Lord of The Rings

Silent-Lucidity said:
I think I will refrain from viewing this thread anymore, i'm too passionate about LOTR and some people's views just make me :mad:.
Click to expand...

bang on, as for films the first film was great despite the differences from the books. The second one was good but the differences were shocking (elves at helms deep? aragorn falling off the cliff, everyone think he's dead, stupid dream sequence?!?!) and the third one was cack (far too much focusing on the big battle, left out all the cool stuff, plus ending = fail)
 
Meridian said:
Live with it. Or learn to tell good books from bad
Click to expand...

there's no possible way to tell if a book is good or bad - so if you do know this I'd be interested to know how it's done. This stupid mindset of someone not liking something so people who do like it are retards confuses and irritates me greatly.

I didn't like the books or the films - I read the first 3/4 of the first book and it wasn't for me, so the films didn't really stand much of a chance.
 
Great films, however i flicked over and thought that actually the Two Towers hasnt aged particularly well. It's still a fantastic trilogy though. As for the book(s), i got bored when Tom Bombadil popped up for a sing-song that seemed to last about 20 pages. Absolutely dull.
 
I actually quite like the idea of Tom Bombadil - though you're right the songs do go a little far there.

Missing out the barrow-downs was a bit off but how do you put them in without Tom Bombadill-o?
 
Talking of Lord of the Rings:

I hope I'm not going too off-topic.
I love the films - I own all 3 extended versions and they are indeed amazing, no other way of describing them.
You do need to view them along side the books, they are not a replacement in the same way the Harry Potter films are not a replacement.
Anyway....

I own a copy of LOTR, however all of mine are paperbacks.
I've in the past tried to get hold of a set in hardback - I love books and for the reason I like to buy hardbacks where possible.
I've bought two copies in hardback before, however on the first one the printing quality was really poor and when I got a replacement set it was the same.
My last purchase was a beautifually bound version, really nice cover, printing was perfect.
The pages however were tissue-paper thin and I would have been scared to read it for fear of an accidental rip.

Anyone know where I can get a complete set of the LOTR in hardback with good quality binding, good qualityh printing and paper thickness where I won't actually fear reading it?
 
Gilly said:
I actually quite like the idea of Tom Bombadil - though you're right the songs do go a little far there.

Missing out the barrow-downs was a bit off but how do you put them in without Tom Bombadill-o?
Click to expand...

One of the few things that did please me about the films was the absence of that Bombadill hippy :D. That said, despite his presence, The Fellowship of the Ring is easily my favourite book of the trilogy. Tolkien does a magnificent job of planting the reader straight in to the middle of a completely made up world, and making it 'real', at least to me.

Regarding the films:

Fellowship - Probably the most true to the book. Despite Aragorn being a wuss.
Two Towers - Starts going a bit pear shaped. But I could still feel the books spirit.
Return of the King - BIG BATTLES!!! Orcs in the city, mayhem, death and last stands. By the far the worst of the three films sadly. :( Plus, I really hated the hatchet job Jackson did on Gondor.
 
Gilly said:
Buy the Millennium edition. Its a 7 book boxset.
Click to expand...

That's the one my gf bought me around then for my birthday. Still need to read through them. I read the Sillmarillian and some of the Unfinished tales stuff but never got through the boxset LOTR. Maybe next year I'll make some sort of plan for them.

Like others said, get the extended DVDs. Some of the extra and extended scenes are very cool. The extended meeting at Rivendell that forges the fellowship has a really neat part. Infact just get it for the Mouth of Sauron.
 
Silent-Lucidity said:
Oh dear. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Quite a valid opinion I feel.

I attempted to complete the books before the film came out (A year or so?), and despite trying very hard, it remains the only book or series of books that I have left unfinished (2/3 of the way through). Now, I'm not a huge bookworm, but I love tucking into a good read. Despite so much promise, the books were hugely dissapointing to me. Tolkein didn't seem too interested in taking the reading anywhere, his writing was dull and he didn't seem to care for what the audience might want. Which is fair enough, its his books, but for me and many other it made it a very very boring read.

Some of my friends who find the book series fantastic admit that each book, or indeed each chapter itself, is a bore. It is only when you can sit back and appreciate the huge world that has been laid out before you in painstaking detail when you can view this epic tale in awe. Long books do not have to be dull (John Irving does a few fairly lengthy reads), but they should be entertaining throughout, or at least show some carrot for the donkey to follow.

So where does this leave the films? They managed to entertain, excite and leave the audience gasping without having to focus hard or skip needless songs, or fumble around with minimal plot advancement. As such, I agree they are very good and better than the books.

The books themselves I draw an analogy to a late Radiohead album (Kid A). Theres some really good stuff in there, but it takes time, it takes hard work. The result is ultimately rewarding but.... sometimes you really just can't be arsed.
 
Meridian said:
Live with it. Or learn to tell good books from bad (although on that front you are in a majority, judging by some of the books that get listed as "good" whenever someone asks for recommendations. I know most of the people on these forums are young though, and this knowledge mostly comes with experience.
Click to expand...

Has your great experience not taught you that there's such a thing as "personal opinion"? Or are you arrogant enough to suggest that because you don't fully appreciate it then it must be bad? Would you also care to tell us what music to listen to or which films to watch, oh wise one? Honestly, listen to yourself...
 
Of course there's personal opinion. But who's would you follow to recommend a fantasy book: Jeffrey Archer or Guy Gavriel Kay? Some opinions are obviously more useful than others. If you read enough books that are not Fantasy (or SF) as well as ones that are, you'll quickly realise that if anything Theodore Sturgeon underestimated (look up Sturgeon's Law - technically his second law) - the general standard of fantasy writing is shockingly bad. In my youth I liked many of the writers being discussed in this thread - perhaps you noticed the fact that I've read TotR twice? I've read well over three thousand F and SF books by over five hundred writers - the rewards (?) of reaching old age. I also read a lot of other stuff. And I've slowly learned to tell good from bad. And I've learned (if I didn't work it out at the time) that writers like David Gemmell and Raymond Feist are at best mediocre. Robert Jordan is so dull you don't even notice he doesn't have a single original idea. But a genre largely aimed at teenage boys is unlikely to foster good writing, sadly. There are good writers out there, but good and popular seldom coincide in any art-form. Because it's the lowest common denominator which sells best.


M
 
Meridian said:
Of course there's personal opinion. But who's would you follow to recommend a fantasy book: Jeffrey Archer or Guy Gavriel Kay? Some opinions are obviously more useful than others. If you read enough books that are not Fantasy (or SF) as well as ones that are, you'll quickly realise that if anything Theodore Sturgeon underestimated (look up Sturgeon's Law - technically his second law) - the general standard of fantasy writing is shockingly bad. In my youth I liked many of the writers being discussed in this thread - perhaps you noticed the fact that I've read TotR twice? I've read well over three thousand F and SF books by over five hundred writers - the rewards (?) of reaching old age. I also read a lot of other stuff. And I've slowly learned to tell good from bad. And I've learned (if I didn't work it out at the time) that writers like David Gemmell and Raymond Feist are at best mediocre. Robert Jordan is so dull you don't even notice he doesn't have a single original idea. But a genre largely aimed at teenage boys is unlikely to foster good writing, sadly. There are good writers out there, but good and popular seldom coincide in any art-form. Because it's the lowest common denominator which sells best.


M
Click to expand...

You know your books:)
Could you recommend me a book plz heres what i would like to read:
Fantasy
Set in roman times with cool battles against gauls and greeks etc
Easy read, cause itll be my first novel i read since i was like 12:)
 
If you're also after more 'Lord of the Rings' entertainment then I highly recommend the BBC Radio 4 adaption (from the early 80s).

Ian Holm is Frodo this time round and Michael Hordern made for a fine Gandalf.

All in all, pretty fine casting throughout!
 
Last edited:
Meridian, what do you think of Ian Irvine? I recently completed a four-book series. Can't remember the name, but the individual titles included Geomancer and Tetrarch. Very good world creation, and lots of fiesty, interesting characters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom