Lord of the Rings

[HOF]

Cool of them to disregard Tolkien completely with respect to how the races appear. And after learning that they've compressed a lot of events to fit into a show... nope. Losing faith rapidly in this. People who care less about lore and LOTR in general might not have issues with it, but, for example... dwarf women have beards. Elves aren't black, Elves don't have short hair. I realize that last point might be problematic for some, but it matters. It shows they aren't taking care to respect the source material.

I don’t recall skin color being described in any of Tolkien’s books (or at least anything saying “all elves are white and white only”). I do recall the dwarf women being described as having beards though!

[ZirconBlue]

Cool of them to disregard Tolkien completely with respect to how the races appear. And after learning that they've compressed a lot of events to fit into a show... nope. Losing faith rapidly in this. People who care less about lore and LOTR in general might not have issues with it, but, for example... dwarf women have beards. Elves aren't black, Elves don't have short hair. I realize that last point might be problematic for some, but it matters. It shows they aren't taking care to respect the source material.

"Respect for the source material" doesn't mean you can't change things that are dumb. 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

So I've never read the books, and I've seen the directors cut of the original trilogy once or twice, and mostly enjoyed it (except the big fight at the end, which I found meh) but never read or saw the Hobbit movies.

Thus, when I saw this trailer....I had absolutely no idea what the hell was going on. Literally nothing what so ever. Is this true of people who HAVE read the books and stuff or am I just lacking sufficient background knowledge to understand anything?

I'm the same way - I read each of the LOTR/Hobbit books exactly once and got very little out of them.  Reading them was a boring-ass chore.  The trailer didn't explain anything at all.  I've read a few small blurbs about the show though.

From what I've read, this show revolves around the creation and forging of the rings, including the One Ring.  Beyond that, I know nothing - there are versions of younger characters from the LOTR films (Galadriel and Elrond, played by Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving in the movies).  Another character is Isildur, who took the ring from Sauron and kept it for himself, eventually setting off the events of The Hobbit and LOTR years later.

I'm not definding it but it's a teaser not a trailer, I think that's a diffrence. I'm not sure what's the diffrence though these days but it gotta be something. 
I guess a trailer for the trailer or something which means you won't get much other than a....tease, weeeell you get my point.

[ZirconBlue]

So I've never read the books, and I've seen the directors cut of the original trilogy once or twice, and mostly enjoyed it (except the big fight at the end, which I found meh) but never read or saw the Hobbit movies.

Thus, when I saw this trailer....I had absolutely no idea what the hell was going on. Literally nothing what so ever. Is this true of people who HAVE read the books and stuff or am I just lacking sufficient background knowledge to understand anything?

I'm the same way - I read each of the LOTR/Hobbit books exactly once and got very little out of them.  Reading them was a boring-ass chore.  The trailer didn't explain anything at all.  I've read a few small blurbs about the show though.

From what I've read, this show revolves around the creation and forging of the rings, including the One Ring.  Beyond that, I know nothing - there are versions of younger characters from the LOTR films (Galadriel and Elrond, played by Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving in the movies).  Another character is Isildur, who took the ring from Sauron and kept it for himself, eventually setting off the events of The Hobbit and LOTR years later.

I'm not definding it but it's a teaser not a trailer, I think that's a diffrence. I'm not sure what's the diffrence though these days but it gotta be something. 
I guess a trailer for the trailer or something which means you won't get much other than a....tease, weeeell you get my point.

It's just supposed to pique your interest.  The show doesn't come out until September, so there will be more details between now and then.

[Melphina]

Cool of them to disregard Tolkien completely with respect to how the races appear. And after learning that they've compressed a lot of events to fit into a show... nope. Losing faith rapidly in this. People who care less about lore and LOTR in general might not have issues with it, but, for example... dwarf women have beards. Elves aren't black, Elves don't have short hair. I realize that last point might be problematic for some, but it matters. It shows they aren't taking care to respect the source material.

"Respect for the source material" doesn't mean you can't change things that are dumb.

Well, what is dumb about it? I have my reasons for why this isn't dumb, in my opinion, but I'm curious why you think it is. Is it because it implies racism, or that it would be unfair to non-white actors? No snark. It is explicitly written in Tolkien's texts that Elves have fair skin, almost that of moonlight - in other words, very light. Black was specifically used to describe orcs in particular, and the Men of the southern and eastern lands had increasingly darker hues of skin color as the lands turn more to desert. It is also strongly implied that all dwarves, including women, have beards, so I am disappointed they have seemingly not paid mind to that based on the image of the dwarf princess. Dwarf skin color is never specified as far as I can recall, so there's no issue with a black dwarf at all, especially considering we only ever see a small glimpse of just one of the seven houses of dwarves (the dwarves in the Hobbit, and Gimli in LOTR all are Durin's Folk). I also take issue with the short hair on Elves because, again, the text describes Elves as having hair of length. Does it look bad? No, not to me. Do I think Tolkien would have approved of it? No.

I'm sure this reads much more strongly than intended, I am not waging some crusade against the show but I am fairly disappointed and annoyed when they take these kinds of liberties with things that Tolkien had meticulously crafted - it's all in the details. Even if not mentioned in the more popular texts, I would like to believe at least a few of the 'Tolkien scholars' they had working on the show raised a concern about this. Just my two cents. After the liberties they took with a number of details in the Wheel of Time adaptation, I'm a little nervous about Prime's changes to things.

[HOF]

This might be a better vehicle for bringing Tolkien’s world to life than live action films/shows (though who knows about this story. Seems like it could be cool):

‘Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim’ Anime Feature Set for April 2024 Release by Warner Bros.

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-the-war-of-the-rohirrim-release-date-1235181646/

[jingle.boy]

I don't know how The Hobbit could be considered a "chore" to get thru - it's only 300-ish pages.  The LOTR trilogy however ... yeah, I get that.  I think I read the whole thing once in my early teens, but don't remember if I got completely through it. 

I thought this was completely new "material", simply using the ideas of (ie "inspired by") the LOTR universe, and creating whole new "pre" stories, long before the events of The Hobbit/LOTR.

[ZirconBlue]

Cool of them to disregard Tolkien completely with respect to how the races appear. And after learning that they've compressed a lot of events to fit into a show... nope. Losing faith rapidly in this. People who care less about lore and LOTR in general might not have issues with it, but, for example... dwarf women have beards. Elves aren't black, Elves don't have short hair. I realize that last point might be problematic for some, but it matters. It shows they aren't taking care to respect the source material.

"Respect for the source material" doesn't mean you can't change things that are dumb.

Well, what is dumb about it? I have my reasons for why this isn't dumb, in my opinion, but I'm curious why you think it is. Is it because it implies racism, or that it would be unfair to non-white actors? No snark. It is explicitly written in Tolkien's texts that Elves have fair skin, almost that of moonlight - in other words, very light. Black was specifically used to describe orcs in particular, and the Men of the southern and eastern lands had increasingly darker hues of skin color as the lands turn more to desert. It is also strongly implied that all dwarves, including women, have beards, so I am disappointed they have seemingly not paid mind to that based on the image of the dwarf princess. Dwarf skin color is never specified as far as I can recall, so there's no issue with a black dwarf at all, especially considering we only ever see a small glimpse of just one of the seven houses of dwarves (the dwarves in the Hobbit, and Gimli in LOTR all are Durin's Folk). I also take issue with the short hair on Elves because, again, the text describes Elves as having hair of length. Does it look bad? No, not to me. Do I think Tolkien would have approved of it? No.

I'm sure this reads much more strongly than intended, I am not waging some crusade against the show but I am fairly disappointed and annoyed when they take these kinds of liberties with things that Tolkien had meticulously crafted - it's all in the details. Even if not mentioned in the more popular texts, I would like to believe at least a few of the 'Tolkien scholars' they had working on the show raised a concern about this. Just my two cents. After the liberties they took with a number of details in the Wheel of Time adaptation, I'm a little nervous about Prime's changes to things.

Slavish devotion to the source material does not a good adaptation make.  Different media have different requirements.  And times have changed, as have audience expectations.  The good people are white, the bad people are black will not play to modern audiences.  Elves can go to the barber shop if they wish, and no one but Tolkien purists want to see bearded women. 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't know how The Hobbit could be considered a "chore" to get thru - it's only 300-ish pages.  The LOTR trilogy however ... yeah, I get that.  I think I read the whole thing once in my early teens, but don't remember if I got completely through it. 

I thought this was completely new "material", simply using the ideas of (ie "inspired by") the LOTR universe, and creating whole new "pre" stories, long before the events of The Hobbit/LOTR.

I could be wrong, but I thought they were fleshing out some of the events from the Silmarillion.

[axeman90210]

Yeah, that's the impression I got, taking a lot of the backstory around the creation of the rings and basically condensing the timeline. Probably would be challenging to craft a season(s) long narrative when generations of humans are born and die in between each major event.

[bosk1]

Cool of them to disregard Tolkien completely with respect to how the races appear. And after learning that they've compressed a lot of events to fit into a show... nope. Losing faith rapidly in this. People who care less about lore and LOTR in general might not have issues with it, but, for example... dwarf women have beards. Elves aren't black, Elves don't have short hair. I realize that last point might be problematic for some, but it matters. It shows they aren't taking care to respect the source material.

"Respect for the source material" doesn't mean you can't change things that are dumb.

Well, what is dumb about it? I have my reasons for why this isn't dumb, in my opinion, but I'm curious why you think it is. Is it because it implies racism, or that it would be unfair to non-white actors? No snark. It is explicitly written in Tolkien's texts that Elves have fair skin, almost that of moonlight - in other words, very light. Black was specifically used to describe orcs in particular, and the Men of the southern and eastern lands had increasingly darker hues of skin color as the lands turn more to desert. It is also strongly implied that all dwarves, including women, have beards, so I am disappointed they have seemingly not paid mind to that based on the image of the dwarf princess. Dwarf skin color is never specified as far as I can recall, so there's no issue with a black dwarf at all, especially considering we only ever see a small glimpse of just one of the seven houses of dwarves (the dwarves in the Hobbit, and Gimli in LOTR all are Durin's Folk). I also take issue with the short hair on Elves because, again, the text describes Elves as having hair of length. Does it look bad? No, not to me. Do I think Tolkien would have approved of it? No.

I'm sure this reads much more strongly than intended, I am not waging some crusade against the show but I am fairly disappointed and annoyed when they take these kinds of liberties with things that Tolkien had meticulously crafted - it's all in the details. Even if not mentioned in the more popular texts, I would like to believe at least a few of the 'Tolkien scholars' they had working on the show raised a concern about this. Just my two cents. After the liberties they took with a number of details in the Wheel of Time adaptation, I'm a little nervous about Prime's changes to things.

Slavish devotion to the source material does not a good adaptation make.  Different media have different requirements.  And times have changed, as have audience expectations.  The good people are white, the bad people are black will not play to modern audiences.  Elves can go to the barber shop if they wish, and no one but Tolkien purists want to see bearded women. 

I have to agree with ZirconBlue.  And the details you are mentioning are likely to have zero impact whatsoever on the plot. 

[ErHaO]

Cool of them to disregard Tolkien completely with respect to how the races appear. And after learning that they've compressed a lot of events to fit into a show... nope. Losing faith rapidly in this. People who care less about lore and LOTR in general might not have issues with it, but, for example... dwarf women have beards. Elves aren't black, Elves don't have short hair. I realize that last point might be problematic for some, but it matters. It shows they aren't taking care to respect the source material.

"Respect for the source material" doesn't mean you can't change things that are dumb.

Well, what is dumb about it? I have my reasons for why this isn't dumb, in my opinion, but I'm curious why you think it is. Is it because it implies racism, or that it would be unfair to non-white actors? No snark. It is explicitly written in Tolkien's texts that Elves have fair skin, almost that of moonlight - in other words, very light. Black was specifically used to describe orcs in particular, and the Men of the southern and eastern lands had increasingly darker hues of skin color as the lands turn more to desert. It is also strongly implied that all dwarves, including women, have beards, so I am disappointed they have seemingly not paid mind to that based on the image of the dwarf princess. Dwarf skin color is never specified as far as I can recall, so there's no issue with a black dwarf at all, especially considering we only ever see a small glimpse of just one of the seven houses of dwarves (the dwarves in the Hobbit, and Gimli in LOTR all are Durin's Folk). I also take issue with the short hair on Elves because, again, the text describes Elves as having hair of length. Does it look bad? No, not to me. Do I think Tolkien would have approved of it? No.

I'm sure this reads much more strongly than intended, I am not waging some crusade against the show but I am fairly disappointed and annoyed when they take these kinds of liberties with things that Tolkien had meticulously crafted - it's all in the details. Even if not mentioned in the more popular texts, I would like to believe at least a few of the 'Tolkien scholars' they had working on the show raised a concern about this. Just my two cents. After the liberties they took with a number of details in the Wheel of Time adaptation, I'm a little nervous about Prime's changes to things.

Slavish devotion to the source material does not a good adaptation make.  Different media have different requirements.  And times have changed, as have audience expectations.  The good people are white, the bad people are black will not play to modern audiences.  Elves can go to the barber shop if they wish, and no one but Tolkien purists want to see bearded women.

I fully agree with this.

[Melphina]

Well, I am a Tolkien purist, but there's really no need to be snarky about it. You have your thoughts on it and I have mine. I don't want short haired Elves and plain faced Dwarven women. I think that's just as valid as you not caring. So what if the orcs have black skin and the Elves are white. I think people look into the sociopolitical aspect of that too much but that's a whole other discussion. It's not just "bad people black good people white" but oh well. Never mind that Sauron and many other antagonists are white...

[Podaar]

I'm going to throw this out to the wind. No one take offence please.

Tolkien had fun ideas, a deep imagination, a genius level with language, and a fun turn with story telling. All that being said, he was a terrible writer, poor with a plot, and pacing. His characters were overly serious and wooden, or goofy and childish. In The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn was completely unlovable and totally lacking in charm. I never once saw a Tolkien purist complain about Viggo's portrayal being too human.

The telling changes with the medium and the audience. I have no problem with that, and it might prove to be an improvement.

[Melphina]

I'm going to throw this out to the wind. No one take offence please.

Tolkien had fun ideas, a deep imagination, a genius level with language, and a fun turn with story telling. All that being said, he was a terrible writer, poor with a plot, and pacing. His characters were overly serious and wooden, or goofy and childish. In The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn was completely unlovable and totally lacking in charm. I never once saw a Tolkien purist complain about Viggo's portrayal being too human.

The telling changes with the medium and the audience. I have no problem with that, and it might prove to be an improvement.

No offense taken, although I disagree with the bold fiercely. He wasn't the best with pacing but I wouldn't say he was a terrible writer at all, and although I think a number of characters could've used more development and fleshing out (Legolas, Gimli, etc.), I disagree with your characterization of Aragorn. I don't know about unlovable, but he's stoic, brave, courageous, smart, and has a heart - all qualities of a leader, which he shows himself to be throughout LOTR. No Tolkien purist complains about Viggo's portrayal being 'too human' because he fully embodies Aragorn's character from the book and realizes him as a character that is believable as a person and as a king and as a leader. I can't think of many goofy or childish characters in LOTR either - the Hobbits come close but they are more innocent, naive, and fun loving than they are goofy. I can't think of any other characters that would fall under goofy or childish. And although I would always love more character development from those in LOTR, I never thought the lack of character development was a detriment to the story, and there are still plenty of well fleshed out characters who have lots of personality.

[ZirconBlue]

I'm going to throw this out to the wind. No one take offence please.

Tolkien had fun ideas, a deep imagination, a genius level with language, and a fun turn with story telling. All that being said, he was a terrible writer, poor with a plot, and pacing. His characters were overly serious and wooden, or goofy and childish. In The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn was completely unlovable and totally lacking in charm. I never once saw a Tolkien purist complain about Viggo's portrayal being too human.

The telling changes with the medium and the audience. I have no problem with that, and it might prove to be an improvement.

I agree with you.  His strengths lie in the languages and world-building, not in plot or characters.  I could never even tell Merry and Pippin apart in the books. 

[jammindude]

I'm going to throw this out to the wind. No one take offence please.

Tolkien had fun ideas, a deep imagination, a genius level with language, and a fun turn with story telling. All that being said, he was a terrible writer, poor with a plot, and pacing. His characters were overly serious and wooden, or goofy and childish. In The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn was completely unlovable and totally lacking in charm. I never once saw a Tolkien purist complain about Viggo's portrayal being too human.

The telling changes with the medium and the audience. I have no problem with that, and it might prove to be an improvement.

I’m always a bit surprised at how many Tolkien fans actually agree with me when I make these exact statements. It’s not even close to a majority or anything, but it’s enough of of the fan base that it surprises me.

My stepson said just yesterday, “He would have been a fantastic Dungeon Master.” And I agree. But being a phenomenal “world builder” does not always equate to being a great story teller.

[bosk1]

Well, I am a Tolkien purist, but there's really no need to be snarky about it. You have your thoughts on it and I have mine. I don't want short haired Elves and plain faced Dwarven women. I think that's just as valid as you not caring. So what if the orcs have black skin and the Elves are white. I think people look into the sociopolitical aspect of that too much but that's a whole other discussion. It's not just "bad people black good people white" but oh well. Never mind that Sauron and many other antagonists are white...

Nobody other than you is being snarky.

I'm going to throw this out to the wind. No one take offence please.

Tolkien had fun ideas, a deep imagination, a genius level with language, and a fun turn with story telling. All that being said, he was a terrible writer, poor with a plot, and pacing. His characters were overly serious and wooden, or goofy and childish. In The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn was completely unlovable and totally lacking in charm. I never once saw a Tolkien purist complain about Viggo's portrayal being too human.

The telling changes with the medium and the audience. I have no problem with that, and it might prove to be an improvement.

I am a casual fan, but wouldn't go quite that far.  I get your overall point, and I don't overly disagree with it, but I think "terrible" is too strong a term.  He made artistic choices, was deliberate about them, and executed them in his writing.  And he was writing for a particular age.  I don't think it is entirely fair to impose 2020s American standards on his writing. 

To give an example, you mention pacing.  In LOTR, the journey itself (and the pacing thereof) is incredibly important and is practically a character in its own right.  It is supposed to feel oppressively long, tedious, and wearisome.  That isn't bad writing.  It is intentional writing.  Of course, whether one likes that or resonates with it is an entirely different thing.  But even if one doesn't, that doesn't make the writing "terrible."

[Melphina]

Well, I am a Tolkien purist, but there's really no need to be snarky about it. You have your thoughts on it and I have mine. I don't want short haired Elves and plain faced Dwarven women. I think that's just as valid as you not caring. So what if the orcs have black skin and the Elves are white. I think people look into the sociopolitical aspect of that too much but that's a whole other discussion. It's not just "bad people black good people white" but oh well. Never mind that Sauron and many other antagonists are white...

Nobody other than you is being snarky.

Nowhere have I been snarky at all, other than perhaps my initial post expressing disappointment in the teaser. If I've given that impression, I apologize. I was referring to the comments about "Elves can go to the barbershop" and "only Tolkien purists care about bearded dwarves." I wasn't being confrontational anywhere, and I wasn't the one who called things dumb either. So forgive me. edit - I've expressed my disappointments and I just wanted a conversation about the different views on it that's all. Sorry. Nothing more to say.

[Elite]

https://youtu.be/v7v1hIkYH24

Teaser trailer just dropped!

-Marc.

wtf is up with hundreds of comments on the video with the exact same quote in different languages (but mostly Russian). This is seriously weird.

[jingle.boy]

Snark is in the eye of the beholder I guess.  Like calling someone dumb for going to work with COVID symptoms.   

I think Zircon said it best about "slavish dedication".  I'm unsure how flexibility to adapt and/or "modernize" stories should be judged as "dumb" without seeing how it plays out.  I think back to how some people lost their shit when Tilda Swinton was cast as The Ancient One.  I think it worked out just fine.  Legolas shield surfing while no-scoping Orcs on a river bank may have sounded bitching, but after watching it, I think we would all agree it was fucking dumb.

[Melphina]

Snark is in the eye of the beholder I guess.  Like calling someone dumb for going to work with COVID symptoms.   

I think Zircon said it best about "slavish dedication".  I'm unsure how flexibility to adapt and/or "modernize" stories should be judged as "dumb" without seeing how it plays out.  I think back to how some people lost their shit when Tilda Swinton was cast as The Ancient One.  I think it worked out just fine.  Legolas shield surfing while no-scoping Orcs on a river bank may have sounded bitching, but after watching it, I think we would all agree it was fucking dumb.

Very good points and I'll keep that in mind going into this show. Still excited! At the end of the day what matters most is what they do with the characters and story.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

https://youtu.be/v7v1hIkYH24

Teaser trailer just dropped!

-Marc.

wtf is up with hundreds of comments on the video with the exact same quote in different languages (but mostly Russian). This is seriously weird.

Some form of hate campaign against the series with some quote from Tolkien.

“Evil is not capable of creating anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” – J.R.R. Tolkien

I just hate this kind of internet thing when people just latch on to a given opinion in hordes. It's like seeing shoals of fish sticking together.

Especially when it's about a teaser trailer with so little substance.

[Adami]

To this, I just say the following.

Evil na- ú- capable -o creating anything siniath, ha tur- onlui distort a destroui what has been invented ben made bui i forces -o man.

And

Ulcu- na- vamme capable -o creating anything sinya, -yes pole- onlime distort ar destroime mana has been invented or made bime i forces -o mára.

[jingle.boy]

To this, I just say the following.

Evil na- ú- capable -o creating anything siniath, ha tur- onlui distort a destroui what has been invented ben made bui i forces -o man.

And

Ulcu- na- vamme capable -o creating anything sinya, -yes pole- onlime distort ar destroime mana has been invented or made bime i forces -o mára.

You shut your filthy whore mouth!

I think.

[soupytwist]

https://youtu.be/v7v1hIkYH24

Teaser trailer just dropped!

-Marc.

wtf is up with hundreds of comments on the video with the exact same quote in different languages (but mostly Russian). This is seriously weird.

Some form of hate campaign against the series with some quote from Tolkien.

“Evil is not capable of creating anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” – J.R.R. Tolkien

I just hate this kind of internet thing when people just latch on to a given opinion in hordes. It's like seeing shoals of fish sticking together.

Especially when it's about a teaser trailer with so little substance.

Shawshank is currently the highest rated movie on IMDb.  Yet if a trailer dropped in the past 5 years, it more than likely would have been reviewed bombed as one of the two main protagonists in the adaption was portrayed by a black man, whereas in the source material he was a white character.  Just says how backwards we've gone, and all these angry sheep who have somehow think they are being clever fighting against 'woke' are just idiots.

[Podaar]

Status Quorriors?

[lonestar]

https://youtu.be/v7v1hIkYH24

Teaser trailer just dropped!

-Marc.

wtf is up with hundreds of comments on the video with the exact same quote in different languages (but mostly Russian). This is seriously weird.

Some form of hate campaign against the series with some quote from Tolkien.

“Evil is not capable of creating anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” – J.R.R. Tolkien

I just hate this kind of internet thing when people just latch on to a given opinion in hordes. It's like seeing shoals of fish sticking together.

Especially when it's about a teaser trailer with so little substance.

Shawshank is currently the highest rated movie on IMDb.  Yet if a trailer dropped in the past 5 years, it more than likely would have been reviewed bombed as one of the two main protagonists in the adaption was portrayed by a black man, whereas in the source material he was a white character.  Just says how backwards we've gone, and all these angry sheep who have somehow think they are being clever fighting against 'woke' are just idiots.

That's a byproduct of giving the general public a voice, we in the restaurant industry have been dealing with it for ages with Yelp. That's why put minimal stock in publicly sourced reviews.

[HOF]

I'm going to throw this out to the wind. No one take offence please.

Tolkien had fun ideas, a deep imagination, a genius level with language, and a fun turn with story telling. All that being said, he was a terrible writer, poor with a plot, and pacing. His characters were overly serious and wooden, or goofy and childish. In The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn was completely unlovable and totally lacking in charm. I never once saw a Tolkien purist complain about Viggo's portrayal being too human.

The telling changes with the medium and the audience. I have no problem with that, and it might prove to be an improvement.

I am a casual fan, but wouldn't go quite that far.  I get your overall point, and I don't overly disagree with it, but I think "terrible" is too strong a term.  He made artistic choices, was deliberate about them, and executed them in his writing.  And he was writing for a particular age.  I don't think it is entirely fair to impose 2020s American standards on his writing. 

To give an example, you mention pacing.  In LOTR, the journey itself (and the pacing thereof) is incredibly important and is practically a character in its own right.  It is supposed to feel oppressively long, tedious, and wearisome.  That isn't bad writing.  It is intentional writing. Of course, whether one likes that or resonates with it is an entirely different thing.  But even if one doesn't, that doesn't make the writing "terrible."

Yep. But also, in having re-read LOTR last year, I was struck by how engaged I was even having read it many times since I was a kid. I think the pacing appropriately factors the scale of the journey and the disparate elements that come together to resolve the quest. I will grant that the opening chapters of Fellowship, which take place over a span of many years, might seem badly paced. Especially since they are followed by several chapters of the Hobbits just making their way out of the Shire once they set out. But I think that was necessary to build a sense of home and mystery about the world they were setting out into. That slow, deliberate expansion of the world is also what's missing from the movies.

I will say, they are a pain in the butt to read out loud though. Tried to do that with my kids a few years ago and didn't get very far.

[Cool Chris]

Yep. But also, in having re-read LOTR last year, I was struck by how engaged I was even having read it many times since I was a kid. I think the pacing appropriately factors the scale of the journey and the disparate elements that come together to resolve the quest. I will grant that the opening chapters of Fellowship, which take place over a span of many years, might seem badly paced. Especially since they are followed by several chapters of the Hobbits just making their way out of the Shire once they set out.

I didn't read the books till after I saw the movies, and that was one of the biggest things that jumped out at me while reading. It seemed the onset of their journey lacked any urgency.

[HOF]

Yep. But also, in having re-read LOTR last year, I was struck by how engaged I was even having read it many times since I was a kid. I think the pacing appropriately factors the scale of the journey and the disparate elements that come together to resolve the quest. I will grant that the opening chapters of Fellowship, which take place over a span of many years, might seem badly paced. Especially since they are followed by several chapters of the Hobbits just making their way out of the Shire once they set out.

I didn't read the books till after I saw the movies, and that was one of the biggest things that jumped out at me while reading. It seemed the onset of their journey lacked any urgency.

It did, but that was also a key plot element. Frodo is reluctant to leave, even though he knows he should. It gives real value to the Shire as a peaceful place that doesn't seem to share the troubles of the outside world (little do they know the Rangers are the ones keeping them safe). He knows if he leaves he may never return, but he also just doesn't know the extent of the threat in staying.

It ends up jeopardizing the whole journey and causing all kinds of problems. But it's also what allows the tension to build. If he had just set out right away, it wouldn't have made as much sense for the Black Riders to happen to be there just as he was leaving. The longer he waited, the longer the likelihood that the Shire would become known to Sauron. And there is a whole other subplot of what Gandalf is up to during that time that helps explain the delay as well (Frodo was waiting for him to come back to set out, and he never did, which should have been a clue that something was up).

[MirrorMask]

One of the best moments of the beginning of the Fellowship book is when Gandalf comes back from his journeys and explain to Frodo that his uncle really left him with the most evil and dangerous object in the whole of Middle Earth. I felt like I was there in the room with them, I should read that chapter on a stormy night for more effect.

[Zantera]

I love the LOTR trilogy (some of my favorite movies ever) but I couldn't even get through the Hobbit trilogy (never saw the last one) so I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of like reserved excitement? What made the LOTR trilogy what it is was everything coming together so perfectly IMO, it's one of those lightning in a bottle situations where you get the right director, the right writers, the right material, the right actors, the right music and the right look of the film and everything was just so memorable. As weird as it may sound, the look of this show so far isn't enough to make me excited. There's been plenty of things that looks good but lacks all the other elements. I'm hoping this has some of that. I'm not expecting it to be LOTR level because that would set me up for disappointment, but I am hoping for something better than a bland action/adventure/drama that feels like Boba Fett or Game of Thrones but happens to have the LOTR name to it.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't know.  I kind of get some of the complaints from the Tolkein purists about some of the changes made to how certain characters, races, or genders are depicted in this show.  I don't think they are all ridiculous.  Some of them definitely have more merit than others, but to simply dismiss their concerns seems wrong.

[Cool Chris]

Yep. But also, in having re-read LOTR last year, I was struck by how engaged I was even having read it many times since I was a kid. I think the pacing appropriately factors the scale of the journey and the disparate elements that come together to resolve the quest. I will grant that the opening chapters of Fellowship, which take place over a span of many years, might seem badly paced. Especially since they are followed by several chapters of the Hobbits just making their way out of the Shire once they set out.

I didn't read the books till after I saw the movies, and that was one of the biggest things that jumped out at me while reading. It seemed the onset of their journey lacked any urgency.

It did, but that was also a key plot element. Frodo is reluctant to leave, even though he knows he should. It gives real value to the Shire as a peaceful place that doesn't seem to share the troubles of the outside world (little do they know the Rangers are the ones keeping them safe). He knows if he leaves he may never return, but he also just doesn't know the extent of the threat in staying.

It ends up jeopardizing the whole journey and causing all kinds of problems. But it's also what allows the tension to build. If he had just set out right away, it wouldn't have made as much sense for the Black Riders to happen to be there just as he was leaving. The longer he waited, the longer the likelihood that the Shire would become known to Sauron. And there is a whole other subplot of what Gandalf is up to during that time that helps explain the delay as well (Frodo was waiting for him to come back to set out, and he never did, which should have been a clue that something was up).

I appreciate the breakdown. It was apparently lost on me when I read it! But again I watched the films first, which informed things accordingly.