LOTR: Return of the King

[Gonzo]

I've read the first two Wheel Of Time books, they were entertaining stories but I don't remember them being overly original or rich, though it's been a while. There were some good characters but I didn't think the world was as interesting as Tolkien's, which is so steeped in myths and history that it immerses me totally. Also Jordan seemed to borrow some story elements, and wasn't Lan a bit like Aragorn, and the boys quite hobbit-like in that they were simple boys then their lives were turned round by a quest?

Terry Pratchett is very entertaining but Discworld seems more a vehicle for his satire and other comedy, which is very well done. I don't imagine he's thought of his world's history in such detail as Tolkien has, so his 'realm' isn't as strong, but that's hardly the point, right?

Tolkien seems to have 'researched' partly by inventing this massive amount of what would seem to be superfluous backstory, to most authors, but actually helped make Lord Of The Rings so compelling and immersing. When I first read the Appendices and got stuck into The Silmarillion, I couldn't believe how much he'd thought up about the races, and events preceding of The Hobbit. For me, that makes him the master.

[Las Naranjas]

It's funny that you say that others might consider the backstory as superfluous, when he would most likely consider the novel superficial compared to the background which was in his eyes the more important work.

[evenwolf]

Anyone ever read the Chronicles of Prydain?

I read those throughout middleschool- the Book of Three, Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran the Wanderer, The High King.  Anybody with me?

[Gonzo]

Las: Yeah - I've read that he actually considered 'The Silmarillion' was going to be his greatest single achievement, and anyone who's read that will know that it is more difficult, concentrates less on character, and has an even more epic sweep of events.

It's the collection of a bunch of invented mythology that must make it more special to Tolkien - Silmarillion is richer in the sheer amount of events it takes in. But LOTR has such a more personal touch with its cast of well-made characters (and they ARE good characters, don't listen to anyone saying they're 'cardboard cut-outs' etc.), that probably most of us see that as the greatest work.

So logically I'd see things like The Silmarillion as a companion piece or 'backstory', but of course it is something in its own right, it's just that LOTR has become the popular work, for obvious reasons.

[DGMacphee]

Here are some other questions for people to ponder in this post.

What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?

Also, what do you think of Jackson's next project: A remake of King Kong?


Also, the Gollum Rap: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/gollum.php

[tom bombadil]

i'm still sad they didn't include me in the first movie.

[Barcik]

I've just returned from the Return of the King premiere. What more can I say that hasn't been said before? Not much, so I'll just repeat. Amazing! Specatacular! Epic! Absorbing! This is a true masterpiece, and it won't matched soon. This trilogy is the ultimate cinematic experience.

After a rather long exposition (interestingly, it ends in Gandalf saying "The board is set, the pieces are moving") it begins. Trust me, you have never seen anything such as "it" before. Eliphants (or, oliphaunts, if my memory doesn't deceive me), eagles, ring-wraiths, trolls, orcs, humans, ghosts - all is to mixed to create the best action scene ever. Its spectacularity is enhanced by the fantastic camera work. Often, it is hard to believe that men managed to create something of such sheer scale.

I liked Jackson's interpretation of the novel. Frodo's struggle against the burden of the Ring was very well conveyed, even is somewhat late. Sam's devotion to his master was truly touching. I was really impressed how Jackson managed to emphasise Eowyn's desire for equality in the spider-web of sub-plots he had to handle. He also stayed true to most of the "longish" moments of the book, ignoring the crowd's wish for blood. Peter Jackson really understood the characters, although I still dislike his choice of making Gimli the movie's clown.

However, there is a major setback. I think the soundtrack of this part was worse than the those of the previous two. It lacked the thrilling and moving touch of the former ones. I especially missed "Amon Hen".

Personally, I am not disappointed Jackson chose to remove the Scouring of the Shire. It would have just made the movie considerably longer with a segement that isn't particulary important. I am much more bothered by the abscence of smaller moments from the book, such as the conversation with the Mouth of Sauron, the conversation with Saruman in Isengard and the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King, as they were much more relevant to the story.

The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan (The first books anyway. He now is trying elongate the series as much as he can)

I've read all of the books in the series, except the last one which I didn't finish because it was just too bad. I did like the first two, but I think that they are no match to the Lord of the Rings, mostly for one reason - it's a total rip-off. There are several boys who leave their village and discover the world, guided by a magic wielder, and go to the very homeland of all evil. In many ways, The Eye of the World is the Lord of the Rings Lite, without the detail and the language.

What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?

I do not regard it is a classic. As I have explained in the Indy thread, I only call timeless movies, movies that will not be affected by time, classics. The Lord of the Rings trilogy will. Sooner or later, a move spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.


Overall, this is one of the greats of modern cinema. When the hobbit's cry when Frodo leaves them, so does the viewer cry when this amzing, two-year, 10-hours epic trilogy come to an end.

[DGMacphee]

Barcik:

I do not regard it is a classic. As I have explained in the Indy thread, I only call timeless movies, movies that will not be affected by time, classics. The Lord of the Rings trilogy will. Sooner or later, a move spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.

You misunderstood me.

I know it's not a classic, cause it's still a new movie.

But I'm asking if it ranks among classic epics.

In other words, does it have the same depth and scope as a film from David Lean.

Could you even describe it as an epic?

[MillsJROSS]

I've read all of the books in the series, except the last one which I didn't finish because it was just too bad. I did like the first two, but I think that they are no match to the Lord of the Rings, mostly for one reason - it's a total rip-off. There are several boys who leave their village and discover the world, guided by a magic wielder, and go to the very homeland of all evil. In many ways, The Eye of the World is the Lord of the Rings Lite, without the detail and the language.

I can't quite see how the Wheel of Time is a rip off. Good vs. Evil? If that's your premise Lord of the Rings is a rip off of many books. Is it youth going off into an adventure and thus growing? Been done before LOTR, as well. I won't argue they don't share similarities. They're both fantasy. The hero's are both young, and have the power to destroy the evil. I think the ring wraiths (or whatever they're called), share some similarities with the Morgul(Or something similar)? It's really not a rip off at all, it just shares some similarities. The only problem with Jordan, is he keeps inventing new enemies and not ending the series. I believe someone told me Jordan planned on it only being four books. So I give Tolkien props for finishing LOTR. I just enjoyed Jordans earlier works more. And I think it's a book that shows I'm not against rich detail, as those books average anywhere from 500 to 1200 pages. But I think Zelazny's work is my favorite fantasy, I'd suggest it to anyone. He also didn't finish his work (mainly because he died), but there is an end (so in other words, he still had a few loose ends that he was probably going to work out, but he finished most of it  before his death, and his last book ended well enough to consider it finished enough, although you crave for more).

[Quintaros]

What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?

Also, what do you think of Jackson's next project: A remake of King Kong?

LotR is not a personal favourite the way LoA is but I do believe that the people who love these films now are going to continue loving them for years to come.  So yes I think the LotR trilogy will earn the status of classic.

Barcik:

Sooner or later, a more spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.

Perhaps a future generation of filmgoers will be unimpressed by it the same way as many current filmgoers are un-impressed by epics of the past. However, I think the people who are seeing them now will always consider them classics and that many people who see them for the first time 20 years from now will understand why.

I like the idea of a King Kong remake.  The original is a much loved film but it has certainly dated.  Personally I find it unwatchable due to the acting style of the time.  Jackson I think is the right director for such a remake because (if the way he adapted LotR is any indication) he will treat the original with the proper amount of reverence while still making the story his own.

[Peter Thomas]

I, personally, am not so happy about PJ's re-invention of King Kong. I think Lord of The Rings is a movie that will stick in people's minds for a long time to come, and trying to 'out-do' it with a giant ape (or bipedal mammal of some kind...) is kind of stupid.

People are BOUND to compare the two sides of the coin, and no one in their right minds will try to prove that King Kong is richer in plot/character/moral/emotion etc than LotR. I also think the 'ape on empire building' scene has become a cliche of sorts. I mean, who HASN'T seen a cheesey animation trying to rip it off? People are just going to laugh at PJ for trying to take it seriously. Or maybe I'm wrong....

Maybe....

We shall see.....            

On the other front, people trying to downplay the importance of LotR's backstory is ridiculous. I think that's the warcry of people who don't understand the appendices, or just find it too hard going to finish.

About the only MAJOR criticisms I'd have of RotK is the omission of Christopher Lee and the Scouring (I know Sauroman will be in the DVD, but still....).
These are not just 'time fillers' in the book, which is what most novellists are using these days (Just read Pratchett's 'Hogfather' for a prime example. The last dozen pages or so were written purely to meet his page quota). Tolkien wasn't interested with publisher's comments when he wrote. He wrote these scenes because he believed they conveyed a vital message to the reader. And that is something Jackson DEFINITELY should not have left out.

[Gonzo]

Jackson doesn't much care for the Scouring apparently, and didn't even consider filming it from what I can gather. Personally, whilst some may think he's arrogant to alter Tolkien's story to that extent, I think that it works better for film this way.

Already I've read reviews saying that Jackson seems to not know where to end the film, with 20 minutes of 'could-be' endings, and whilst I don't agree with that at all, I think it could have really damaged the dramatic impact if there'd been the extra action of the Scouring tagged on. As a Tolkien fan I'd love to see it filmed, but in the interests of a tighter cinema script, the omission was probably a wise choice.

I think a lot of the adaptation of the book to script, which is obviously a pretty hard thing to do, has been extremely well-done. New scenes have been added throughout the trilogy, and have often served to very effectively condense several ideas from the books at once. Sometimes characters say lines that others originally said in the story, there's actually been a lot of fiddling around like that - but the general spirit of the books has been left intact, and that's what's important to fans.

As for King Kong, I think people will be intelligent enough not to compare LOTR and that too much. I don't think Jackson's yet said that he wants to 'out-do' LOTR with King Kong, and he'd be silly to say that. It's very different, I think his motivation for this film is that it's what made him want to make films. Also maybe there's an element of going for something less taxing. Whilst it's still sure to be a massive blockbuster, it's not the enormous undertaking that LOTR was, with it's *eight-year* total commitment for Jackson, very long shooting and reshoots, worries about adaptation of a massive text, etc. And Kong is due for a remake I think, it should be an exciting film.

[GarageGothic]

Haven't seen the film, and probably won't. I did see the first film, and in my book it's Jackson's weakest film so far. Even The Frighteners rocked in comparison. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't get it. So what if the creatures look real if you don't give a shit about any of the characters anyway? I'm sure Tolkien is to blame, or it's rather the thousands of people, Mr. Lucas included, who mined his books to a degree that the "real thing" seems like a total parody. Yes, anyone who grew up around people playing D&D knows that dwarves carry big axes and don't like elves. But there must be more to a character than that.

I can't help thinking how much more I'd have enjoyed these films if it was just Peter Jackson and his old pals running around with a 16mm camera Bad Taste style. As it is now, it's like a Wagner opera, much too long, much too loud, and SO pretentious.

Give me Heavenly Creatures any day. Now THAT's how to use special effects.

Edit: After you're done kicking my ass, I'll be back to tell you my opinion of Star Wars

[Darth Mandarb]

double post ... sorry ....

[Darth Mandarb]

Here's a few books, in the fantasy realms I think are better than LOTR

The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan (The first books anyway. He now is trying elongate the series as much as he can)

I think if Jordan had kept up the quality of the books as up to The Shadow Rising (the best book in the series in my opinion - when Perrin goes home and the battle for the Two Rivers ... that whole part is just amazing!!) I think I would agree that the WoT is a better series.  But LotR still tops it for me!  The last few books in the WoT have just dragged on and on and on ... it's like, "Come on Jordan ... do something!!!"

I may be a simple minded SOB but my favorite fantasy series is the Midkemian stuff from Raymond Feist.  (I know some of you will hammer me for that)  From the Riftwar through the Serpent War I just love that saga!  Anybody read those?

What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?
Also, what do you think of Jackson's next project: A remake of King Kong?

I definately think it's up there with the classic epics.  Any movie that can LITERALLY get me to stand up and cheer (as I did on several ocassions throughout LotR) is, at least for me, an epic of mega proportions!!

I think this movie will set standards that will be followed for many years to come.  I'm hoping it'll start film makers wanting to do more movies like this!  I mean, with Star Wars, sure we might anticipate the next one ... but we have to wait 3 frickin' years for it!  (although to be honest I'm not really anticipating the next Star Wars that much) The way LotR was released was brilliant in my opinion.  Keep the waiting down, and give us MORE!!!  (disclaimer: as long as the over-all quality doesn't suffer)

All my 'favorite' movies are the ones that after I've seen them in the theater I (depressingly) think, "I'll never get to see this again for the first time"  That's how I know it's a great movie (for me).  Movies like; The Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, and Dude, Where's My Car?

As for the re-make of King Kong?  I hadn't heard about that ... but I think I'll hold off until I see something of it but my first thought was, "Haven't there been enough King Kong movies?"

Oh and ** DM kicks GarageGothic in his keester **

])]v[

[LordHart]

I just hope that Peter Jackson gets the rights to make The Hobbit.

I haven't seen ROTK yet, but I thought I'd mention that him getting the rights wouldn't be a problem, but he doesn't want to do the Hobbit. Three very long movies in a row takes a lot out of everyone involved, and he's said he just doesn't have the energy to do another. Maybe eventually, though. I'd love to see it.

He stated in an interview that if he gets the rights, he would do the movie after King Kong, though he does want to wait for a fair while. The reason why he is having trouble is that Tolkiens family apparently doesn't own the rights to the Hobbit anymore, or they were bought by someone else, and they aren't cooperating...

[Barcik]

Barcik:
You misunderstood me.

I know it's not a classic, cause it's still a new movie.

But I'm asking if it ranks among classic epics.

In other words, does it have the same depth and scope as a film from David Lean.

Could you even describe it as an epic?

Yes, most defiently.

I can't quite see how the Wheel of Time is a rip off. Good vs. Evil? If that's your premise Lord of the Rings is a rip off of many books. Is it youth going off into an adventure and thus growing? Been done before LOTR, as well. I won't argue they don't share similarities. They're both fantasy. The hero's are both young, and have the power to destroy the evil. I think the ring wraiths (or whatever they're called), share some similarities with the Morgul(Or something similar)? It's really not a rip off at all, it just shares some similarities. The only problem with Jordan, is he keeps inventing new enemies and not ending the series. I believe someone told me Jordan planned on it only being four books. So I give Tolkien props for finishing LOTR. I just enjoyed Jordans earlier works more. And I think it's a book that shows I'm not against rich detail, as those books average anywhere from 500 to 1200 pages. But I think Zelazny's work is my favorite fantasy, I'd suggest it to anyone. He also didn't finish his work (mainly because he died), but there is an end (so in other words, he still had a few loose ends that he was probably going to work out, but he finished most of it before his death, and his last book ended well enough to consider it finished enough, although you crave for more).

It's been a while since I read it, but I remember than even that I noticed how much alike the two books were. I think it's more than just similarites. Look at the following:
1. Rand, Perrin and Mat - The Hobbits. Both are taken away from their nice rural country, knowing nothing about the big world.
2. Min - Galadriel. The all essential lady with visions.
3. Trollocs - Orcs. The stupid corrupted creatures whose strength lies in their numbers.
4. The statues in the chapter "Flight Down the Arinelle" - The Argonath. Both are by a river.
5. The Forsaken - The Nazgul. Group of cursed men, serving the dark master forever.
6. The Dark One - Sauron. The all powerful lord of all evil, wanting to control the land.
7. Moiraine - Gandalf. The smart magic-wielder leading the party.
8. Lan - Aragorn. Both are uncrowned kings (however, Lan doesn't, at least for now, fulfill his destiny).
9. Shayol Ghul - Mount Doom. The very home of evil, where the party must venture.
10. Leaving Two Rivers - Leaving the Shire. The party must leave their home because their presence puts it in danger.

I think this is more than just innocent coincedences.

Yes, anyone who grew up around people playing D&D knows that dwarves carry big axes and don't like elves. But there must be more to a character than that.

After Tolkien started the new wave of modern fantasy, such creature quickly became sterotypes, default characters without any depth. In due time, even the original was deemed as shallow. However, you must remember that Tolkien had no basic character too copy. Today's cliche falsy veils Tolkien's rich characters. Gimli and Legolas are much more than that. They are two people who are at first hostile to each other, but learn to accept, and later love one another. They are two people prejudiced against the other's race, but learn that there is more than their initial racist view.

[MillsJROSS]

It's been a while since I read it, but I remember than even that I noticed how much alike the two books were. I think it's more than just similarites. Look at the following:
1. Rand, Perrin and Mat - The Hobbits. Both are taken away from their nice rural country, knowing nothing about the big world.
2. Min - Galadriel. The all essential lady with visions.
3. Trollocs - Orcs. The stupid corrupted creatures whose strength lies in their numbers.
4. The statues in the chapter "Flight Down the Arinelle" - The Argonath. Both are by a river.
5. The Forsaken - The Nazgul. Group of cursed men, serving the dark master forever.
6. The Dark One - Sauron. The all powerful lord of all evil, wanting to control the land.
7. Moiraine - Gandalf. The smart magic-wielder leading the party.
8. Lan - Aragorn. Both are uncrowned kings (however, Lan doesn't, at least for now, fulfill his destiny).
9. Shayol Ghul - Mount Doom. The very home of evil, where the party must venture.
10. Leaving Two Rivers - Leaving the Shire. The party must leave their home because their presence puts it in danger.

I think this is more than just innocent coincedences.

1. This is commonly done in many books, and to say that Tolkien was the orignator of young men leaving home (from a rural areo or not), is a weak connection.
2. People with visions? Thats been done before, too. I think Mr. Tolkien stole it from the Greeks.
3. Oh my god! They both have evil creatures that attack in masses and are general slaves to the bidding of there overlord! Only Tolkien is allowed to use such enemies! Why would the army consist of anything else. A mass army of intelligent creatures who think for themselves? If this were possible, they wouldn't be evil.
4. Statues by a river? That's not even important to the plot, it's detail. You might as well say that all the characters breathed in oxygen and used words with vowels.
5. I'll give you this one. I noticed this simiarity, as well.
6. There's got to be some sort of conflict in a book. An entity that is all evil is one of the best methods, in fantasy. Many fantasy novels share this theme.
7. A magic wielder in a fantasy novel? No! I don't believe it. Tell me this isn't so.
8. I can give you this one, kind of. Except that one knows he's a king the other doesn't.
9. Where else does one go to attack evil? 34th street?
10. If only Jordan had wrote it so they stayed at home and sat by the fire, making shadow puppet into the night, and knitting mittens for the winter. Oh what a tale that would be!

All in all, while they may share several things that most fantasy novels share. Jordan's approach and Tolkiens are completely different, they basically have the same begining and the same end (well, if Jordan would finish his work. He just won't give the series up, which hurts his work, because you kind of need an end).

I may be a simple minded SOB but my favorite fantasy series is the Midkemian stuff from Raymond Feist. (I know some of you will hammer me for that) From the Riftwar through the Serpent War I just love that saga! Anybody read those?

I most certainly did, and this is also one of my favourite fantasy novels. In fact, I was thinking about buying one of his books the other day, but I didn't have my books with me this winter break, so I couldn't re-read what I had read and catch up. However, I feel Tolkien's writing style is better than Feist's. (I don't argue that Tolkiens books aren't good, if people aren't sure of what I'm trying to say. It's that I don't think his books are the bestest in the world. But, like I said, I lean more towards science fiction anyway)

-MillsJROSS

[Peter Thomas]

I kind of have to agree with MillsJROSS and his comparison of WoT and LotR. Most of what Barcik pointed is the foundation of EVERY fantasy novel ever written.

Most of those elements can even be found in Pratchett's works (who is mostly a satirist and wouldn't normally compare with Tolkien. Hmm... I seem to love Pratchett. He's in most of my posts, I see.....). The Monks of Time (or at least one of them, it's been a while since I read about them) have all the answers they need. Susan is a 'princess' of sorts who is taken out of her proper world and launched into the Realm of WhateverItIsThatDeathLivesIn. There are statues along the Ankh. There are always evil forces who reside in some distant villa, and the hero must trek out to destroy it.... I'd keep on going if I thought anybody would really care...

But even those two so called 'minor' points that Mills conceded are rather large 'coincidences'. You can't just take a major hunk of plot and say "whoops! did I steal that and then try to make a million bucks out of it? Accident, I say! ACCIDENT!"

I think WoT has very much borrowed from LotR, but he doesn't IMITATE it. That's what makes it okay. And he's still a good writer. You can't deny that he's done a fabulous job with those books (well, the first few, at least), and to shoot him down because he did what ALL fantasy writers do is just silly.

[Las Naranjas]

I kind of have to agree with MillsJROSS and his comparison of WoT and LotR. Most of what Barcik pointed is the foundation of EVERY fantasy novel ever written.

I think that would lead many to say, given the weight that is traditionally given to innovation, that would add alot of points to LOTR on a comparitive scale. Whilst derivatives often refine and in the eyes of purists improve, for many the source provides a greater experience.

However, I'm rather ambivalent on that issue.

What interests me is the accessability of LOTR to even those who have always shunned fantasy and Sword and Sorcery, which is the larger portion of the [largely non reading] public [although that certainly doesn't come out in book sales figures. Those who read fantasy read alot, and vote alot on BBC polls].