J.R.R. Tolkien

I actually watched the Peter Jackson movies before reading the books. It was quite a jarring change! Tolkein really knew how to create his own world, and fill it with it's own unique lore that is rarely matched. The Hobbit has become a personal favorite of mine. I can't wait to see if the The Hobbit movie will stay true to it. I've seen how the 13 dwarves are going to look like (Fili and Kili are my favorites) and I'm really excited! I still need to read the Silmarillion though.

 

I like Tolkien's work. He really knows how to create worlds. The vast majority of other fantasy is crud in comparison; hate to say it but it's true.

 

Sadly, Tolkein has fallen from my favories with the advent of Pratchett. Both created a unique world, but the latter created a world that I like quie a bit more.

In the end, all that matters is that we have ponies, and he does not. Someone fix this?

 

One thing I love about Tolkien's work is that he actually made some languages. I, being a linguist/conlanger (google it), quite like that.

 

I was just watching The Fellowship of the Rings last night, too! Which I also happen to be reading at the moment as well. These are probably the best movies made of books! Usually if fails so bad. It's kind of too bad they couldn't put everything from the book into the movie - but the only part that really kind of bugs me is how quick they made Frodo leaving Hobbiton.

Funny story about J. R. R. Tolkien: When his books were going to be published, he was told they'd have to go by the editor for a check. Tolkien, who was a Professor of the English Language at Oxford, just sort of glared, and said something along the lines of "I've forgotten more than your editor knows about the English language." Probably true, too.

 

I got bored with the Hobbit rather quickly, but the others were neat.

 

The first time I read The Lord of the Rings, I thought that it was boring and dry and that the movies were better. I went around saying that I read the series and that it was dry as toast. Then, I read them again, but slowly. If you take the time to enjoy a book like that, it brings out a whole new dimension of things and places. His imagery is beautiful and vivid and his plot is well paced. I realized that I loved the books! Now I am forced to hunt them down and read them again!




EDIT: Read Farmer Giles of Ham! It is one of my favorite books!

 

^Need. Brooks. Thread. Noaw!

I read lotr at a really young age, it is indeed an epic and tolkien undoubtedly revolutionized the world of fantasy fiction. May he rest in peace.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

 

I keep attempting to read a battered copy of both the Hobbit and the LOTR, but I never get further than around a hundred pages. If I had a nice clean copy, I'd definitely work through them, and then I'll be back to shed my opinion.

 

I'm still angry at how bad the films scripts were. Jackson should not have allowed for changing character sexes, types or personalities. The story could have been cut down for time but changing key moments of Middle-Earth history just to be gender neutral is unforgivable. There were already strong and powerful female characters that fit naturally in the story as Tolkien himself place them there. Arwen was never a fighter and she sure as hell didn't rescue Frodo and cross the river with him and call the flood that washed the black riders away. The moment that happened I knew the movies would fail. The only thing correct about them was the armor and art and just about all the visual stuff. That was all spot on but the story was a horrible rape of Tolkiens masterpiece.

 

I was a tad raged too when I saw that. However, it was still better than most epics translated into movies. I'm hoping The Hobbit is actually more faithful to the books than the LotR trilogy. We'll see next year though

 

Meh, I thought the movies were fine, The only problems I had were:

1. Gimli as comic relief. It was fine in short doses but they overdid it.

2. The Army of the Dead= Deus Ex Machina (I can't recall how it went in the books)

3. Cutting out Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron in the Return of the King (averted since I saw the Extended editions)

 

The Army of the Dead thing was reluctance on Jackson's end. He didn't want them in there at all so honestly, I don't think he cared too much how it was done. This was simply lazy writing.

 

I think that the stripping of Saruman's powers was my favorite part of the book series...I guess it was well written and that I felt Saruman deserved what he got. I saw the extended edition and didn't like how the dealt with Saruman because in the books, he wasn't killed...at least I don't think he was. I remember reading the part with Sharku in the final book. I suppose I can understand why they cut that from the movie, but I can't help but feel vaguely deprived.

I think on the whole that the movies could have been farther from the mark, like some of the Harry Potter films (don't even TRY to compare this tiny fiction to Lord of the Rings), but it still could have been better.

 

The summoning of the Oath Breakers in the book was a much different event than in the movie. In the movie they made Aragorn act like a little baby about to cry while in the books he acted like a King of men about to kick everyones butt if they didn't rise and repay their debt. And the Scouring of the Shire was an awesome part of the book that was completely skipped in the movies.

 

Regarding Tolkien, I've only watched the movies by Peter Jackson.
However, I read the 7 Chronicles Of Narnia books by C.S. Lewis, who was one of the best Tolkien's friends.
From my point of view, Tolkien's universe is better

 

Not to be a hater, but I loathe Narnia. And I'm saying that with a Lewis quote in my signature.

As for Tolkien, he's my hero, even though his style drags... a lot <3

 

The Lords of the Rings trilogy are my favorite books hands down.

I'm already on it.

See, I totally disagree. While I think the books were better, I also think you're exaggerating. True, Arwen didn't rescue Frodo; technically, Glorfindel rescued Frodo, and even then, his horse Asfaloth did most of the work. I see your point, but again, I believe you exaggerate the importance of the difference. Additionally, I don't agree with what you said about making things "gender neutral." I think Arwen got that extra bit in the movie because it was easier to introduce a character that comes back in later books, rather than one that is mentioned in only two chapters. True, I did REALLY like Glorfindel, and I was sad he wasn't in the movies, but it doesn't really bother me that much.

http://gary.appenzeller.net/FotRDifferences.html

Movies can only be so accurate as representations or reproductions of books, and I thought these were good enough. I'm sorry you didn't like them, though you might find the above link interesting either way.

This I agree with completely. I was angry they skipped this, even though I understand why.