Amph The Land of Middle Earth: Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit.

I WANT TO SEE THAT!!!

 

I just bought "The Silmarillion" and "The Children of Hurin" for a trip I'm taking, I think I'll start with Hurin first. Wish me luck, I hear the Sil is a real killer.

 

Only the opening chapters. After things get dark, the pace really picks up.

 

Yeah it's mainly the opening couple of sections dealing with Illuvatar and the creation which are difficult to get through. The other issue is the sheer number of characters, you may find yourself re-reading sections just to try and remember who is the son of who and such.

 

Take notes while reading. They may be useful later on I was lucky enough to read an edition with lexicon, so every time I couldn't remember a character I could look it up and recall.

 

I cannot stand in the battle of Minas Tirith, when the witch king of angmar breaks gandalfs staff(in the extended movie edition only)...

I hate it it is untrue to the book, sure Peter Jackson wanted to show just how powerful the witchking really was but Gandalf defeated a few nazgul at once the withcking included at weathertop... and there should have been like a small duel between them or something like a fight with magic, or a sword fight... and then have it interuppted with the sounding of Rohans horns...

because the witchking being stronger than gandalf is ridiculous, sure he is saurons most powerful servant, and has a ring of power but gandalf is a heavenly person he is one of the maiar and a holder of a ring of power surly the witchinking cannot be more powerful than him...

 

Only one of many Jackson's silly ideas. I used to whine about that stuff all the time, but I just got used. Hopefully, they won't change the books, so everything stays generally all right

 

I hate that scene too. Um, Mr. Jackson, ever hear of something called a Maia?

However, I have to reread the book once more, I remember Jackson saying in the commentary that that scene is actually in the book. I've always found that hard to believe.

As for the Silmarillion, are there versions that don't have the Index of Names? I have this edition (25ht Anniversary from the early 80s), and it definitely has one

[image=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1068/760652412_9439b0d74a_o.jpg]

 

I can't tell, I've read it only in Polish

 

One thing that definitely goes missing in the movie is Gandalf's magic. He comes out to help the group fleeing from Osgilliath using light from his staff, after that he only ever uses it to hit people, and finally only has his sword left. I started rereading the Siege of Gondor chapter the other night to see how this plays out in the book, will let you know what I find.

One of the departures from the books I hated most was in Osgilliath at the end of TTT, when Frodo almost gives the ring to the Nazgul. That just left me scratching my head completely, so completely untrue to the book in every way.

 

OK, so I reread The Siege of Gondor chapter, and we were right, no breaking of the staff. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King definitely takes place -- after Grond smashes through the gate, the Witch King enters. Gandalf is there alone, waiting for him, and says something like "You cannot enter, go back to the abyss that is meant for you." The WK replies, calling Gandalf an "old fool" and saying that his time has come. Before they can battle, though, the Riders of Rohan arrive and the WK takes off.

Another scene in the movie that irks me is in the paths of the Dead. To me, Aragorn blocking the king's sword with the reforged Narsil is the perfect ending to the sequence -- have the king realize it is in fact Isildur's heir before him and kneel. Instead Jackson's overblown horror instincts take over and we have the flow of skulls. Just not necessary.

 

That is the scene I hate the most in terms of not being true to the books, well that scene and the one that preceeds it with Faramir, Frodo and the ring. The film maintains the idea of it being Faramir's test, a chance to prove his honour and then instead of actually having him reach the honourable decision he reaches in the book, he acts completely out of character and drags Frodo to Osgilliath with him.

Faramir is one of my favourite characters from TTT novel, but the film butchered him horribly for the most part.

 

I don't mind that they decided to play out his temptation to take the ring back to his father, thereby giving the character more of an arc than in the book. But the way it then played out, especially Frodo almost giving up the ring, was just way overboard.

I generally like, even love, the job Jackson did overall. But too often he went over board, especially on the dramatics. There was no need to have the fake Aragorn death, for example. The stuff he did with paths of the dead in ROTK is another example. And it would have been nice if we didn't have a fake Frodo death coming along every half hour.

 

I agree, overall I think he did an amazing job, I had so many reservations when I watched the films for the first time, there was huge potential for things to go horribly wrong, but on the whole they were amazing. There were just a few things that overdid things which weren't necesary and a few changes that I felt took away from some of the characters.

 

When I watched the first movie, I was angry and willing to kill Jackson for what he did - I'm a frickin purist, nothing to do about it, not to mention I was younger and sort of histerical Then I watched the next movie... and then the next... and decided that the first one rocks and really shows the spirit of the book.

Now I've grown rather indifferent. As soon as they don't change the books, I say nothing. I can't do much about people seeing the Middle-Earth only with Jackson's eyes anyway. I used to regret it much, though.

 

I went to see the Lord of the Rings musical when I was in London during the Celebration Europe. It was amazing. The stage was brilliant, with branches on the walls and mechanized floor which worked really well. Lighting was great as well, giving the enchanting feel. There were elements of both the movie and the books in the show. The costumes were mostly the film ones even though some of them are differently described in the book than what P.Jackson created. Galadriel was different, though. Much better than in the film, glowing appearance, flying... like the most beautiful of her kind left in the Middle Earth, the only one who has seen the light of the Trees. One of my favourite appearances was the Treebeard, though. 4 meters tall. They even made a brilliant Balrog, actually rising all over to the balcony of the theatre, with the wind and everything.

Overall, the musical was really great. It is still on til the end of September so I recommend it to all who will be staying in London.

 

I watched the additional scene with Gandalf and the Witch King in ROTK again last night, the first time since rereading the scene in the book. It's so unbelievably, completely and utterly wrong. As if it wasn't bad enough that Gandalf's staff is shattered, Gandalf is then laying o the ground almost cowering in fear. So completely untrue to the character. Thank they cut it from the theatrical version, too bad it sneaked back in here. Of course, in the theatrical version, you're left wondering what happened to Gandalf's staff.

 

Happy Bilbo's birthday everyone.

 

Unlocking and upping.

 

The first time I read the books, I was like, "could these be any longer and more boring?!" but four years later, I started re-reading them, and I'm on my second time of reading Return of the King. either it's my age or the fact that I really like the movies, but I'm not finding the books quite as boring. although, I'm sorta reluctant to just sit down and read ROTK and finish it. I can only take so much in one sitting.

 

I read them for the first time when I was 7th grade, but I'd forgotten a lot since then (I'm a college Junior now), so I brought The Hobbit and the whole trillogy with me on my study abroad this semester. Man, I forgot how much I loved these. All I have left on my re-read is The Return of the King. While it's true that Tolkien does take a while to move beyond descriptions and into action, I find his writing as a whole as totally absorbing. I can see it all in my head. And The Hobbit itself is just so much fun. It and the trillogy are really so different in writing style.

I love the movies to. Sure, there are some changes that I don't agree with, like the over-emphasis of Arwen and the changes to Faramir's character, but they were great on a whole. I suppose he was trying to appeal to a wider audience. I know the elves didn't come to help at Helm's Deep in the books, but it added a lot of flair to that scene and didn't toy with the plot badly. Personally, I enjoyed that addition to the movie. It gave it some flair that fans of the book wouldn't have expected.

 

Ooh yeah, I always thought the Elves had come to HD in the books but after re-reading TTT, I was like, "cool that Pete Jackson put that in the film." and I think he was trying to appeal to a wider audience; with a book-turned-film, you'll have a new fanbase that isn't from the books' fanbase.

 

Love the books; love the films. They're different mediums and different interpretations. Though I certainly favor the written word as Tolkien cast it, the movies have their own style and charm, so I don't "hate" any of the changes and I try to understand them from a cinematic perspective. But as entertaining and well-made as the films are, they'll never "replace" or diminish the towering achievement of the books.

 

Tolkien's fantasy world is my absolute favorite. I've read The Hobbit twice, and on my third go of The Lord of the Rings.

 

You should definitely read The Silmarillion as well. Capturing the beauty of Middle-Earth and the tragedy of its history in Tolkien's brilliant narrative, it became my favourite book of all times.