That is controversial. I'm not going to accuse you of a lack of imagination, but the books are a lot better. Granted, the films make the books easily accessible, but great book fiction needs a little effort on the part of the reader. And besides, clearly, any adaptation that excludes Tom Bombadil has got it's priorities slightly askew. The 1980 BBC Radio adaptation was very good indeed, although even that was without Bombadil.
I just always thought Tolkien was more interested in the language (Elvish) than the characters. I think you always end up having the feeling of 'is this bit really necessary' as well, a bit like certain sections of War and Peace to be honest, where Tolstoy basically 'goes off on one', which occasionally feel like they are getting in the way of the plot and character development. I also get annoyed by all these polls that place it (and usually Harry Potter) as the greatest book of all time. That is purely based on the films. I also think that the Dark Materials trilogy rivals LOTR on so many levels as a pure literary work if you ignore the herculean effort that Tolkien went to in creating an entire world.
That's not the reason I dislike it, the reasons are many and are mainly to do with stupid decisions being taken. - The geographical representation of the distance between Minas Morgul and Minas Tirith is a joke, it looks like about 20 miles and Osgiliath looks about five miles away. Furthermore, it takes probably about 12 hours for Sauron's army to march from Minas Morgul to Minas Tirith which includes a battle at Osgiliath. - Faramir's suicidal charge was utterly stupid and completely ridiculous, in the book he gets wounded in a fighting withdrawal from Osgiliath. - Gondorian soldiers are shown to be the most utterly incompetent fighters in hand to hand combat, I counted one soldier successfully killing an orc with a sword (excluding Faramir) and yet despite being peasants, the Rohirrim are shown as being able to hold their own against Uruk-Hai which are supposedly a better breed of orc. These are meant to be professional soldiers and being on the border of Mordor, they'd be fairly experienced I'd imagine. - The Army of the Dead being at Pelenor Fields and winning the battle in five seconds, there's no drama as they're unkillable (literally) and it completely pisses over to efforts of Rohan and Gondor up until that point and is probably the worst bit of the entire film - Legolas single-handedly dispatching a Mamukil and surfing down it's trunk - Theoden giving all the credit for winning the battle of Helm's Deep to Aragorn - Gandalf's utter lack of leadership, his one speech "You are soldiers of Gondor, whatever comes through this gate you WILL stand your ground" doesn't come close to anything by Theoden, and when Sauron's army are knocking at the gates of the second or third tier, rather than inspire his men in the manner of Theoden at Helm's Deep, he spends the time chatting to Pippin about them getting killed, sure do that, but don't forget you duties as a leader as well. - Aragorn letting his army get slowly surrounded at the Black Gate by giving Sauron's army the complete opportunity to march out and get into position, in the book, they essentially get ambushed so getting surrounded is understandable rather than due to tactical stupidity. The only good bits of RoTK are the soundtrack and the ride of the Rohirrim.
You've got to remember it's a film. Adaptions to the text have to be made to make it more cinematic. Plus in the book the army of the dead always struck me as pretty convenient anyway (although you do have to admit, the battle does end pretty quickly when they turn up). Makes you wonder why they didn't just go to them first and say, 'yeah, what I want you to do is help this hobbit take the ring into Mordor'. If you have an army of unkillable ghosts, then I believe one CAN simply walk into Mordor
But you can't. If you take a look through the Tolkien history held within The Silmarillion, you see how every event in the Red Book [Hobbit/LOTR and other bits] hangs on to the history of Middle Earth. Tolkien's fiction enormous scope and detail. Incidentally, in my opinion, Harry Potter is a bloody joke. I was handed one of the first books [I forget which - frankly I don't want to remember it] and struggled to read it, amidst juvenile writing, clichéd circumstance, and a total disbelief why this crap was so popular. I put it down at page 50. Of course, this is merely my opinion. George Elliot anyone..?
I'd love to do that. Obviously, not to spy on Kaiser's Germany, but over a summer, sail in the Baltic, across the shifting sands, in a centreboard/drop keel sailboat. That would be a great fun adventure.
The original written work is far superior to the films. Also, the overwhelming popularity in readers' polls was well established long before Jackson dreamed he'd get the gig! It's not for everyone. Some people like in-depth exploration of character's introspection , angst, gender roles (although there is a certain amount of all these in LoTR), political intrigue, and sex. Tolkien was more concerned with reinterpreting Northern legend and poetry, describing imaginary landscape, and contemplating moral quandaries. Anyone like George McDonald Frazer and his "Flashman" books? A great anti-hero and impeccably historically researched . Not very PC, but then again most Victorian adventurers/soldiers weren't PC.
I'll put my two pence worth in regards Lord of the Rings. Enjoyed the books, incredible scope. The films......I thought the first and second were excellent, the whole trasition from the Shire, the introduction of the riders, Strider, the tension was palpable, I actually feelt the weight of the ring dare I say! The third was a let down a bit. The pinnacle being the army of the dead. It was rushed, poorly done, just shoddy. Gollum is truly a fantastic literary creation.
My favourite bit about harry Potter is that if you match up the dates, Voldermort is finally destroyed (thus eradicating all evil from the world) in 1997. Says all you need to know about Rowling's political affiliation. However Harry Potter doesn't annoy me nearly as much as Dan Brown. I tried reading 'The Da Vinci Code' (even the title is incorrect) and stopped at the immortal line 'The famous man looked at the red cup'. If the Vatican really doesn't want you to read the book, I can only think it's because they have better taste in literature than they are given credit for.
I pretty much agree with all of that! Also my favourite part of The Two Towers film was Eowyn's lament for Theodred (in Old English) -CUT from the cinema version! Still, it allowed more time for extraneous Arwen/Aragorn love interest, and WTF elves at Helm's Deep! BTW, in the book, the army of the dead were used merely to frighten and panic the corsairs, freeing the southern Gondor levies to come to the aid of the city in the nick of time.Quite reasonable, in terms of a fantasy novel.
I have nothing against changing stuff for the sake of making it more cinematic. Take TTT for example, completely different from the book but still a very good film while most of the problems I mentioned are completely unnecessary and don't do anything to make it more cinematic. In the book the Army of the Dead just destroyed the Corsairs which they could have done in the film and just reinforcements from Dol Amroth or other places take the place of the army of the dead. It could be like TTT when Eomer and his men arrive. But no, they had to go for the utter stupid route. The first few, particularly the first two are quite juvenile, it's only really from the third and particularly fourth book onward that it starts to get interesting. You might want to skip straight to the Goblet of Fire.
Readers wanting to get into a novel or two of historic fiction, written meticulously, with superb research, might like to try the Royal Navy Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brien. I haven't read them all, by any means [and there's a fair few], but the two I have were very good indeed. If you're not familiar with the name, The film Master & Commander: The Far Side Of The World was based on a couple of them.
Anyone read any of a 'a song of ice and fire' series? Just started a game of thrones because I loved the tv series. Rather looking forward to it!
Memorable fantasy reading of my late teenage years in the 60s included LOTR, Narnia and Gormenghast. Have at various times tried re-reading some if not all and the first 2 Gormenghast novels stand out..
Yep. I've read them all. The tv series really is good isn't it. The books are really good fun, slightly less raunchy (lets face it, the tv series had a fair dollop of soft porn!) and each chapter skips to another character for a chapter, then revisits them etc, I'm sure you are used to this format as you have started them. The characterisation is pretty good, tyrion is excellent, some arn't quite so strong. Some of the books later on I would describe as less satisfying than the earlier books, but don't let that put you off, theres still plenty to enjoy once hooked.
