Tolkien general thread -

[Capsaicin Addict]

The Lord of the Rings isn't bad, though it has script flaws -- it's even lampshaded when Frodo and Sam are in Osgiliath and Sam says 'I don't think we're supposed to be here'. No shit, Sam, in the books you never went anywhere near Osgiliath!

The Hobbit adaptation, though... hoo boy. That was so patchy it made my head hurt. I wanted to like it, really -- Richard Armitage's Thorin had a kind of 'grenade with the pin pulled' vibe that was intense. But damn, did they pad the shit out of that into three movies.

 

[Local Fed]

The Hobbit movies always threw me off mostly due to the obscene amount of CGI. I know that there was plenty in the LOTR movies (especially in RoTK), but The Hobbit movies were just crazy. It felt like it was too rushed and everything, and there wasn't nearly as much love and care put into them as there was for the LOTR trilogy.

 

[Boston Brand]

The wokies have wanted to wreck LOTR and Tolkien for a while now.

I know people are probably tired of me trashing the modern state of publishing and SFWA, but they have been sniping at Tolkien for a simple reason.

It doesn't matter how many token authors get book deals, work to drive male and conservative authors from the field, toss as many awards and as much marketing ar thier books as they like...

It doesn't mean a damn thing since thier books don't sell. They can crank out all the woke crap spec fiction they want, but they can't force audiences to buy it.

Which is why they loathe Tolkien so much... they're still getting thier asses kicked by an author whose been dead for over 50 years now. Paperbacks of any single one of his books probably sell more copies in a given month than every Hugo nominee of the past five years COMBINED.

They can't beat Tolkien, and they sure as shit can't outwrite him. So they want to destroy him.

 

[whitepumpkin]

I think LOTR is the only property where I completely get those who don't like the movies and don't mind at all, because it can be extremely jarring when you compare them to the books and how much richer and deeper the source material is. Yet I still enjoy the movies, even on rewatches, because, well, they're pretty good for an entertainment standpoint. I think it's nice to have both sides so you can be critical of the movie property and highlight just how brilliant Tolkien is, but you can also celebrate what they did right and enjoy what they brought. The music, the special effects and miniatures, the actors, etc.

I find it a nice balance tbh, and enjoy the discussions a lot when it comes up because it's interesting to see where the movies failed for the book fans, or where they went right. And I tend to agree with a lot of the points - especially with Faramir. But it doesn't diminish my enjoyment that someone else doesn't like them, because I know at the end of the day we'll still both love the books.

Of course, none of this applies to the Hobbit movies for me, because those were just... bad.

Which is why they loathe Tolkien so much... they're still getting thier asses kicked by an author whose been dead for over 50 years now. Paperbacks of any single one of his books probably sell more copies in a given month than every Hugo nominee of the past five years COMBINED.

They can't beat Tolkien, and they sure as shit can't outwrite him. So they want to destroy him.

I know there's a Consoomerism thread on the farms for those who blindly buy products from a company, but I'll admit I am one for Tolkien. They announced this year that "HarperCollins is to release a brand new edition of The Lord of the Rings featuring, for the first time since its publication in 1954, paintings, drawings and sketches by J R R Tolkien", and I am buying it for myself for Christmas because I enjoy the books that much and I want to see Tolkien's artwork. It's exciting. Not to mention, this is the only fantasy book I plan to buy this year because of exactly what @Boston Brand has pointed out.

There is very little new fantasy that comes out that isn't either wokeshit, poorly written, or just plain bad. The more authors get angry that I would rather put my money towards a new edition of LOTR, the more it makes me want to do so, because I would rather support a property made in the 1940s than given them a single dime for their blandshit wokefest starring Joggers, Trannies, Racism and paperthin worldbuilding. They will never be able to compare to his works because they simply don't put in the skill, effort, or intelligence to create something timeless.

That and they're incapable of thinking of anything but themselves and fame. The Hobbit reads as Tolkien's fantastic story for his children that anyone can enjoy, and the LOTR an epic continuation of a grander mythology that he wished to tell for the world. Modern Fantasy books read like the author is jacking themselves off because they "created" a fantasy land with such hard hitting topics as sexism and racism, and you need to applaud them for taking the mental energy to do so.

 

[Newman's Lovechild]

The music, the special effects and miniatures, the actors, etc.

I can agree with that. It's mainly the writers who need a kick in the pants.

I know there's a Consoomerism thread on the farms for those who blindly buy products from a company, but I'll admit I am one for Tolkien. They announced this year that "HarperCollins is to release a brand new edition of The Lord of the Rings featuring, for the first time since its publication in 1954, paintings, drawings and sketches by J R R Tolkien", and I am buying it for myself

I can agree with that!

 

[Slap47]

I can't watch the films after the first viewing. I saw the first two and only parts of the third, and that was enough for me. They could snip out Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel and a million songs. That's alright, and understandable, but they messed about with the personalities and meaning of so many of the characters that were left, and I can't accept it was for the expediency of cramming it all into a two hour runtime.

Also, there are a lot of changes that are too on the nose, or in your face. I get that it's fantasy, fantastical things are supposed to happen, but did Theoden need to be a literal marionette in Sarumans clutches, and did 'many lines of care were wiped away' need to be a literal transformation from Howard Hughes to Santa Claus? There are lots of other things like that, many of them small, petty things to mention, but they add up.

You could expect these things when you hand the adaptation of some of the most popular fiction in the world to someone best known for schlocky, junky zombie flicks. I say the LotR trilogy didn't succeed because of Peter Jackson, but despite him. It succeeded because of the base story underneath it, and the army of concept artists including longtime Tolkien illustrators and effects people put to work on it. Also, what do I know, but I'd contend that it's difficult to fuck up sweeping shots of majestic mountain ranges, especially if you throw enough money at them.
Look at what he's done since. The Hobbit trilogy is what is what happens when you pull Tolkien apart even more, and stuff even more Jackson into the gaps.

The irony is I only started reading the books because I heard there was a film trilogy in the works.

I understand where this position comes from, but most of Jackson's sins are simply because of the limitations of the medium of film. Long spells of people just walking and singing? Extremely nuanced characters near the end of the story? Lots of campfire storytelling, and exposition? Maybe with a mini series, but a 9 hour (extended) movie? Thats a bit generous. He capitalizes on films strengths very well. Jackson's fellowship is absolutely terrifying, and his Two Towers is glorious. His Return of the King was more triumphant than depressing, but I think that was intentional and probably for the best.

I'd say he only really drops the ball on the third film by fundamentally changing some story elements to add drama that are unnecessary, but some of it is understandable. He has to include both the Frodo & Sam parts alongside the Rohan/Gondor parts without making the prior's parts boring in comparison. In a movie like this everything should be happening at around the same time . Switching from some glorious battle to them struggling to climb a cliff isn't really that interesting. Them going to Osgiliath is silly, but it serves the role of showing whats up with Gondor, and is more than them just walking and seeing cool statues. The books shift from one theater to the next by the book. Movies can't do that.

Even with the Steward I see the logic. There is no time. May as well just go all in and make him a "bad King" archetype to emphasize that Gondor is leaderless.

The wokies have wanted to wreck LOTR and Tolkien for a while now.

I know people are probably tired of me trashing the modern state of publishing and SFWA, but they have been sniping at Tolkien for a simple reason.

It doesn't matter how many token authors get book deals, work to drive male and conservative authors from the field, toss as many awards and as much marketing ar thier books as they like...

It doesn't mean a damn thing since thier books don't sell. They can crank out all the woke crap spec fiction they want, but they can't force audiences to buy it.

Which is why they loathe Tolkien so much... they're still getting thier asses kicked by an author whose been dead for over 50 years now. Paperbacks of any single one of his books probably sell more copies in a given month than every Hugo nominee of the past five years COMBINED.

They can't beat Tolkien, and they sure as shit can't outwrite him. So they want to destroy him.

Its kinda funny. The New York Times list is basically just 10k books and they act like this is the end all and be all. Meanwhile people still walk into the store and pick up 5 copies of Tolkien.