Tolkien's other books

[Hyperplex]

Agreed. Does this minute detail make the movies suck? No of course not. But, as you said, a director who proclaims to be so detail-oriented owes it to the die-hards, a population that is not exactly tiny, to at least try to not create problems by changing things.

Another hole introduced by his "staff play" is, what the hell does Radagast do for a staff after Gandalf gets his staff destroyed in Moria? Does Radagast go to the Staff Depot and have another one made? Will Galadriel make it for him? Or does he simply spend the rest of his time on Middle-earth staffless?

For something that has so little actual bearing on any outcomes in the narrative, why fuck with it like they did? Die-hards obviously notice the fuckup, and laypeople won't care or even know. So what's the point?

[Prog Snob]

For minor reasons like that, and major reasons like totally improvising most of The Hobbit, is why we'll probably never see anything else Tolkien wrote come to the big screen. I feel like watching the movies now. I'll start with Fellowship, extended edition of course.

[Jarlaxle]

For minor reasons like that, and major reasons like totally improvising most of The Hobbit, is why we'll probably never see anything else Tolkien wrote come to the big screen. I feel like watching the movies now. I'll start with Fellowship, extended edition of course.

I work outside, and next week it looks like it's going to be -30 Celsius and colder every day, so I won't be working. A friend and I have decided to do a Hobbit-LOTR-Star Wars week. We both love LOTR, and I have never watched star wars. Should be fun.

[Hyperplex]

I am hoping someone in my family gets me the full 12-volume History of Middle-earth boxed set.

[Prog Snob]

For minor reasons like that, and major reasons like totally improvising most of The Hobbit, is why we'll probably never see anything else Tolkien wrote come to the big screen. I feel like watching the movies now. I'll start with Fellowship, extended edition of course.

I work outside, and next week it looks like it's going to be -30 Celsius and colder every day, so I won't be working. A friend and I have decided to do a Hobbit-LOTR-Star Wars week. We both love LOTR, and I have never watched star wars. Should be fun.

I've only seen the original Star Wars trilogy and Phantom Menace. I'm not too much of a SW fan. It doesn't do anything for me.

Which of the six Tolkien movies is your favorite?

I am hoping someone in my family gets me the full 12-volume History of Middle-earth boxed set.

That's a lot of information to process. It should be really intriguing.

[Hyperplex]

Didn't say I'd read it in one sitting.

I have so many other books, including lost tales and unfinished tales etc, I'd really like reference stuff.

[Prog Snob]

 

I know. I would enjoy reading it, too. I only have one of them so far.

[Hyperplex]

And while I'm on the subject of bitching about PJ...why the hell did he feel the need to change the method in which Bilbo finds the Ring?

Rewind to Fellowship, which PJ directed, and we see, as Galadriel tells the Ring's history, Bilbo feeling around blindly in a dark tunnel, chancing upon something metal and shiny, and picking it up. He FOUND it, and that is exactly how he came upon it in the text.

Now we come to the first Hobbit film, and Bilbo is in the goblin tunnels watching Gollum fight the orc. He WATCHES the Ring fall from Gollum's person, and he goes and takes it. He STEALS it. Completely different set of circumstances, and it turns Bilbo from a lucky recipient of what Tolkien often referred to as the fate of the Ring into someone who knowingly took another's possession.

And Peter Jackson directed both movies...he contradicted his own film, let alone the story itself.

Again, minor thing that most people probably don't care about, but the on-screen Bilbo stole the Ring, while the textual Bilbo found it.

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not sure what my favorite movie would be. I love the epicness of ROTK, but the Battle of Helm's Deep is much favorite part, while FOTR is just such a good movie.

[Hyperplex]

I find Fellowship is the truest to the stories, and has so much in it....
Two Towers does have Helm's Deep, but this is also the movie that deviated the most, especially with Faramir.
Return is just the most intense, and course is the climax and completion of the whole story, though I did find the ending a bit too drawn out.

I vacillate between Fellowship and Return. My choice is probably the one I have seen least recently.

[Prog Snob]

And while I'm on the subject of bitching about PJ...why the hell did he feel the need to change the method in which Bilbo finds the Ring?

Rewind to Fellowship, which PJ directed, and we see, as Galadriel tells the Ring's history, Bilbo feeling around blindly in a dark tunnel, chancing upon something metal and shiny, and picking it up. He FOUND it, and that is exactly how he came upon it in the text.

Now we come to the first Hobbit film, and Bilbo is in the goblin tunnels watching Gollum fight the orc. He WATCHES the Ring fall from Gollum's person, and he goes and takes it. He STEALS it. Completely different set of circumstances, and it turns Bilbo from a lucky recipient of what Tolkien often referred to as the fate of the Ring into someone who knowingly took another's possession.

And Peter Jackson directed both movies...he contradicted his own film, let alone the story itself.

Again, minor thing that most people probably don't care about, but the on-screen Bilbo stole the Ring, while the textual Bilbo found it.

Damn, you're right. That didn't even occur to me. I know that his heart wasn't into The Hobbit movies like it was into LotR. You could tell he didn't have that same enthusiasm during documentaries and interviews. He really didn't want to be the one making those movies but after Guillermo Del Toro dropped out, someone had to step in. That lack of enthusiasm probably clouded his effort.

I'm not sure what my favorite movie would be. I love the epicness of ROTK, but the Battle of Helm's Deep is much favorite part, while FOTR is just such a good movie.

I find Fellowship is the truest to the stories, and has so much in it....
Two Towers does have Helm's Deep, but this is also the movie that deviated the most, especially with Faramir.
Return is just the most intense, and course is the climax and completion of the whole story, though I did find the ending a bit too drawn out.

I vacillate between Fellowship and Return. My choice is probably the one I have seen least recently.

I'd have to say Return of the King for me, especially the extended edition. Four and a half hours! Give me more. The Two Towers is probably the one I watch the least in the first trilogy.

[Orbert]

Yeah, I didn't like the deal with Bilbo actually stealing the ring.  But then, I've seen The Hobbit movies once each and I honestly don't think I'll bother with them again, so I don't waste brain cells even worrying about it.

[Hyperplex]

I dissect that shit, as is blatantly obvious. A lot of the time I don't care unless it's about a subject I have a passion for, like Tolkien. My brain goes into hyperdrive over it. It irks me that someone had the money, time, and opportunity to do something great with it, and instead did what was done to those movies.

After how great the original trilogy was, these were a letdown.

[Prog Snob]

My brother didn't bother watching the last two movies. I kind of feel bad for him with that. He's a lifelong Tolkien fan like myself. You look forward to seeing the movies, but after seeing the first one it discourages you so much, because of the liberties PJ took, that you can't be bothered with the rest.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I find this whole topic a wee bit ironic considering Tolkien himself changed the Riddles in the Dark chapter.

Yes, I know, he was the author, he's allowed to make edits, I just find it amusing.

As for the moral implications of him stealing the Ring... Bilbo's being chased by horrible creatures that want to kill him, and another horrible creature kills one of them. He sees the Ring fall from Gollum's pocket. What's he supposed to do, say, "excuse me sir, you dropped this, now please tell me the way out and don't crush my fucking skull like you did the last guy". He COULD have left it, but to Bilbo's best knowledge, what use does a horrible subterranean phantom have for a ring? Within the context of the chapter, Bilbo did the equivalent of taking a wallet from a hyena who was, for whatever reason, quite fond of it. Sure, the hyena's gonna be upset, but who gives a fuck, it's a stinking ugly hyena. Of course, the audience knows better, knows what Gollum originally was (by which I mean the film-watching audience who saw LOTR first) but Bilbo doesn't.

[Hyperplex]

You're missing my point. I did not question what Bilbo did or why he did it. I questioned why the way he found it was changed. Not only is it a fundamental change in his character from how he was written, it contradicts what was already made in the universe of a previous film.

One of the things mentioned in the mythology is that Bilbo was able to live so well for so long while in possession of the Ring because he came upon in and began his ownership of it with mercy. He found it by chance, and when he had the opportunity to kill Gollum, he instead gave mercy. Bilbo was benevolent. Witnessing and stealing something, however opportunistic, is very different.

I'm just saying it was an unnecessary change. He could have found it in a tunnel, and then the reveal that it was in fact Gollums made when he can't find his "precious." You even see on Bilbo's face when he realizes "oh shit he knows I took it." I just think it was useless and a negative light on how Bilbo was portrayed.

[Orbert]

I agree.  Bilbo went from 100% innocent to at least partly "guilty" in acquiring the ring.  It wasn't just something he stumbled upon, pocketed, and literally forgot about seconds later because he had other things to worry about at the time.  He knew whose it was.  Some of PJ's changes make no sense to me at all, and I've concluded that he changed some things just to change them, to put his "mark" on the story, and to me, that's just wrong.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I was kind of just playing devil's advocate.

I loved LOTR and the Silmarillion, but even when I first read it as a kid, I didn't care for The Hobbit. I actually wish Tolkien had gone through with a complete rewrite. I've started revisiting books I read as a kid in recent years, and when I get to Tolkien, I'm not sure if I'll even bother with it.

So I didn't like the movies, but I'm not exactly heartbroken that PJ screwed it up.

[Logain Ablar]

Yeah, I didn't like the deal with Bilbo actually stealing the ring.  But then, I've seen The Hobbit movies once each and I honestly don't think I'll bother with them again, so I don't waste brain cells even worrying about it.

I think that's pretty much where I'm at with The Hobbit movies. Considering I triple dipped with LOTR (Theatrical DVD, EE DVD, EE Blu-Ray), but I didn't buy any version of any of the Hobbit movies, that probably says it all.

Just to change gears slightly - what do people think about the omission of The Scouring Of The Shire? I can understand why they would want to take it out, to have a nice neat Hollywood ending, and also probably for the sake of time, but one of the things I love about LOTR is that it ends on such a bitter sweet note. The surviving characters are left to adjust to a world that has been affected by evil, and even though that evil was destroyed, the world that they knew (esp. the Shire) would never be the same again.

I think that message was lost a little with the non-inclusion of TSOTS..

[Prog Snob]

I was kind of just playing devil's advocate.

I loved LOTR and the Silmarillion, but even when I first read it as a kid, I didn't care for The Hobbit. I actually wish Tolkien had gone through with a complete rewrite. I've started revisiting books I read as a kid in recent years, and when I get to Tolkien, I'm not sure if I'll even bother with it.

So I didn't like the movies, but I'm not exactly heartbroken that PJ screwed it up.

Tolkien did change the original version of The Hobbit. Not only to make it geared towards an older audience but to also have it coincide more accurately with Lord of the Rings.

Just to change gears slightly - what do people think about the omission of The Scouring Of The Shire? I can understand why they would want to take it out, to have a nice neat Hollywood ending, and also probably for the sake of time, but one of the things I love about LOTR is that it ends on such a bitter sweet note. The surviving characters are left to adjust to a world that has been affected by evil, and even though that evil was destroyed, the world that they knew (esp. the Shire) would never be the same again.

I think that message was lost a little with the non-inclusion of TSOTS..

I would have loved to see that included. It's one of my favorite chapters.

At the end of RotK, the four of them are sitting in the bar. Everyone around them is having a good time laughing and drinking. People are still looking at them the same way, though. They have no clue what these four fellow hobbits went through and endured to keep The Shire safe. I feel like they deserved more than that. Yes, Frodo and the others are fairly humble and gracious for many things. But you can see it in their eyes, that sense of disappointment. The Scouring helps bring to light the deeds they did and the dangers that they faced outside their borders.

[Fluffy Lothario]

Tolkien did change the original version of The Hobbit. Not only to make it geared towards an older audience but to also have it coincide more accurately with Lord of the Rings.

While I realise he made revisions... The Hobbit is still a children's book. I could barely stomach it when I was ten or eleven. If that's already been edited for an older audience, then he did an abysmal job of it.

From what I understand, he started redoing it so it would be almost identical in tone and feel to LOTR, but abandoned it by the time the characters got to Rivendell.

EDIT:

Tolkien did start a complete rewrite in the 1960s. This is the explanation for the abandonment given in The History of the Hobbit:

    According to Christopher Tolkien, when his father had reached this point in the recasting he loaned the material to a friend to get an outside opinion on it. We do not know this person’s identity, but apparently her response was something along the lines of ‘this is wonderful, but it’s not The Hobbit’. She must have been someone whose judgment Tolkien respected, for he abandoned the work and decided to let The Hobbit retain its own autonomy and voice rather than completely incorporate it into The Lord of the Rings as a lesser ‘prelude’ to the greater work.

At the end of RotK, the four of them are sitting in the bar. Everyone around them is having a good time laughing and drinking. People are still looking at them the same way, though. They have no clue what these four fellow hobbits went through and endured to keep The Shire safe. I feel like they deserved more than that. Yes, Frodo and the others are fairly humble and gracious for many things. But you can see it in their eyes, that sense of disappointment. The Scouring helps bring to light the deeds they did and the dangers that they faced outside their borders.

I thought they looked quite content to be back somewhere where they're just one of the guys. Sure, they would have been honoured to be revered for their actions, but I can't imagine those characters wanting or expecting that on home turf.

I also just like the contrast that they are considered the saviours of the world out there in the wide world, but the Shire is so oblivious to what's been going on, they can return and their fellow hobbits have no idea. Not that it doesn't work the way it was in the book, but with the Scouring left out, I think it was a nice touch to leave their exploits totally unknown.

[Hyperplex]

I actually had a different take on the final bar scene back in Hobbiton. Instead of disappointment, I get a sense of melancholy, not so much for the lack of recognition, but because here are 4 friends who have been literally to the edge of the world and back, risked their lives, nearly died, been through war, all of these extremely life-altering events, and yet here they are, back where they started and seemingly nothing has changed. The silent glances they exchange to me say two things: 1, it's good to be home but 2, perhaps more importantly, their lives will never be the same again. They, as hobbits, have been fundamentally changed, and no amount of familiarity will return them to what they were before the journey.

This is a sentiment echoed in the lines Frodo narrates leading up to the last scene at Bag End:

"How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on, when in your heart, you begin to understand, there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep… that have taken hold."

And I agree that leaving out the Scouring, as awesome a chapter as it is, was a wise choice for the movie. I do think the way they left the fates of the remaining hobbits unknown was effective.

[hefdaddy42]

I am hoping someone in my family gets me the full 12-volume History of Middle-earth boxed set.

Yeah, me too.

[Prog Snob]

I actually had a different take on the final bar scene back in Hobbiton. Instead of disappointment, I get a sense of melancholy, not so much for the lack of recognition, but because here are 4 friends who have been literally to the edge of the world and back, risked their lives, nearly died, been through war, all of these extremely life-altering events, and yet here they are, back where they started and seemingly nothing has changed. The silent glances they exchange to me say two things: 1, it's good to be home but 2, perhaps more importantly, their lives will never be the same again. They, as hobbits, have been fundamentally changed, and no amount of familiarity will return them to what they were before the journey.

This is a sentiment echoed in the lines Frodo narrates leading up to the last scene at Bag End:

"How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on, when in your heart, you begin to understand, there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep… that have taken hold."

And I agree that leaving out the Scouring, as awesome a chapter as it is, was a wise choice for the movie. I do think the way they left the fates of the remaining hobbits unknown was effective.

I wish I had time to learn video design/animation. I'd make my own Scouring of the Shire chapter, or Ainulindale, or everything else.

[Prog Snob]

Does anyone here play Kingdoms of Middle Earth?

[Logain Ablar]

BTW, I did buy this, which I'll probably get to right after finishing LOTR: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Perilous-Realm-Roverandom-Classic/dp/0007280599/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480072794&sr=8-1&keywords=tales+from+the+perilous+realm

Circling back to this, I just finished reading this book, which is made up of this collection of stories (description borrowed from Amazon):

• Roverandom is a toy dog who, enchanted by a sand sorcerer, gets to explore the world and encounter strange and fabulous creatures.
• Farmer Giles of Ham is fat and unheroic, but - having unwittingly managed to scare off a short-sighted giant - is called upon to do battle when a dragon comes to town;
• The Adventures of Tom Bombadil tells in verse of Tom's many adventures with hobbits, princesses, dwarves and trolls;
• Leaf by Niggle recounts the strange adventures of the painter Niggle who sets out to paint the perfect tree;
• Smith of Wootton Major journeys to the Land of Faery thanks to the magical ingredients of the Great Cake of the Feast of Good Children.

Out of all these, Farmer Giles was probably my favourite. The farmer finds himself as an accidental hero, after shooting a giant, and is called upon by the rest of the village to sort out a little dragon problem. That one feels the most fleshed out, and complete as a story. There's also a great sense of humour and fun as Farmer Giles uses a combination of wits and luck to get through various scrapes.

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was a bit of a disappointment. It's told as one long poem, so it you weren't a fan of the poetry in LOTR, you'll not like this. I didn't really get to find out much more about Tom as a character, his origins, or what he was up to pre LOTR, which was a little bit of a let down.

The other stories are quirky and interesting in their own way, but there wasn't really much meat on the bones. Roverandom in particular I found pretty wacky and hard to follow. I can see why they were compiled into this book, as there's not really enough material to stand on their own as separate books.

Still, it was fun to dip into some of Tolkien's non-Middle Earth material.

[Prog Snob]

That looks like something I need to grab.

[Logain Ablar]

Go for it  . The Kindle version was pretty cheap, as I remember.

Just looking on Amazon I noticed this - The Story of Kullervo:



I've never heard of this one! Might be worth picking up at some stage.

[Prog Snob]

I've seen that one at the bookstore. I haven't bought it yet, though.

[Hyperplex]

Stumbled across these today...I'm mesmerized just listening...

https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/01/15/j-r-r-tolkien-reads-from-lotr/

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/08/06/tolkien-reads-from-the-hobbit/

Hearing him do Gollum's voice is nothing short of miraculous.

[Logain Ablar]

Fascinating! I like how Andy Serkis stayed reasonably faithful to Tolkien's own voice for Gollum.

[Hyperplex]

I'm not a fan of books on tape, but if there were full recordings of him reading the books, I'd seriously be into them. There's something spellbinding about listening to the voice of the man who created it all reciting, "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to bind them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them, in the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie."

[Hyperplex]

So...

[Orbert]

That looks freakin' awesome! 

[Prog Snob]

That is beautiful.

To get away from the topic briefly. If you want to hear some books on tape that are absolutely brilliant, check out A Song of Ice and Fire done by Roy Dotrice. He had a cameo as the pyromancer in the Battle of Blackwater Bay storyline. It's worth listening to the audio-books just for his take on the voices, especially during the sex scenes.