught was there to see, save only a deadly gleam of eyes: the Lord of the Nazul. To the air he had returned, summoning his steed ere the darkness failed, and now he was come again, bringing ruin, turning hope to despair, and victory to death. A great black mace he weilded.

But Theoden was not utterly forsaken. The knights of his house lay slain about him, or else mastered by the madness of their steeds were borne far away. The one stood there still: Dernhelm the young, faithful beyond fear; and he wept, for he had loved his lord as a father. Right through the charge Merry had been borne unharmed behind him, until the Shadow came; and then Windfola had thrown them in his terror, and now ran wild upon the plain. Merry crawled on all fours like a dazed beast, and such a horror was on him that he was blind and sick.

'King's man! King's man!' his heart cried within him. 'You must stay by him. As a father you shall be to me, you said'. But his will made no answer, and his body shook. He dared not open his eyes or look up.

Then out of the blackness in his mind he thought that he heard Dernhelm speaking; yet now the voice seemed strange, recalling some other voice that he had known.

'Begon, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!'

A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of Lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.'

A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it if I may.'

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

[ 23 April 2002: Message edited by: Iron Giant ]</p>

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

I agree that rereading the trilogy is almost mandatory and a must read for any fantasy appreciaters out there. I read the trilogoy twice in my teens, again in my thirties, and reread it again when I heard they were going to make a movie (wanted the story fresh on my mind when I went to see the movie). The olde english in the trilogy is not as bad as in the Silmarillion however and not that hard to understand.

PS You will notice the quote in my sig?

[ 23 April 2002: Message edited by: Gandalph ]</p>

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

I am afraid to reread the trilogy again before I have seen all the movies.

I kinda want to wait so that the story isn't so fresh on my mind; that the movies may seem more new to me than they really are.

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

I've just finished reading the trilogy for the first time. I can't wait for the next two movies...I'm sure they're easily going to top the first.

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

Although the first movie cut some corners and took some liberties with characterizations, I found it to true to the flavor of the novel. It added significantly to the grandeur of the canvas upon which Tolkien painted the minutiae of his tale. In my mind's eye I had seen Moria as a kind of Middle Earth Carlsbad Cavern of dwarf-hewn columns and cyclopean halls. The movie reinforced that but also added the dank atmosphere of a mausoleum that was missing. I reread the first book after enjoying the movie 3 times. I could hear the score from the film as I read....

True, there will be truists to the novels that will rail about the shortcuts (such as how Bill the horse was not fleshed out enough as a character,) forgetting that an epic of this kind is nearly impossible to reproduce on film. A compromise is usually the best one could hope for. As far as they go I'm happy with this particular compromise and I await it's release on DVD. I've heard rumors that there will be 2 releases: the August release without the extra 30 minutes of footage but with other features, and a September release with the additional footage. Can anyone confirm this? Either way, I'd opt for the widescreen Version.

[ 23 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]</p>

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

I agree with everything Wr8th just said, but I think there would have been enough hardcore Tolkien nuts to justify (and pay for) a double- length epic arse- number, with a &gt;6 hour film for each book in the trilogy. They might just have got it all in then. If they really wanted they probably could have then edited a "light" Version of the film from that for the sane people in the audience.

They would have got their money back on DVD box sets alone.


Do we have anyone bothered about spoilers for this story? Is there anyone here who hasn't seen / read it? Just in case we do:

****minor spoiler coming up*****

One thing they did change from book &gt; film which I didn't like was the new representation of Saruman. In the book he wanted the power or the Rings for himself. In the film he was just a puppet of Sauron. I don't really see how this made the film any shorter, and it just serves to dumb-down the plot IMHO.


****Spoiler Ends*****


Other than that, great film, but only as an atmospheric /visual aid to the book.

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

You might be right in your general estimatation of the JRRT aficionados, but this film was meant to appeal to a wider audience. It's not just the miniature's paintin', tabletop gamin' geeks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif that it means to appeal to, but to a generation weaned and raised on Pokemon and Power Rangers...

I previewed the movie with friends because of it's PG-13 rating. After being enthralled by it, I figured it was okay for my 6 year-olds to see. They had seen more gore and violence in "Last of the Mohicans" and "Gettysburg" (or in the 9/11 news coverage of where their Mommy worked for that matter). The compelling story of the quest and shared dangers of the Fellowship, of loss and determination and of devotion to kith and kin overshadowed any politically correct interpretation of the "evils of sorcery" and the "undermining influence" of violence.

My kids (like myself) will probably watch it over and over and over again....

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

I too love the movie and found that it did for the most part do a good job translating to the big screen. There are a couple of things that bothered me in that they completly changed the nature of the plot. They are:
1:In the book the hobbits Sam,Merry and Pippin plan for years to go with Frodo on his trip. They are all very close friends with Frodo being almost a father like figure. He is much older than the other three. In the Movie however, They are brought together in what can only be called an accident. What purpose did it serve to cahnge the plot so. Their relationship is so central to the story that to make it appear as an accident made no sense.
2:In the book it was Gandalf who insisted on going to Moria and it was Strider who did not want to go. But in the Movie Gandalf didn't want anything to do with Moria and insisted that they take another route. Again made no sense and changed the plot dramaticlly.

There are a few other issues but enough ranting. I loved the Movie all the same. Have seen it 3 times and can't wait to see the next one. Saw the trailer for two towers and it looks positively incredible.

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

Wr8th: Its Bill the pony, not a horse
Hobbits can't ride horses all that well

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>
but this film was meant to appeal to a wider audience.
<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but do you really think it acheived this? Sure it had some cool effects and some top fighty-fighty bits, but plot-wise the film was utterly inaccessible to anyone who doesn't already know the story.

The first time I went to see it there were about 10 of us, and only 4 or 5 of us had actually read the book. We all loved it although we had reservations about the changes.

The others came out grumbling about the length of it and saying things like "yeah, very pretty, but what was all that crap about the sword of this and the horn of that and the mountains of something or other, and what was the deal with those two beardy blokes and the girl in the floaty dress speaking Welsh, and..." etc etc etc.

My girlfriend actually fell asleep.

What I'm saying is, even though they shaved about a quarter of the plot off there was still far too much to be digested raw in 3 hours. Because of the depth of the story you have to go for either utter bastardisation to make it universally accessible, or painstaking pedantry to delight the Scary Tolkien Fanatics. I can't see the point in compromise, since it will lose appeal at both ends of the spectrum.

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dogscoff:


...but plot-wise the film was utterly inaccessible to anyone who doesn't already know the story.

<hr></blockquote>

My wife never read the story and was put off by how it was written (primarily the songs), but yet understood the premise of the story and how it unfolded in the film. Then again, she likes fantasy and horror and is more open to flights of the imagination.

I understand what you mean though... IMHO nowadays many folks are "imagination-challenged" a situation reinforced by being fed eye candy since birth without the need to conjure up their own imagery.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dogscoff:

I can't see the point in compromise, since it will lose appeal at both ends of the spectrum.

<hr></blockquote>

There are differing levels of compromise. Taken to the extreme, a compromise can water down the original article to the point that it is pleasing to no one. That apparently didn't happen here since it was appealing enough to the center of the spectrum to be able to amass millions in box-office revenues.

Personally, I wouldn't have minded if it were twice as long (although I would've needed to bring more food and a cushion or two) which is why I'll wait for the director's cut or anything that has added footage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

Here's what I did; went to see the movie, reread the book, and then went to see the movie again, to get a better idea of where the changes were made. Personally, I liked the movie a lot, the changes were (relatively) minor with the exception of the "Arwen to the rescue" part before the hobbits got to Rivendell. Eagerly await the next one.

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

Personally, I wouldn't have minded if it were twice as long (although I would've needed to bring more food and a cushion or two)

Wr8th, Xmas Eve 2001, myself, Mrs GT and a chum went and sat through LOTR 3 times. started on the morning matinee at 10 and left at about 20 Christmas Eve

My backside was tender as sin after that session, a 11 hour diet of popcorn, diet pepsi and 1 hotdog was enough to upset my gastric plumbing for quite a few days I can tell you

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

GT,

"You're a better man 'n me!"

[ 24 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]</p>

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

No I am not Wr8th, just one with stronger plumbing

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wr8th:
He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the Last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you! - Vince Klortho <hr></blockquote>

Janine Melnitz- "Mister Tully do you want some coffee?"

Louis Tully- "Do I?"

Egon Spengler- "Yes, have some."

Louis Tully- "Yes, have some."

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Love your signature http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Texfire

Re: OT - The Lord of the Rings, revisited.
 

Thanks Tex. GT's Last post prompted me to change it to it's current guise.

"...I can tell you" and the light bulb went on.

Oddly enough, I was thinking about the scene you just posted minutes before you did so.

Then there's the line aimed at academia:

...Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been in the private sector. They expect results.

[ 24 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]</p>