PDA

View Full Version : Lord of the Rings!


James
26-04-2002, 13:50:45
I just love the film and book!

Anyone else!

Funkodrom
26-04-2002, 14:14:46
Is it a gay porn film?

James
26-04-2002, 14:16:30
Originally posted by MikeH
Is it a gay porn film?

No, it is a serious fanastic film about evil vs good!

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
26-04-2002, 16:56:52
So it's a Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay porn movie?

Lady_of_Chicken
26-04-2002, 21:34:26
Haven't read the book, but I really enjoyed the film and I'm looking forward to the next.

jsorense
26-04-2002, 21:37:58
Lady_of_Chicken,
I am wondering why you have never picked up the book before. You must have been aware of its reputation.

Sean
26-04-2002, 21:43:20
Reputation, schmeputation. Mills & Boon have a reputation, for Chrissakes.

Snapcase
26-04-2002, 21:52:34
Disliked the film, hate the book. The man does not have the most basic of literary skills.

Sean
26-04-2002, 21:59:24
Sure he did. I just picked up the book, opened it randomly, and found a load of tosh. I closed it, opened it at a different place, and found a perfectly serviceable rest scene. The thing is, you only notice the tosh, when most of it is good.

And I am not biased because I have a copy where I love the typesetting. No siree.

Lady_of_Chicken
26-04-2002, 22:22:37
Jsorense,

Oh, yeah. I'm aware of the reputation of the book and it had been a resident of my household for many years. Mostly I just dusted it and moved it around.


I never could get past the very beginning.

But if the book is like the movie (or better) I am tempted to try. I want to see the next film first.

The other thing...I think I am a late bloomer with fantasy.

I just started reading the Chronicles of Narnia (to my girls when they were 7). It was over my head in fifth grade and I felt too old in my twenties, but it's looking good in my thirties.

But I have to admit, none of the other books have picked up or surpassed the first book it seems. We are petering out on The Voyage of The Dawn Treader.

Sean
26-04-2002, 22:25:56
The Silver Chair really killed it for me. That and the completely unsubtle racism.

Darkstar
27-04-2002, 00:04:55
Dona...

If it wasn't for 'The Hobbit', I'd have never read the trilogy.

Try 'The Hobbit'. Out of the four, it's the best. Beware of this thread from now on, and get firmly into your bunker, the Tolkienites should mass and attack in force.

Sean
27-04-2002, 08:28:12
Mass? In here?!

The Hobbit was the worst from the point of view of continuity with the rest, being a children’s book, but also the best in terms of Tolkien not waffling.

Mightytree
27-04-2002, 08:56:20
:bounce:

Mightytree
27-04-2002, 09:09:21
This thread is the equivalent to gun control threads at Poly. There just has to be one once in a while.

:sleep:

Sean
27-04-2002, 10:24:04
And this would be the first, aside from a brief meandering in another thread where Shining betrayed his total ignorance about the meaning of the term ‘good writing’.

Snapcase
27-04-2002, 10:35:53
I also hate CS Lewis. Children's books shouldn't be patronising.

Spartak
27-04-2002, 10:39:16
Is there anything you do like?

Sean
27-04-2002, 10:40:17
Lewis Carroll wasn’t.

walruskkkch
27-04-2002, 15:44:59
Speaking of Pedaeophilia...

jsorense
27-04-2002, 16:34:24
Lady_of_Chicken,
Yeah, I can see how that can happen. I am not a big fan of fantasy myself. The only other book I liked as much as TLotR is "One Thousand Years of Solitude."
Why don't you take Darkstar's advice and try "The Hobbit." If you don't like that then you will have something to talk about with Sean.

P.S. Your children may like it too. It is written in a much lighter style than TLotR.
:)

walruskkkch
27-04-2002, 17:20:51
If you don't like "The Hobbitt" you can then try the "Hokey-Pokey".

King_Ghidra
30-04-2002, 12:30:14
hmm...i think i may have posted this before, but cs lewis and jrr tolkien were fellow professors at Oxford and both devout christians. Both the L,W&W and the LOTR were written as a result of some meeting group they both intended, and with mutual support and encouragement. So it is no surprise that they are both good v evil stories with strong christian mythological allegories.

Personally i think they're both great. They made my childhood a greater, bigger, more exciting place to be.

Funkodrom
30-04-2002, 12:50:47
Dona, The Fellowship of the Ring is quite hard going the first time you read it. It's very slow at the beginning and not much happens. Once you get to the end of the Fellowship and into the later books it all gets a lot, lot more exciting.

FunkyFingers
30-04-2002, 13:55:46
Mike - did you miss a 100-nil right at the beginning of this thread, you seemed to set one up?

I've read The Hobbit probably about 5 times, it's great, however I never got past the first book in the Lord of the Rings, it just lost me. Mind you that was 15 years ago when I was like 12, so maybe I'll try it again, I certainly loved the film. The Hobbit certainly gives you a big insight in to the unusual life of Bilbo Baggins.

The Chronicles of Narnia I remember as being fantastic, I read the whole series several times as a kid. Certainly hasn't turned me in to a racist!

Funkodrom
30-04-2002, 14:07:28
It doesn't count against James, too easy.

Try Lord of the Rings again you'll like it.

Darkstar
30-04-2002, 21:03:26
MikeH...

According to what you just posted a bit above... Fellowship of the Rings should be cut out of the whole line. If the Trilogy doesn't even get interesting until book 2 or 3... that is called bad writing these days. Because almost none of your readers that tried book 1 will follow the series. So... LOTR couldn't get published if it was a new series. Because it's too boring.

Now, if that isn't reason enough to never bother with the series, right out of a big fan's mouth, nothing is.

And looked at from that view point... LOTR will be forgotten in a generation or two. Because it isn't very good.

James
01-05-2002, 08:56:22
I like reading the book as I am during, well not actual now (you know what I am about)!

Sean
01-05-2002, 20:57:40
DS, I liked FotR the best. It had a lovely gentle pace. It seems that after the movie everyone was saying that was the worst of the three sections.

Funky: try reading them again. Just ‘A Horse And His Boy’ will do.

Funkodrom
02-05-2002, 08:33:02
Originally posted by Darkstar
MikeH...

According to what you just posted a bit above... Fellowship of the Rings should be cut out of the whole line. If the Trilogy doesn't even get interesting until book 2 or 3... that is called bad writing these days. Because almost none of your readers that tried book 1 will follow the series. So... LOTR couldn't get published if it was a new series. Because it's too boring.

Now, if that isn't reason enough to never bother with the series, right out of a big fan's mouth, nothing is.

And looked at from that view point... LOTR will be forgotten in a generation or two. Because it isn't very good.


Yeah, that's probably true. Took me 2 attempts to get through fellowship. I think it'll carry on being important because it's got to be a classic so people will keep reading it for that reason.

You could lose a lot of Fellowship of the Ring without significantly altering the storyline, especially the bits in the shire.

FunkyFingers
02-05-2002, 08:35:18
It could be that the expectactions of the readership have changed since the books were written? The writing style/pacing/language etc are all different these days, but that doesn't make LOTR a "bad" book. For example, we don't all still forsooth talk as doth Shakespeare mi lord.

Funkodrom
02-05-2002, 08:40:37
Lord of the Rings is magnificent because it creates an incredible world and the story is awesome, truly epic. It's not the best writing ever though.

Sirius Black
02-05-2002, 08:54:51
Ah, same here Mike. I labored through Fellowship. That was a pain in the ass to read until I got to the good stuff in the Two Towers.

Bastard Tolkien :bash:

Funkodrom
02-05-2002, 10:03:47
Originally posted by Sean
DS, I liked FotR the best. It had a lovely gentle pace. It seems that after the movie everyone was saying that was the worst of the three sections.

Funky: try reading them again. Just ‘A Horse And His Boy’ will do.

Missed this before. I thought the movie was great because that was the weakest book. Can't wait to see what he's done with the good stuff.

Sean
02-05-2002, 16:44:51
Funky, to my knowledge there has never been any excuse for waffling. The Catcher in the Rye was published at the same time as LotR, and the style is completely different.

King_Ghidra
03-05-2002, 08:16:26
I agree - James Joyce's Ullysses was published before well before Lord of The RIngs and changed the face of modern literature forever. Audience expectations are irrelevant to writing style.

That said, i don't think Tolkien waffles...i like his pace and style.

FunkyFingers
03-05-2002, 09:43:08
I like waffles - especially with toasted with Maple syrup. Hmm :heart:

King_Ghidra
03-05-2002, 10:21:14
:D

Snapcase
03-05-2002, 10:38:32
Originally posted by Sean
Lewis Carroll wasn’t.

Exactly who I was thinking of while writing that Post.

HelloKitty
05-05-2002, 08:38:10
Movie sucked bad. Books were readable and interesting.

Cumber
06-05-2002, 09:10:02
Originally posted by Darkstar
According to what you just posted a bit above... Fellowship of the Rings should be cut out of the whole line. If the Trilogy doesn't even get interesting until book 2 or 3... that is called bad writing these days. Because almost none of your readers that tried book 1 will follow the series. So... LOTR couldn't get published if it was a new series. Because it's too boring.

Now, if that isn't reason enough to never bother with the series, right out of a big fan's mouth, nothing is.

And looked at from that view point... LOTR will be forgotten in a generation or two. Because it isn't very good.


Except that, like every other book ever written in any language ever, not everyone has the same opinion on it. Personally I love FtoR as much as the other two, as do many others. I rarely get involved in discussions of Tolkein though, because most people's reasons for not liking it just don't make any sense to me, which leaves me saying it's good, someone else saying it's bad, and no one getting anywhere. So I'll wander off again now. :)

Funkodrom
06-05-2002, 10:19:25
I never said it was bad, just that the fellowship was hard to get into first time round. I like the books a lot.

Cumber
06-05-2002, 14:56:34
It depends on what you expect. I think the trouble with Fellowship is that LotR has such a big reputation, and FotR isn't initally what that makes people expect from LotR.

I imagine a lot of people seeing the movie and then reading the book will have trouble with it, because it's nothing like the action fest that the movie was, at least at first.

Sean
06-05-2002, 15:09:34
Exactly! That’s what is so good about it.

Cumber
06-05-2002, 19:01:02
I agree.

Mightytree
06-05-2002, 19:04:12
Agreed.

Goob
09-05-2002, 06:29:58
Tolkien Who???

Goob
09-05-2002, 06:30:19
Peter Jackson is God!!!

Goob
09-05-2002, 06:34:59
Ok now that I have pissed off the serious Tolkien and anti -movie fans... :)

When I here from people who had trouble reading the books it was always FotR that they had trouble with and never either of the others. That said there are many, including me who loved all or 95% of what is in Fellowship, and of course there is the simple fact that it sets up what comes later.

I've only seen the movie 4 times in the theater, a mark surpassed only by Star Wars and possibly Life of Brian (that might just be a tie).

Funkodrom
09-05-2002, 09:15:00
I've only seen it once. :(

Mightytree
09-05-2002, 09:40:10
I like The Fellowship. It has some of the best passages in the book in The Council of Elrond and Moria and it's just feels a bit more laid back than the other two books. That's what I like about it. I find it way better than The Two Towers.

Funkodrom
09-05-2002, 09:47:00
Two Towers is my favourite... well.... the bits in Mordor with Sam and Frodo are really good as well. Also my favourites.