Well, I tried to watch LOTR.

I have to agree with this statement. I tried to read the books many time when I was younger and could never make it through the second one... Though I could read the Hobbit with no problem.I thought it was going to be a failure, but in the end I gave it a chance and it excited me. Many of the characters were dead on to how I had pictured them. And the atmosphere was genuine, even if not identical in specific facts.It was so good that I got excited enough to finally read through the whole series! Thus it was a benefit for Tolkein. And while I was disappointed with a couple of the choices they made, especially the ending though I hear the extended dvds fix some of that, I would be lying to say I still didn't like it as is. It was really good entertainment.If it had not been an adaptation I wonder if it would be catching this much flack? I mean I thought it was a good movie in and of itself. I think it's too bad that people won't see it on some philosophical concern, rather than to just take it as entertainment.I ended up attending a LOTR concert in Amsterdam, starring Christopher Lee. It went through the music of the movies... including the cartoon version... and then went through the whole story... a concert adaptation of the novel. If you thought the movies were edited, imagine it all cut down to an hour and a half!Christopher Lee played all the parts... he did a damn good Gollum... and he sang. Yes he sang, and he did a damn good job at it.Now if I had been a "purist" the evening would have been miserable and I guess I would have walked out yelling obscenities at mr Lee. But instead I took it as a piece of entertainment which was "based on" the novel. I had a really good time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Exactly.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To be fair, Tolkein was not in a position while writing to know exactly where all of this was going to end up. I think Ned was right that an editor should have said something, especially if it was known when the first book was submitted that there would be a third book. As it is, I don't know if we can be sure that Tolkein actually chose that name for the third book. It may have been a suggestion that he accepted.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Are you referring to the movie or the books? I thought you had suggested you had read the books before and you were upset because of the disconnect between movie and book?In any case, art is all subjective and so maybe you won't like it. The first movie is slowly paced and filled with a bit more "tenderness" than the other two. When I watched the first one I thought it was much much better than I was expecting, but had problems of pacing and a few modernisms I didn't like. Thus I was sort of neutral.With the second movie I felt, oh wait this is starting to do something, as the pace took a jump forward. The third moved even faster, until the end, and by that point I was engrossed in the world Jackson had created to mirror Tolkein's vision.I have to agree with another poster you should not watch it on television for any reason. It just makes no sense. I have yet to see any movie I like, considered watchable once it got broke up with commercial ads... and LOTR is something you have to watch with the pacing the director gave it.And like I said, get through the first, then make sure to watch the second. If you are not caught by the second then it simply isn't to your taste.But it did catch with me, I like it a lot, and it helped me appreciate Tolkein better.(edited in: What was wrong with costuming? I thought the costumes were great and by the third were outrageously well done. I have not seen better in any fantasy movie. Have you?... By the way, I like ice cream too. The point is some like rum raisin and some like caramel swirl. None are actually superior, just different tastes).This message has been edited by holmes, 12-12-2004 06:46 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think this is a bit harsh. You are reading them through the lens of modern writing with is much simpler in style. For example, Lovecraft is very difficult to read yet beats the hell out of King, even if it may take more of an investment to get through Lovecraft.Writing styles have become more streamlined and with a different kind of pacing. That is what chokes Tolkein for modern readers. If one is used to reading different paced books, especially older authors like Lovecraft, Dickens, Melville, then Tolkein will not seem "less" than modern fantasy at all.I think he does have some flaws, indeed I prefer Moorcock's Elric series, but I think Tolkein holds his own against most modern fantasy, as long as one does not mind the older style of writing.My guess is it would still get a hurrah, with press saying epic and harkening back to older fiction writing. Indeed I'll bet there'd be plenty of fantasy nuts who'd love it just because it was written in a seemingly older style... like right out of middle earth.If you have not made it through the second book, I encourage you to read them again. Then again, if you don't enjoy the odd pacing of older writing (with long words and side details) you still may not like it. I think it helped that since last trying to read the series, I got hooked on Lovecraft (which are short), and made my way up to epic size old writings such as Moby Dick. By now I am used to reading them like modern writing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not sure if that discounts anything I said. You may have become a more demanding reader.In any case, my experience was the opposite. Just goes to show how taste is one of the most subjective of all things and is hard to break down into factual explanations.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhmmmmm, I'm not sure where you were going with this. My guess is that it was to be spread over three books rather than one large book.The writing was not all one sitting and I think there is reason to cut Tolkein some slack on when he threw in Aragorn being the King. I agree with Ned that it could have used a better editor, which is what should have happened between submission and printing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Welllll to be fair, you weren't just saying he doesn't work for you, you were making an objective statement that he was not that good a writer and LOTR would be thought of as bad if it had come out today. That slams those that do like it today.I have no problem with people saying anything doesn't work for them. Taste is totally subjective and there is no accounting for it.I see I have already made a mistake in trying to account for it in my own small way.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If it is being shown on Fox, turn it off. But that goes for any movie they show. Suddenly it looks like there are many many more problems than just because you are seeing it on TV. Watching it the way you suggest, is similar to my insisting that I only read LOTR in the form of Reader's Digest excerpts that were heavily fire and water damaged... and then insisting I have the ability to judge its quality as literature.I don't know whether to be angry with you for acting like you had actually given LOTR a chance, when in fact you hobbled it unfairly, or to cry at the state of your media center. Let me ask this though, does your TV have color?I would also wonder if sounds that do not seem to be necessary, are necessary for objects or actions unseeable on a pan and scan broadcast filtered through a 13" screen?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I am interested in his explanation as well. It seemed to me that regardless of whether it was a good movie or an appropriate adaptation, the costumes and scenery were beyond question.I cannot think of any fantasy film that matches LOTR in quality of costume or scenery.(edited in: and it only got better as the series went on. I thought Jackson's creation of the different "evil" races was brilliant and managed to make each one look individual and not pressed out of a singular orc and goblin cookie cutter. I think that also made the series unique among fantasy movies.)This message has been edited by holmes, 12-12-2004 02:25 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh... I get it but thankfully never had to experience that travesty first hand. But just to let you know when watching Fox you are supposed to use the red, white, and blue transparency. They claim it doesn't matter which way you put it in, but all other transparencies are pink compared to their's.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

OutFoxed by the french? Well that figures.By the way there was a reason for the bugs and things coming from the Black riders. It was a visual way to get across the frightening and sickening presence they had about them. I'm a little confused on why you pictured them looking okay but feeling wrong. They were supposed to be dead people... well living dead.I agree that the farmer got shorted in the movie as did Tom Bombadil. But those were minor elements in the overall plot, wouldn't you agree? This is not to say that there weren't other changes which were a little odd, including additions that were unnecessary. I just didn't find them too distracting.Even reading the books after the movie, it felt right... with the only exception being the very end, which I thought they did not handle as well as they could have.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow, I thought the difference between the three was very distinct (though less so between orcs and goblins). But actually I was trying to get at the difference between individual orcs, goblins, etc. That is to say it was possible to distinguish characters with their own style, they weren't all dressed the same nor acted the same. That wasn't true in the first movie, but in the next two it felt like the bad guys grew more distinct.A great example was that orc general with the mangled face that looked like fungus was growing all over it. He had an identity and so it wasn't just the good guys against faceless bad guys that all looked alike as they got mowed down.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Crash already covered this, but I think it is important to reemphasize this point. This is a movie and it has to use visuals and sound to communicate its message. And indeed it cannot assume that anyone has read the books. This was a visceral way to communicate the fear and nausea that pervaded their aura.Ham handed? Maybe. But these guys were not supposed to be subtle. Well then you are simply asking them to ruin the Books for your own vision. While I totally agree that the worse evils are fair, and indeed that is what we are facing now, the Black Riders were up front in your face evil. That is exactly how they were written.And in a way your requirement of showing them that way makes me feel like maybe you are missing the point. The story starts with evil that is unseen (the ring), but once recognized brings out a series of people and events that move from obvious and in your face, to eventually the most subtle and fair. It was a range of evil, including the worst of the fair evils... that you yourself are the only hope for everyone else. That is what Frodo and every other good guy faced within themselves and had to give it up.I thought it was showing all sides of evil and the Black Riders (I mean come on, even their name does not allow for fairness) are blatant evil. It lulls one into a sense that all evil one will meet is like that when it is not.But to defend your position, even though you have not seen it all the way to the end, they cut out the last chapter about the scouring of the shire. And of course that is also about the encroaching of evil in this case using the fair face of protecting onesself for greater security. How seductive and evil. I thought it was a shame that they had cut that out and left in some of the sappier ending bits. Then again, I hear the extended DvD has some scenes which cover some of the aspects of that last chapter.So you are right that at least one reference to the most foul evil was removed, but the Black Riders were not that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think that's debatable. Though this whole comparison raises an interesting question. Are Xians simply early age Tolkein-fanboys?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)