- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Re-read LOTR for the first time in about 15 years...WOW!
Posted on 6/20/17 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 6/20/17 at 2:37 pm
Basically from age 10 to early 30s, I read LOTR every year.
As with other re-reads, the familiarity caused me to skim some sections/passages such that you tend to lose the details after a while.
I recently picked it up (my well-worn single volume red-covered hardcover ) and re-read, taking my time and making sure to read every word.
Damn! It was almost like reading a new book. The level of detail and exposition is unreal. While it is the obvious "bible" of the modern fantasy genre, you can really see exactly WHY that is the case.
It also made me realize that for as much as I love the Jackson movies (especially the extended editions), some of the divergences from the book were unnecessary and actually result in a very different story as to some key elements - most especially Denethor's portrayal (an a-hole in the movie, as opposed to the tortured soul in the book), the complete omission of The Grey Company, and the exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire.
As with other re-reads, the familiarity caused me to skim some sections/passages such that you tend to lose the details after a while.
I recently picked it up (my well-worn single volume red-covered hardcover ) and re-read, taking my time and making sure to read every word.
Damn! It was almost like reading a new book. The level of detail and exposition is unreal. While it is the obvious "bible" of the modern fantasy genre, you can really see exactly WHY that is the case.
It also made me realize that for as much as I love the Jackson movies (especially the extended editions), some of the divergences from the book were unnecessary and actually result in a very different story as to some key elements - most especially Denethor's portrayal (an a-hole in the movie, as opposed to the tortured soul in the book), the complete omission of The Grey Company, and the exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire.
4
Posted on 6/20/17 at 3:31 pm to udtiger
I'm currently trying to get through the Silmarillion but it is so dry that I am having trouble. I'm around the part of the first war. Does it get better?
Posted on 6/20/17 at 3:32 pm to txbd
quote:
I'm currently trying to get through the Silmarillion but it is so dry that I am having trouble. I'm around the part of the first war. Does it get better?
The Similarion is a brutal read.
But Hobbit and LotR are both great reads. I reread the Hobbit before the movies came out and it holds up very well. I always liked The Hobbit more than LotR though
Funny story, but I actually have Orson Scott Card's autograph on my copy of the Hobbit.
This post was edited on 6/20/17 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 6/20/17 at 3:37 pm to Breesus
quote:
The Similarion is a brutal read.
It really is.
Of course, it was Christopher's first foray into trying to take his father's notes and incomplete works and turn them into a coherent story. He got better with later efforts.
I find the appendicies at the end of LOTR to be better than Silmarillion at presenting the overall history of Tolkien's world.
Posted on 6/20/17 at 3:47 pm to udtiger
quote:
I find the appendicies at the end of LOTR to be better than Silmarillion at presenting the overall history of Tolkien's world.
I've recently finished a reread of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, that took me far too long to power through.
I didn't read the appendices the first time I read them, for whatever reason. So, this is the first time I'm reading all that stuff.
Also, I just don't care for "The Hobbit." It's more difficult for me to get into than LotR. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion, but I just don't like it much.
Posted on 6/20/17 at 6:43 pm to udtiger
quote:
Scouring of the Shire.
I would have loved this to be included in the movie instead of the gay arse ending we got
Posted on 6/20/17 at 11:36 pm to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
Also, I just don't care for "The Hobbit." It's more difficult for me to get into than LotR. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion, but I just don't like it much.
I've read The Hobbit a couple of times, and I really like it, but I also agree with this. It surprised me, because it's supposed to be a 'children's book.'
Posted on 6/21/17 at 7:28 am to sorantable
"The battle of the five armies" was good in the movie. It was awesome in the book. Every time a new army showed up I think I had to take a breather for a minute.
Also, another thing left out of LOTR was Tom Bombadil. Would have just left everyone asking questions, though. Gonna look up The Grey Company. I don't remember that one.
Also, another thing left out of LOTR was Tom Bombadil. Would have just left everyone asking questions, though. Gonna look up The Grey Company. I don't remember that one.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 7:58 am to hogNsinceReagan
quote:
Bombadil
I agree with Jackson that this would have been tough to include. I always thought TB was the embodiment of Eru in Middle Earth.
quote:
Grey Company
The Dunedan from the North (fellow Rangers) along with Elrond's sons. They take the Paths of the Dead with him.
Posted on 6/21/17 at 3:10 pm to txbd
quote:
Does it get better?
It's written like a text book, so no
Posted on 6/21/17 at 10:31 pm to udtiger
quote:
It also made me realize that for as much as I love the Jackson movies (especially the extended editions), some of the divergences from the book were unnecessary and actually result in a very different story as to some key elements - most especially Denethor's portrayal (an a-hole in the movie, as opposed to the tortured soul in the book), the complete omission of The Grey Company, and the exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire.
Back when the movies were coming out there was a pretty active message board called theonering.net or something like that. There were endless arguments over this issue. If I recall the main one was whether Faramir's character was adapted badly for the movie. There were some people on that board that would not stand for ANY opinion not 100% in praise of the movies.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 9:38 am to Methuselah
I remember TOR and lurked it often.
I think the hardcore defense was just happiness it had been made (and hopes for The Hobbit in the future).
I thought they did okay with Faramir, but his story (and the changes) were tied up with the alterations to Frodo's and Denethor's. He certainly gets a fuller story presentation in the extended versions.
I think the hardcore defense was just happiness it had been made (and hopes for The Hobbit in the future).
I thought they did okay with Faramir, but his story (and the changes) were tied up with the alterations to Frodo's and Denethor's. He certainly gets a fuller story presentation in the extended versions.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 12:44 pm to udtiger
I read the full trilogy before and after the movies came out. I think they were great for understanding what was going on and then an excellent companion piece after the movies that made me appreciate everything even more. I still think, however, that the Ice and Fire series has laid bare how off-puttingly black/white Tolkien's worlds are. There's very little margin for the squishy middle of real-world politics and human flaws. Love is treated in an entirely sexless fashion. etc. etc. My favorite scene missing from the movies is the show down at the black gate.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:25 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
My favorite scene missing from the movies is the show down at the black gate.
Extended version.
quote:
I still think, however, that the Ice and Fire series has laid bare how off-puttingly black/white Tolkien's worlds are. There's very little margin for the squishy middle of real-world politics and human flaws. Love is treated in an entirely sexless fashion. etc. etc.
Different time (relative to the sex) and he was coming off a world war that had very definitive black/white, good/evil. Hell, Scouring of the Shire is basically an indictment of Stalinism/collectivism (albeit on a small scale)
Posted on 6/22/17 at 6:26 pm to udtiger
quote:You're right, I had forgotten about that!
Extended version.
quote:Understood. But even intra-good-guy, there was essentially never a bad actor beyond mischief. Also, I know Russia was on the allied side, but do we really view them as "definitively good" as of 1945?
Different time (relative to the sex) and he was coming off a world war that had very definitive black/white, good/evil.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:26 am to Sasquatch Smash
The appendices are far more interesting than I thought they'd be.
Posted on 6/27/17 at 10:30 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
My favorite scene missing from the movies is the show down at the black gate.
This is in the extended edition.
Pretty sure Marilyn Manson plays the Mouth of Sauron. j/k
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News