I'd say start with DT since you're new to fantasy.Originally Posted by nomis93
ALL of LOTR is fantasy, but DT has roots in our world. Sometimes its easier to get the taste of fantasy if it still has some flavor of home in there.
But, definately, read them BOTH!
not only people, Brian
The Bear has not been enchanted by Tolkien's masterpiece?!
How can this be?!
~these smilies are inadequate to express my shock~
Heh--I guess it's hard for me to understand that, since fantasy has been with me from the beginning.I'd say start with DT since you're new to fantasy.
ALL of LOTR is fantasy, but DT has roots in our world. Sometimes its easier to get the taste of fantasy if it still has some flavor of home in there.
But, definately, read them BOTH!
In fact it's only recently that I've appreciated more realistic works like Stephen King's.
But if you're more of a fan of realistic works and are new to fantasy, then yeah, that might be a way to start out (unless you'd rather have fewer volumes to read than more just at first).
well, the tribute to my greatgreat[...]grandfather was one of the few redeeming features of the sagaAh, but descendants of Beorn should surely have no problems with it....?
alas... I already tried to express my feelings here. I'll try re-reading it one of those days, though
The Bear has not been enchanted by Tolkien's masterpiece?!
How can this be?!
~these smilies are inadequate to express my shock~
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well nomis, are you any the wiser fro having asked your specific question?
Read them both, in either order, and enjoy them. (but preferably LotR first...)
And this is where relativity comes in. A lot of what you've listed here I consider minor...at least not major. (if you know what I mean) And I actually thought that the Beacons of Minas Tirith thing was an improvement. I loved that scene...or at least I liked how the Beacons were showcased...being the great achievement that they were. Although I to would have preferred that Denethor be more like the Denethor in the book and ordered the lighting of them himself. About the Beacons...one of the things that I always loved about Tolkien was how he made Men seem, in their own way, just as magical and special as Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits. The Beacons are a testament to human ingenuity so I enjoyed the grand way that the Beacons were presented in the film.
I also agree about the Aragorn warg thing...totally unnecessary. Aragorn had enough drama surrounding him without throwing that in too and PJ could have used that time to do something that actually did happen in the book. Oh...and I'm not a fan of Aragorn lopping off the Mouth's head either (nor how the Mouth was depicted)
C'mon guys, neither of you have mentioned Bombadil yet... *runs & hides*
And I refuse to talk about that pretentious bastard too! Him and his sillyass hat!
That's priceless Cozener!
Actually, I tend to think PJ was probably right to leave him out - would have been very difficult to get him accross to a non-Book audience, hat or no hat!
But then other times I think the effort should have been made, even if only the bookreaders 'got' him.
It would have been great seeing him in FotR but yeah...it would have been hard to work him in. But like I said earlier...I would have loved to have seen a 20 hour cut of LotR.
Yep, that would float my boat!
You know I agree with you Brian. The elimination of Bombadil is another problematic issue for me. Coz, good call on Aragron vs. The Mouth. The whole battle at the gates of Mordor was wrong. Just to note, the reason I like the beacon scene the way it was in the books was because it set up the greater geography of Gondor and the surrounding areas. Gandalf's explanation to Pippin of where these beacons were showed that Gondor was a huge country made up of many regions, not just the city of Minas Tirith as PJ made it seem in the movie. In the books this all comes together when the forces from each of these areas comes marching in to Minas Tirith to prepare for the coming battle [as witnessed by Pippin sitting atop the walls watching]. In those two scenes you get so much more history of just what Aragorn is the King of than you ever do in the movies, and that to me is the major flaw with the third film. It's called Return of the King but PJ did a terrible job of showing anything about the history and nature of the kingship. Again, if these kinds of omissions were made in a DT movie this board would be ablaze with criticism.
Just related to what You're saying there jayson - The films gave no status at all to the Prince of Dol Amroth, and the nobility of his men. It would have been great to see him & them recognised for what they were, Elvish blood included.
But again there was no time. Cozener's 20-hour-film looks more attractive all the time. Just imagine what you could do with that!
They could have saved some time by not wasting our time with the scene of Faramir bringing Frodo to Osgiliath which never happened in the book. Every time I get to the "there's no time" issue I always think about the material that PJ just made up out of whole cloth. If there was time for that, there should have been time for the real material. Obviously he couldn't fit it all in, but I often just shudder at the choices he did make. I do agree with Cozener that the biggest shame was the omission of the Scouring of the Shire. The crucial element of the story is how the 4 Hobbits took the lessons they learned in the wider world and brought them home to the Shire.
Agreed, the scouring was a big let-down for me. I couldn't believe it was not going to be in.
True, the vastness of Gondor (or the King's dominion) was not very well explored...although it was hinted at here and there. But I don't see how this could have been translated to the film. It would have required to much explanation for an already long movie. Of course, they might have had time to explain all that if they hadn't have put in the Frodo/Faramir/Osgiliath thing, the Aragorn/warg scene, and done the Black Gates battle a little differently.
And I'm still pissed about the Scouring but I do love the films...even with its omissions and additions.
With DT, you're looking at massive cuts if translated to films. There's way too much to squeeze in. Hell you could drop almost all of WotC alone, turn it into a 30 or 45 minute version of High Noon. W&G, they'd fix that but good. All of Roland’s experiences in Mejis would likely be relegated to flashbacks dispersed throughout the series instead of concentrated in one place. I could even see some directors cutting it completely and writing it off as irrelevant to the story. (which would be a huge mistake as its integral to the development of Roland's character but you know some assface producer would suggest it)
I agree and that's why I'd prefer to not see movies made of DT.
Have you ever listened to the audio versions of the books?
(or tried?)
Sometimes a new perspective on the story can help...and while audio is the same words, the reader's expressions can breathe more life into the characters than the words on the page.
I am glad you leave your heart open to Frodo's world...and are willing to try the story again.
I couldn't even get through The Silmarillion but listening to it was a completely different experience.
I've personally gotten wrapped up in DT much more than LOTR imaginatively. That being said, one of the things I really like about Tolkien is how well thought out his stories are thematically. Being the good Catholic he was, Tolkien really utilized a lot of literary theory from my boy Aristotle. Tolkien had definitive story lines centered around moral impressions that he wished to convey 20 years before LOTR was even published. This is such a departure from King's whimsical "organic" method, of just grabbing the type writer and going.
Forget Dark Tower and LOTR, read the far superior Dragonlance novels which LOTR and Dark Tower are based on.
"It's his eyes, Roland thought. They were wide and terrible, the eyes of a dragon in human form" - Roland seeing the Crimson King for the first time.
"When the King comes and the Tower falls, sai, all such pretty things as yours will be broken. Then there will be darkness and nothing but the howl of Discordia and the cries of the can toi" - From Song of Susannah
Dragonlance was published in 1984. How could LotR be based on it since LotR was first published in 1954 and written starting in the 1930's? Unless Tolkien had a time machine it's Dragonlance that takes from LotR, not the other way around.
I'm pretty sure Matthew was joking around there.
He'd pretty much have to be I suppose.
The Dark Tower and LOTR both come from the Dragonlance series. Fucking King and Tolkien couldn't think up there own ideas. Plagarism pure and simple. Its sickening, SICKENING I TELL YOU!!!!!
"It's his eyes, Roland thought. They were wide and terrible, the eyes of a dragon in human form" - Roland seeing the Crimson King for the first time.
"When the King comes and the Tower falls, sai, all such pretty things as yours will be broken. Then there will be darkness and nothing but the howl of Discordia and the cries of the can toi" - From Song of Susannah
Posting Permissions
