Frenzy and me are off to watch LOTR:TTT tomorrow and i'm like a kid on Christmas Eve. :lol: :oops:
Damn.......someone got there before me .......couldn't get in for Wed , had to settle for Thurs .......... so don't spoil it now !!!!
I have tickets for this Saturday.
Bought the LOTR 4 DVD box and watched the long version. :)
QuoteI have tickets for this Saturday.
Bought the LOTR 4 DVD box and watched the long version. :)
Me too. it is much better than the cinema version - flows better!
Ideally I too would have watched the DVD version before seeing TTT but the missus bought them for me for Christmas and won't let me at 'em. :(
QuoteIdeally I too would have watched the DVD version before seeing TTT but the missus bought them for me for Christmas and won't let me at 'em. :(
Yeah I know the feeling, my missus bought them for her sister and won't let me watch them :cry:
It's going to be a tad odd watching TTT before TFOTR but f you can't wait.... :)
QuoteFrenzy and me are off to watch LOTR:TTT tomorrow and i'm like a kid on Christmas Eve. :lol: :oops:
Can I take it from the above that two of our best Zombies will not be present for the match that we 'had' (past tense) a good chance of winning tomorrow night?
In which case you both ought to update availability - Oldie to tell us whether he is there or not, and Frenzy to amend his 'Maybe' to a 'Maybe if the local cinema cancel the film and I manage to get a bus home quickly enough'.
:lol: :lol:
TL. 8)
oi oi, i was supposed 2 c it 2day but the mate i was going with decided to go out with his GF instead!
Quote
Can I take it from the above that two of our best Zombies will not be present for the match that we 'had' (past tense) a good chance of winning tomorrow night?
So the rest of us zombies are just chopped liver then huh! :evil: :wink:
had to settle for thursday aswell but theres 13 of us going so it should be fun, cant really remember what happened in the fellowship though, guess ill figure it out :P
I've been fortunate enough to see both TFOTR and TTT recently and if anyone is thinking of seeing The Two Towers before The Fellowship of the Ring and assuming they haven't either read the book or are very familiar with the story....well they may struggle to work out what is happening. Peter Jackson definately assumes you have seen the first (there's no "Previously on .........") and dives straight into the second installment. When all three have been released I imagine they will stitch wonderfully into one long story (as do the three books obvioulsy :wink: ).
Think about grabbing a copy of the Fellowship on DVD before you go. That being said The Two Towers is a spectacular film even if you haven't seen the first film, it's just that there is an epic story going on, as well as the mindblowing visuals, that may be hard to follow if you come in half way through so to speak.
Either way enjoy :)
i only watched the 1st installment of lotr a coule of weeks ago on my friends say thast it was really good [i wasnt really that intersted at all] i saw the 1st 1/2 of the 1st dvd round his the i wathcehd the whole 1st file round another m8s.
i really wanna c the 2nd film no 1 say what happens or ur in 4 a serious kicking at the next LAN.
So oldie were there ENTS in it and if so did they look pants?
Have they missed any key story lines out of this one like they did in the first film?
Your oppinion is appreciated....
(no spoilers below unless you didn't know that ents featured in the second film. But then, the only way that'd be a problem is if you haven't read LOTR, and then you won't even know what ents are anyway.)
The ents were too skinny by far, and had knees.
A lot of liberties were taken with the plot, even more so than in TFOTR. Lots more, in fact. In fact, come to think of it, very few details were the same as in the books, but I suppose the plot in the book is so interconnected on so many levels that they had to change things a bit.
(Some of the changes were just crowd-pleasers though. Which is fine, because that's what these movies are for after all.)
There was the good old hollywood-style "hit the crowd over the head repeatedly and very hard with all the important plot points" - which, in a film that condensed, means the old Hammer O' Smashing is brought out very often.
I smelled the distinct whiff of cheese quite often, but they're having to pick up in the middle of an epic fantasy adventure story (complete with romance) - I suppose it's incredible how little cheese there actually was...
The acting was almost flawless (although many of the characters were different in the film to how they were in the book) and the SFX were great.
I think the special edition will be a lot better - like in TFOTR, it'll probably flow better and make more sense.
Those ents did look silly though :)
- CiM
I think all comparisons with the book are dangerous as books work on different levels with the imagination of the reader playing such a major role.
So ...
I've been thinking about the film I've just watched and something that struck me was that I found more things in this second film to pick holes in then I did with the first???
The film itself is superb. Go see it.
My niggles ...
The major problem I had was one of scale. I imagined the strongholds of the goodies to be much more impressive. The Isengard army was top notch and realisticly massive whereas the defenders at Helms Deep were too few (at one point in the film the last door separating good from evil is being defended by half a dozen blokes). The Riders of Rohan were underwhelming.
The Ents were too skinny and too 'Disney'.
The Battle at Helms Deep has been said to be the best battle sequence since the D-Day landings in Saving Private Ryan. Not in my eyes it aint.
Gollum was a credit to CGI. He and Aragorn are the real stars of this film.
QuoteThe major problem I had was one of scale. I imagined the strongholds of the goodies to be much more impressive.
I thought that the Helm's Deep set suffered from being tucked away in a deep, gloomy hole somewhere, because the majestic scenery which added a lot of "impressiveness" :) to the other sets wasn't there.
QuoteThe Battle at Helms Deep has been said to be the best battle sequence since the D-Day landings in Saving Private Ryan. Not in my eyes it aint.
It went on for such a long time that I found it hard to take in. Also, I'm going to re-state my point about Helm's Deep being a little too claustrophobic for the film's own good - it harmed the battle sequence a fair bit.
Helm's Deep gave me horrible moments when my memory was shoved back to Attack of the Clones (*shudder*) - Gimli was almost Yoda at one point, and the Helm's Deep colour scheme sometimes reminded me of that gloomy planet that they fought on in the AOTC finale. But LOTR was so far above AOTC that they aren't really comparable, thankfully.
QuoteGollum was a credit to CGI. He and Aragorn are the real stars of this film.
Legolas got an awful lot of Dramatic Pose shots this time 'round :)
As OB said, great film, go see it. I suspect the Extended DVD will be worth waiting for.
- CiM
If I sound scathing of the film, it's because in a move as good as TTT it's easier to pick out the fewer less-good bits than all the really good bits - and the less-good bits stand out more because of the general high standard.
When I came out of the cinema yesterday my friend accused me of spoiling his enjoyment of the film because I was ranting on about the bits I didn't like 8)
- CiM
I personaly Really enjoyed the film, a few niggles, but nothing that cant be forgiven!
Tho the films ents spoiled my mental image. I always thought of them to be much larger and broader.
Funny cause I visualised them as being more human and smaller, but there you go.
Having had 24 hrs to mull it over, Helms deep was indeed underwhelming. I had visions f it being this utterly impenetrable fortress backed against the mountains that was only vunerable due to the Orc army being so huge.
While it's arguably a feature of the novel I'm also getting a little tired of the 'everyone is honourable and noble' or else 'evil and dark'. The only characters who appear to have any duality of character are the two ring bearers Bilbo and Frodo, and obviously scitzo Gollum. Everyone else is either utterly good and decent or wicked and corrupt. This may have worked 50 odd years ago in the book but I'd argue that modern audiences look for a bit more depth and complexity to the characters.
QuoteNeutron"]This may have worked 50 odd years ago in the book but I'd argue that modern audiences look for a bit more depth and complexity to the characters.
This explains the modern-day popularity of the Teletubbies, Simpsons, Tweenies and a number of other television shows :lol:
TL. 8)
QuoteNeutron"]Funny cause I visualised them as being more human and smaller, but there you go.
I can't imagine many people disagreeing over the inappropriateness of the "skinny" Ents, whether they think Ents should be large or small :)
QuoteNeutron"]Having had 24 hrs to mull it over, Helms deep was indeed underwhelming. I had visions f it being this utterly impenetrable fortress backed against the mountains that was only vunerable due to the Orc army being so huge.
The book always gave me the impression that Helm's Deep was fairly basic - just a wall, a coomb, and a tower, taking advantage of natural features to make it a very difficult fortress to capture. There was never any suggestion of impressiveness in architecture, either. Helm's Deep fit very much with the cultural identity and ancestral heritage of the people of Rohan, especially when compared to the men of Gondor. It's one of those things Tolkien was very
in to.
QuoteNeutron"]While it's arguably a feature of the novel I'm also getting a little tired of the 'everyone is honourable and noble' or else 'evil and dark'.
It wasn't really a feature of the novel. None of the characters in the novel were that simple. It's simply a function of the general condensing and (not in a bad way) dumbing-down of the film that the characters are as they are.
Also, in the book, the only characters we really got to see or hear much about were (with a couple of notable exceptions) people of royalty or high nobility, or at the very least military hero types. But they were all portrayed in very human ways, despite the high language and epic deeds. The film doesn't have the leisure to do that - it's all noble poses and dramatic speeches, with most of the subtleties of plot and character lying on the cutting room floor along with all the other cool things they didn't have the time, budget or permission to put in.
The film does annoy me by showing pictures of weeping and terrified peasant women and children, etc etc etc. It doesn't, and never has in any film that I've watched, add anything to the film and was never in the book in the first place.
Although the putting of helmets on young boys and stuff was rather effective.
QuoteNeutron"]The only characters who appear to have any duality of character are the two ring bearers Bilbo and Frodo, and obviously scitzo Gollum. Everyone else is either utterly good and decent or wicked and corrupt.
What about Boromir, or (to a lesser extent) the New And Not Really Improved Faramir? Sam can't escape, either - it's his hostility towards Gollum/Sméagol that arguably tips that character over the wrong edge. Théoden never really changed his mind or opinion about the whole "run away" plan - battle was forced upon him, and we've yet to see how he handles it (although presumably it'll be the same or similar to the final outcome of the book). Eowyn (sp?) has got obvious issues and even Elrond is portrayed as having to be won over rather than simply in mindless Good Guy wisdom.
QuoteNeutron"]This may have worked 50 odd years ago in the book but I'd argue that modern audiences look for a bit more depth and complexity to the characters.
It didn't work in the book because it wasn't there, unless you zoom out enough to obscure all of the little things which are so important - which, after all, is what the film has had to struggle with.
But as for modern audiences... well, most of the Hollywood higher-ups seem to think we want
simpler characters, or, on the other extreme, very pointlessly complicated characters who are dreadfully over-wrought. Add to that the fact that the popular images of Good Guys and Bad Guys have changed a lot even in fifty years and... well. It has a very noticable detrimental effect on the film, and it's remarkable that it manages to be an excellent movie despite that.
A bit more than two cents this time 'round. I think this is maybe worthy of a whole nickel.
- Schim
Erm mister Jonafon Wosss have you finished yet .....oh my god i am really wishing i didnt ask. :D :D
I get the picture, you were not impressed by it got it.....i think thats what your saying isnt it :wink:
QuoteI get the picture, you were not impressed by it got it.....i think thats what your saying isnt it :wink:
You really haven't been paying attention, have you Mister Smite? :D
They're great movies. IMHO.
- CiM
TL wrote
This explains the modern-day popularity of the Teletubbies, Simpsons, Tweenies and a number of other television shows
...........well it's good to know that we have highbrow here even if the film hasn't got it!! :lol: :lol:
ps Noticed none of you mentioned the opening sequence of a car chase followed by a dozen murders......will I be disappointed then?? 8O 8O
QuoteQuoteI get the picture, you were not impressed by it got it.....i think thats what your saying isnt it :wink:
You really haven't been paying attention, have you Mister Smite? :D
They're great movies. IMHO.
- CiM[/b]
Bloody hell didnt take you long to reply ..... :D well that was what i was trying for :lol:
I was hovering nearby, watching for forum-browsers to will onto the server where I was idling :)
- CiM
Quote
The book always gave me the impression that Helm's Deep was fairly basic -
I'll concur with that as to be honest I haven't read that far into the book yet. It was more my perception of what helms deep would be like from comments about the film.
Quote
It wasn't really a feature of the novel. None of the characters in the novel were that simple. It's simply a function of the general condensing and (not in a bad way) dumbing-down of the film that the characters are as they are.
For me the book (so far) does polarise characters into basically good and bad. You either fought for the free world or you fought for Sauron. Characters display a degree of duality when dealing with the ring I'll agree, but that's a major featire of the ring and it's hold over people. For example Boromir, who I consider to be basically a good character, only showed a bad side when he became sedeuced by the ring, which was kind of the reason why Frodo went it alone. Until then, while a bit proud and arrogant, he was prepared to fight for and protect Frodo and a member of the fellowship. In the book his repeated comments about leaving the gorup were only so he could return home to protect his lands, which he saw as the greater threat. Elrond may be unwilling to commit huge elven armies to the battle (I'm not sure he even has any army) but was still willing to help form the Fellowship and set it on it's course. I thought Tom Bomadil was included in the book as a sole example of a character that did not fall easily into either camp, being detached from the conflict and unwilling to become involved.
QuoteAlthough the putting of helmets on young boys and stuff was rather effective.
Agreed
QuoteIt didn't work in the book because it wasn't there, unless you zoom out enough to obscure all of the little things which are so important - which, after all, is what the film has had to struggle with.
I'm reading James Ellory while I read Tolkein and maybe that's effecting my judgement. But I still hold that Tolkein was telling a good versus evil tale and all characters ultimatley end up in one camp or the other. I can't think of a single one who so far (as far as I have read/watched) either sits on the fence or has moved from one camp to the other. Saroman and Wormtongue obvioulsy did change sides, so to speak, but not during the period covered by the books. Both were on Saurons side, even if the reader/viewer wasn't made aware of that straight away.
Everyone else morally moves any distance, only when affected by the ring. I agree they are still complex and facinating characters, with doubts, fears and desires all their own. And many of them disagree on how to act and how to deal with the ring.
Quote
Add to that the fact that the popular images of Good Guys and Bad Guys have changed a lot even in fifty years and... well. It has a very noticable detrimental effect on the film, and it's remarkable that it manages to be an excellent movie despite that.
Agreed, if there are any complexities to the characters in the book, they were lost in the move to film. Much of the intimacy of the first film seems gone and characters are there to do things rather than feel things. Frodo and Sam's story still held something of the earlier films closeness and Gollum is astonishing to watch. Lucas must be cringing every time he sees an image of his Jar Jar Bloody Binks
Gargantuan post alert. Most of this isn't worth reading, so you might as well go back to whatever it was you were doing before you started reading it... 8)
QuoteThe book always gave me the impression that Helm's Deep was fairly basic -
I came across the introduction to Helm's Deep in the book last night. It turns out it was built by those Numenorean guys (they seem to build everything that's any good, don't they?) long before Rohan was Rohan. But the Rohirrim themselves probably kept the walls in repair and built the deeping dike.
(I don't recall seeing the Deeping Dike in the film. I don't think they had space for it.)
QuoteNeutron"]For me the book (so far) does polarise characters into basically good and bad. You either fought for the free world or you fought for Sauron. Characters display a degree of duality when dealing with the ring I'll agree, but that's a major featire of the ring and it's hold over people.
Yes, here I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the characters were one-dimensional or shallow, which is certainly not the case. OTOH each character in the story does, sooner or later, make a choice to actively fight for the good side or to actively fight for the bad side. There are characters who start off on the fence - Théoden, for example (although less so in the book), and Treebeard - and move off it
^[1]. There are also characters who start off on one side and move to the other, Gollum/Sméagol being the only example that comes readily to mind, and he went back to bad. And, not wanting to spoil The Return of the King for you, in case you haven't read it, but there are characters in that book who are for all intents and purposes Good Guys, but their actions and choices are either no help at all, actively hinder the other Good Guys, or actively aid the Bad Guys.
(I deleted the paragraph I just wrote about Boromir, because I couldn't see what on earth my point was meant to be.)
QuoteNeutron"]I thought Tom Bomadil was included in the book as a sole example of a character that did not fall easily into either camp, being detached from the conflict and unwilling to become involved.
There were plenty others who didn't want to become involved. Some did in the end, some didn't, and some just
thought they didn't. Tolkien seemed to rather enjoy figuring out who the characters in his book actually were and what they were like, rather than trying to make them fit a mold.
That is, instead of saying "Aragorn will be this kind of guy," he said "Who on earth is this dark, hooded stranger that I just put in the Prancing Pony with Frodo?" That's one of the reasons I think LOTR is so enjoyable to read - Tolkien must have
really enjoyed writing it.
QuoteNeutron"]I'm reading James Ellory while I read Tolkein and maybe that's effecting my judgement. But I still hold that Tolkein was telling a good versus evil tale and all characters ultimatley end up in one camp or the other.
I don't know of James Ellory so I can't comment on that. But I'd agree that Tolkien was telling a good versus evil tale, although to what extent various characters end up in the two camps can get rather pedantic and complicated to discuss. Tolkien was writing firmly in a world of absolutes - even if those absolutes were sometimes blurry and uncertain to the people in it - whereas most modern writers write in worlds of relativity and vague subjectivism.
QuoteNeutron"]I can't think of a single one who so far (as far as I have read/watched) either sits on the fence or has moved from one camp to the other. Saroman and Wormtongue obvioulsy did change sides, so to speak, but not during the period covered by the books. Both were on Saurons side, even if the reader/viewer wasn't made aware of that straight away.
Return of the King does feature some of this kind of ambiguity and I seem to remember TFOTR and TTT having small scale bits too. It's difficult and pointless to try talking about it in abstract though - you really need specific examples. And even then it's not simple. And of course it's widely open to intrepretation :)
(I was going to say that I agreed with you other than that, but thinking about it I'm not sure that I do. One of the interesting things about LOTR is that it's debatable how "evil" the evil guys actually are. Arguably they all started out okay and have been perverted or manipulated. Sauron is the only really, really evil character, and even he was almost good in the past. Even Orcs were elves that Morgoth perverted, until they became mindless, fickle, animal-like drones.)
(In fact, the whole question of good and evil, and how and why certain characters are good or evil, is probably one of the things LOTR explores, whether intentionally or unintentionally. That said it's probably a bit silly to sit here trying to sum it up into a neat paragraph or two. Especially as I seem to have drifted into abstract again.)
QuoteNeutron"]Everyone else morally moves any distance, only when affected by the ring.
I'm getting very confused trying to write a coherent reply here because I think we probably basically agree :D I'm sort of trying to say, "Yes, everyone is in the good camp or the bad camp, but many of them go through struggles to stay in their camp." And you'd maybe say, "Yes, they struggle to stay in the camp sometimes but they're still basically in the good camp or the bad camp, and that's where they stay." To which I'd reply, "Yes, but it's never
easy to stay there. That's one of the things the book explores." To which you might say, "Yes, but they're still basically polarised into good or bad." And I'd reply, "I know, but that's an end result of all their choices." And so you might tell me, "Yes, exactly, but their choices are all defined by the fact that the characters are either good or bad."
See what I mean? :)
I remember now why I hated Critical Evaluations in English class so much. *shudders*
- CiM
[1] You might say that TB and Theoden end up making good choices because they're good characters, but you could also argue that they're good characters because they made good choices. I think it's a bit of both.
Smeagol was good tho
Gollum was better :P
LOL
watched it last night ........good film...a "must see" at the pictures for its full effect.
A few "cheesey" moments can be excused for the rest of the movie !
GO SEE !!
:)
Now thats a reply i can cope with short to the point and i didnt yawn once :wink:
:D :D :D
Top film one to buy..........Gollum made it for me ....exelent cgi
My discourse (new word for the day :-) ) is obviously with someone who is far far more familiar with Tolkeins work than me and I'm quite prepared to re-consider my original view-point.
There isn't really a specific set of points to illustrate my argument. LOTR was conceived by a man who lived through WWII. I think I can see the way that experience subtly affected his work. The good struggling against evil, the two sides of the coin, the black and the white of it. With the exception of Tom all characters are required to make a stark choice between good or bad. It's the simplicity of the concept I felt was from an earlier time.
I could argue Star Wars was popular exactly because it harked back to an earlier style of story-telling, where things were 'simpler' and it was a clear battle between good and evil.
Now this is a horrid generalisation for a work like LOTR I know. But as I read it I believe, perhaps naively, that in the fifties people took a different view to the world and had less of the cynicism of modern times.
Tolkein was non the less able to create an extraordinary world filled with fascinating characters involved in an amazing story. The simple moral dilemma facing them all was part of it's charm.
Jackson managed to capture that in the first film, mainly because he included plenty of dialogue. The interaction between the characters allowed us to learn who they were as the film went along. The growing friendship between Gimlie and Legolas for example.
In the second film there was less dialogue and more action. For me this meant that new characters were less well developed, especially the Rohan's. While still and extraordinary film, it lacked the intimacy of the first film and was a little weaker for it.
Gollum was perfect both in visual look, mannerism and character. Standing him beside Jar Jar shows it's not just money and cgi effects that builds believable artificial characters, someone (probably more than one) involved in the creative process has to have immense artistic talent too.
Do I win a prize for the dullest post in this forum ???
Seeing as i really didnt read that post at all and just skipped to the end you could well have done, i have to be honest i lost interest at discourse :D :D
The worrying truth is that I did too.
Actually NO! it was, in fact, an inciteful and reasoned appraisal of the translation of JRRT's work from paper to celluloid and not the ramblings of an elf obsessed retard.
Go back and read it now! There may be a test!
QuoteNeutron"]discourse etc etc etc
I think you hit several nails on their heads in this post :) Very good. I agree completely.
QuoteNeutron"]LOTR was conceived by a man who lived through WWII. I think I can see the way that experience subtly affected his work. The good struggling against evil, the two sides of the coin, the black and the white of it.
Tolkien often vigorously denied that WWII had anything to do with the plot of his book. He also said that he didn't particularly think one side was Good and one was Bad in WWII - IIRC (which is debatable). Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't affected by it :) But he certainly wanted us to think that his book wasn't, and I understand that and believe it to be true.
QuoteNeutron"]Do I win a prize for the dullest post in this forum ???
Not a chance. I think I've won it three posts running.
- CiM
I would like to but....nah i wouldnt really
I have read the books and they are very good BUT i dont over analise things so im afraid i cant join....but they were very good and i would recommend a read by everybody and i am looking forward to this movie because book 2 was my favourite out of the 3.
If you like these books read "The Wheel of time" set by Robert jordan as they are excellent and i personally think better than Tolkein (smite steps back and watches argument over this) i am still only on book 3 out of 9 but i am hooked cant actually put them down.
AAAaaaah i got all serious stop doing that to me :x :x
EEeerr rasberryketchupbannanas :D
QuoteI would like to but....nah i wouldnt really
I have read the books and they are very good BUT i dont over analise things so im afraid i cant join....
I hate over-analysing things, especially writing. OTOH I do find talking about it interesting... to a certain point...
Quotei personally think better than Tolkein (smite steps back and watches argument over this)
I don't really think LOTR is the best book ever written, or the best story ever told. It's definately a classic and enjoyable to read, but I wouldn't put it on an altar and worship it or anything :)
QuoteEEeerr rasberryketchupbannanas :D
Thanks for that...
- Schim
QuoteTolkien often vigorously denied that WWII had anything to do with the plot of his book. He also said that he didn't particularly think one side was Good and one was Bad in WWII - IIRC (which is debatable). Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't affected by it :) But he certainly wanted us to think that his book wasn't, and I understand that and believe it to be true.
While I accept that point, he did see active service in WWI, and my point was more about the cultural and emotional effect two wars had on the people who lived through them, (which, as I have lived through no world wars, I'll admit I may not be the best authority about.) IIRC he began writing the Book of Lost Tales in the trenches of the Somme. Might not the subtle subconscious effects of being swept up in the horror of WWI shape the way the beginnings of the LOTR were worked out?
I give up there aint any stopping you 2 :evil: :evil:
ammm off ta bed ......
The Guardian summed up why I'm enjoying LOTR so much by saying
"How, given little over half a century of work, did one man become the creative equivalent of a people?"
It's the creative complexity that amazes me so much. I'm not planning on learning Elvish and I don't keep referring to some great 'Encyclopedia of Tolkien' as I read, but it's wonderful to read a story based on so much well thought out history.
And I don't like to rip apart a book either, especially when I'm only half way though it, but it's and odd experience watching movies of books I'm in the middle of reading.
I'll end the word science and go watch some dumb cartoons or porn, otherwise I'm in danger of turning into an intellectual TANGO :lol: :lol:
edit...reading back I see it's too late and my worst fears have come true :wink:
QuoteQuoteTolkien often vigorously denied that WWII had anything to do with the plot of his book. He also said that he didn't particularly think one side was Good and one was Bad in WWII - IIRC (which is debatable). Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't affected by it :) But he certainly wanted us to think that his book wasn't, and I understand that and believe it to be true.
While I accept that point, he did see active service in WWI, and my point was more about the cultural and emotional effect two wars had on the people who lived through them, (which, as I have lived through no world wars, I'll admit I may not be the best authority about.) IIRC he began writing the Book of Lost Tales in the trenches of the Somme. Might not the subtle subconscious effects of being swept up in the horror of WWI shape the way the beginnings of the LOTR were worked out?[/b]
In that it's part of the sum of his life experience which, after all, is usually what writers draw from to balance and feed their imaginations, as well as to ground their stories and create convincing characters... *remembers to inhale* ... yes :)
As I said, it's also possible - even likely (gasp!) - that his experiences in the World Wars affected aspects of his story to varying degrees, but he definately wanted us to discount either World War as inspiration for his story, and was adament that his story was not some kind of metaphorical statement about those wars.
And believe it or not, I'm not a LOTR/Tolkien obsessive :) Honest! I've just read the books a lot, and enjoyed them, and unavoidably rather a lot of raw information has stayed with me from them...
QuoteAnd I don't like to rip apart a book either, especially when I'm only half way though it, but it's and odd experience watching movies of books I'm in the middle of reading.
I'm not sure whether I'm enjoying the movies more or less for reading the books first, but I'm certainly glad that I am so familiar with the books - so far, incredible as the movies have been, I'm still more fond of my own "interpretation" of the books than with Jackson's "interpretation" in the movies.
In fact, I think that although the movies are initially harder to accept because of my familiarity with the books, I
am enjoying them more as I watch them more.
And thankfully I can still read the books without the movie's images intruding. Although some of the movie's images have actually enhanced certain bits of the books for me.
Bah. Enough warbling for me I think. :roll:
- CiM
.......can't help but think that whilst CIM and Neutron make many valid analytical points about JRR's classic masterpiece they almost fail to look for the real inspiration.
Whilst invilvement in a World War may ahve altered the thoughts and feelings of the man the piece itself is far greater than the sum of it's parts and bit part players alike.
The battle between good and evil did not start with Tolkien books but was first written about thousands of year's ago in something called the Bible (okay, don't panic and go rushing to the pub all at once!! :lol: ).....comparisons of which have not been brought to the fore at all in this forum, yet like Harry Potter books and argueably some of the characters contained within, bear a distinct resemblance to Tolkiens work?!!.
Try reading the Bible sometime (I know it's a dull read) but all the elements of Tolkiens work are contained therein (substitute Trolls, Orcs and Hobbits for historical civilisation of your choice) and I guess a good remake with Spielberg as the Director and the use of modern day special effects would make it a classic movie.....can you imagine JC feeding the 5,000?......MacDonalds Fishburgers all round then washed down with a Milkshake from the water (bit near the truth there then!!).
The ring being perhaps just a symbol of power which all men crave (sorry girls) yet which ultimately has the power in itself to corrupt (let's see now...Religion..... and modern day equivalent of Money??)......either of which can cause your average bloke (or Elf) in the street to do some weird and wonderful things...good and bad.....so more's the pity the Bible was a collaboration instead of a single author (allegedly?).
Let's all celebrate the Prophet Tolkien (and in no way trivialising the ingenuity of his work for those purists out there) for to my mind he has managed to recreate what was perhaps a masterpiece 2,000 years on from the original and re-ignited the age old dilemma of what is good and bad in all of us.......
.........and even to this day (for those of you who read the Daily Mail) there are people who are analysing the Bible and saying they have found codes within it alluding to all of the history of mankind including our future demise in 2006!!......
A good read (and Tolkien is a bloody good read) is a good read but........do you think in 2,000 years time when mankind has no further use of arms and legs and perhaps even bodies, do you think his work will be analysed in much the same way as today?....or could it be used as a reference manual to the way in which the battle between good and evil is an eternal dilemma to which there may be no resolution...............
...........but probably at least the material for several more good books??!! :roll: :roll:
ps For anyone of a religious persuasion I wholeheartedly apologise for any inflammatory or Defammatory remarks........or at least let me write a book first (oops, almost have) and get paid millions before you issue the Fatwa!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
pps I think I'm going to go for that beer now!!
My mind's made up ...
I'm entering a PCS team for next season's 'University Challenge'. :lol:
Quote.......can't help but think that whilst CIM and Neutron make many valid analytical points about JRR's classic masterpiece they almost fail to look for the real inspiration.
Whilst invilvement in a World War may ahve altered the thoughts and feelings of the man the piece itself is far greater than the sum of it's parts and bit part players alike.
The battle between good and evil did not start with Tolkien books but was first written about thousands of year's ago in something called the Bible (okay, don't panic and go rushing to the pub all at once!! :lol: ).....comparisons of which have not been brought to the fore at all in this forum, yet like Harry Potter books and argueably some of the characters contained within, bear a distinct resemblance to Tolkiens work?!!.
Try reading the Bible sometime (I know it's a dull read) but all the elements of Tolkiens work are contained therein (substitute Trolls, Orcs and Hobbits for historical civilisation of your choice) and I guess a good remake with Spielberg as the Director and the use of modern day special effects would make it a classic movie.....can you imagine JC feeding the 5,000?......MacDonalds Fishburgers all round then washed down with a Milkshake from the water (bit near the truth there then!!).
The ring being perhaps just a symbol of power which all men crave (sorry girls) yet which ultimately has the power in itself to corrupt (let's see now...Religion..... and modern day equivalent of Money??)......either of which can cause your average bloke (or Elf) in the street to do some weird and wonderful things...good and bad.....so more's the pity the Bible was a collaboration instead of a single author (allegedly?).
Let's all celebrate the Prophet Tolkien (and in no way trivialising the ingenuity of his work for those purists out there) for to my mind he has managed to recreate what was perhaps a masterpiece 2,000 years on from the original and re-ignited the age old dilemma of what is good and bad in all of us.......
.........and even to this day (for those of you who read the Daily Mail) there are people who are analysing the Bible and saying they have found codes within it alluding to all of the history of mankind including our future demise in 2006!!......
A good read (and Tolkien is a bloody good read) is a good read but........do you think in 2,000 years time when mankind has no further use of arms and legs and perhaps even bodies, do you think his work will be analysed in much the same way as today?....or could it be used as a reference manual to the way in which the battle between good and evil is an eternal dilemma to which there may be no resolution...............
...........but probably at least the material for several more good books??!! :roll: :roll:
ps For anyone of a religious persuasion I wholeheartedly apologise for any inflammatory or Defammatory remarks........or at least let me write a book first (oops, almost have) and get paid millions before you issue the Fatwa!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
pps I think I'm going to go for that beer now!!
As Tolkien himself wrote in the preface
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."
So just enjoy it people. :D
Hoorah for the voice of sanity!! :lol: :lol:
.......wonder if there was ever a preface to the Bible saying exactly the same thing?? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
.........now where did I put that book of Badness again?? :lol:
Quote.......can't help but think that whilst CIM and Neutron make many valid analytical points about JRR's classic masterpiece they almost fail to look for the real inspiration.
We weren't trying to collectively write a disertation on the thing, we were discussing one or two things which somehow came up and interested or irked us. Or something...
QuoteWhilst invilvement in a World War may ahve altered the thoughts and feelings of the man the piece itself is far greater than the sum of it's parts and bit part players alike.
Such regal tones thou dost useth!
QuoteThe battle between good and evil did not start with Tolkien books but was first written about thousands of year's ago in something called the Bible (okay, don't panic and go rushing to the pub all at once!! :lol: ).....comparisons of which have not been brought to the fore at all in this forum, yet like Harry Potter books and argueably some of the characters contained within, bear a distinct resemblance to Tolkiens work?!!. etc etc, warble etc, blah blah yada yada l33t skillz w00t.
The Bible is a mixture of history, poetry, prose, allegory and personal letters. As Sadako said, LOTR/HP are pure fiction stories, designed neither to have some kind of deeper meaning nor to make any kind of statement. The deeper meanings that do exist in LOTR, and the statements it does make, are simply symptomatic of the portrayal of believable characters.
I don't think the Bible would make a classic movie because, for a start, it's comprised of a whole bunch of separate books, many of which overlap and many of which are mostly poetry. Others cover long periods of history, bringing the reader's focus onto specific significant aspects of said history. Yet others are simple first- or third-hand accounts of historical events over short(ish) periods. And still more are letters.
So if you ignore all those bits and focus on individual Bible stories for movie-making, even those stories often don't suit well to filmification (new word for the day). Those few that do would often slightly spoiled for our modern audience by the now obscure bits of what was popular culture three thousand years ago. And even if you transpose those into modern icons, you have the basic problem that most (indeed, probably all) Bible stories have a point or several points to them - and most people don't like being preached at by their movies.
As for attempting to take Bible stories and move them into the modern world, well... rather a lot of folk have already done so :) Same follows for many of the bigger concepts dealt with in the Bible. Babette's Feast - a film which is on this week, I think - is a great example of that.
Being quite familiar with large chunks of the Bible, and being quite familiar with LOTR, I can safely say that nothing in LOTR is simply a re-hash of some Bible story somewhere. In no way is LOTR a re-working of the Bible. Although, because the Bible was part of Tolkien's life experience, no doubt it has influenced his works in the same subtle ways that the world wars and his neighbour's cat influenced his works.
QuoteLet's all celebrate the Prophet Tolkien (and in no way trivialising the ingenuity of his work for those purists out there) for to my mind he has managed to recreate what was perhaps a masterpiece 2,000 years on from the original and re-ignited the age old dilemma of what is good and bad in all of us.......
*points to his above paragraph*
Tolkien was a Christian (a Catholic, I think), and a good friend of C S Lewis. It's not difficult to figure out where his concepts of good and evil came from. LOTR would have been impossible to write in post-modernism - or at least to write convincingly and coherently - because, quite simply, you can't portray a battle between good and evil if you don't know exactly what defines good and evil.
And post-modern pop culture suffers in a big way on that point because, without whole-hearted belief in an absolute, all-creating uncreated power, there can be no meaningful definition of good or evil. All that's left is just vague relativism with no hard absolutes to give it substance.
- CiM
Quote (for those of you who read the Daily Mail)
Who by definition have no idea what were are talking about......
and anyway according to the wonderful Daily Mail, everyone in this forum is a Computer Games playing psychopath, who celebrate death and destruction with our wicked Terrorist led bomb planting games. We all probably cheered on 11th September and stuff!
And anyone who knows about computers probably doesn't use sensible AOL (with that sweet wholesome Connie girl) and are hackers and virus writers or look at foul pornography. And a few use loonix and not safe sensible Windows 97, and therefore are clearly satans little helpers. I'd have the lot of you flogged in public you bloody long haired hippies....foam.....rant.....rant. 8O :evil:
QuoteQuote (for those of you who read the Daily Mail)
Who by definition have no idea what were are talking about......
and anyway according to the wonderful Daily Mail, everyone in this forum is a Computer Games playing psychopath, who celebrate death and destruction with our wicked Terrorist led bomb planting games. We all probably cheered on 11th September and stuff!
And anyone who knows about computers probably doesn't use sensible AOL (with that sweet wholesome Connie girl) and are hackers and virus writers or look at foul pornography. And a few use loonix and not safe sensible Windows 97, and therefore are clearly satans little helpers. I'd have the lot of you flogged in public you bloody long haired hippies....foam.....rant.....rant. 8O :evil:[/b]
Well I've looked and looked but I still cannot find anything to disagree with in that post :?
CiM wrote
The Bible is a mixture of history, poetry, prose, allegory and personal letters. As Sadako said, LOTR/HP are pure fiction stories, designed neither to have some kind of deeper meaning nor to make any kind of statement.
.........in which I rest my case that the two are not dissimilar??!! :roll:
Neutron wrote
Who by definition have no idea what were are talking about......
and anyway according to the wonderful Daily Mail, everyone in this forum is a Computer Games playing psychopath, who celebrate death and destruction with our wicked Terrorist led bomb planting games. We all probably cheered on 11th September and stuff!
And anyone who knows about computers probably doesn't use sensible AOL (with that sweet wholesome Connie girl) and are hackers and virus writers or look at foul pornography. And a few use loonix and not safe sensible Windows 97, and therefore are clearly satans little helpers.
...........In which I rest my case?!!
ps Neutron failing miserably to ascertain that by using a point of reference in the Daily Mail it does not automatically make me a Mail reader thus invalidating his erroneous and misguided rant!! :lol: :lol:
pps Really must drink more beer.....it evokes so many happy memories!! 8O 8O 8O
Quote ps Neutron failing miserably to ascertain that by using a point of reference in the Daily Mail it does not automatically make me a Mail reader thus invalidating his erroneous and misguided rant!! :lol: :lol:
At no point did I allude to the possibility of you being a Daily Mail reader.
Also I would hate to think that anyone thought I had a personal grudge against readers of the Daily Mail....or Daily Express and Daily Mirror for that matter.
I'm sure there are many reasons why someone would want something other than reasoned intelligent informed editorial in their daily newspaper :wink:
QuoteTolkien was a Christian (a Catholic, I think), and a good friend of C S Lewis. It's not difficult to figure out where his concepts of good and evil came from. LOTR would have been impossible to write in post-modernism - or at least to write convincingly and coherently - because, quite simply, you can't portray a battle between good and evil if you don't know exactly what defines good and evil.
If you buy the 4 DVD set or LOTR FOTR you will get plenty of background story on Tolkien and LOTR. Here is a short summary:
Tolkien lost both his parents before he was 11 years old and grew up in a new town with basically no friends. He was drafted for world war I and survived the trenches in France. I think he got a pretty good picture of good and bad there. The outlines for Midgard was drawn out in the trenches actually. Tolkien realised that people aren't evil, but capable of evil actions.
I have a disturbing feeling that I'm wasting my time as I sit down to write this reply... (I Agree with you completely on this one....Smite :twisted: :twisted: )
QuoteCiM wrote
The Bible is a mixture of history, poetry, prose, allegory and personal letters. As Sadako said, LOTR/HP are pure fiction stories, designed neither to have some kind of deeper meaning nor to make any kind of statement.
.........in which I rest my case that the two are not dissimilar??!! :roll:
Well, rest your case if you wish, but no jury I've ever heard of would find in your favour based on
that bit of logic 8)
LOTR is a fictional narrative, with brief inclusions of poetry and quoted letters to further the story at relevant points.
In other words, it's a novel.
The Bible is not a novel. In fact, it's nothing like a novel. Read Homer if you want epic classical fiction. The Bible is also a book with an awful lot to say,
unlike LOTR, which, as Tolkien was at pains to point out, and even wrote in the foreword which is published along with every edition of Part I of the Lord of the Rings - the Fellowship of the Ring, which in fact is two books - isn't.
That sentence makes sense. Read it through again and you'll get it.
Also, the Bible is comprised of over sixty separate books by different people, many of which are 100% history or 100% poetry or 100% letter. The six books which make up LOTR are all narrative fiction, with tiny little excerpts of poems (etc.) continuing the narrative flow, rather than interrupting it or standing separate from it.
QuoteTolkien lost both his parents before he was 11 years old and grew up in a new town with basically no friends. He was drafted for world war I and survived the trenches in France. I think he got a pretty good picture of good and bad there. The outlines for Midgard was drawn out in the trenches actually. Tolkien realised that people aren't evil, but capable of evil actions.
It's arguable that, in WWI, neither the Triple Alliance nor the Triple Entente represented "Good guys" or "Bad guys". Thus we can discount WWI as the basis for LOTR. I know this isn't what you were suggesting, but I wanted to get that out of the way :)
I reckon involvement in two world wars must have given Tolkien a wide range of experience from which to draw when he did write LOTR - and indeed other books - but I would dispute the idea that he got his concepts of good and evil from those experiences. He may have attained a heightened awareness of good and evil, or have experienced something of the finer points of how good and evil relate to the running of nations (for example). In fact, it's almost certain that his sense of good and evil was in some way developed or enhanced or simply given more substance through the world wars, but it probably doesn't account for the whole story.
OTOH religious doctrine is the only non-subjective way to define good and evil, and it is this method that Tolkien uses in the creation story he builds for Middle Earth. This leads me to believe that Tolkien's sense of good and evil was founded in theology and honed in life experience, rather than the other way around.
I could be wrong. It's not really that important, as both things - the Wars and Christianity/Catholicism - were major influences on his life. As Tolkien himself writes:
Quote"An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous."
- CiM
Meathook Pcs forum's. Helping insomniacs sleep since Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:49 pm
LOL!!........but surely more entertaining than sleeping pills and a glass of water?? 8O 8O